Testing the three hypotheses of
intercultural relations in Russia and
Latvia
Nadezhda Lebedeva, Alexander Tatarko
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Irina Plotka
Baltic Psychology and Management University College
Context of Intercultural Relations in Russia and latvia
Russian Federation is one of the most multicultural societies in the world
having more than 100 ethnic and cultural groups, but 81% are Russians
(All-Russian Population Census, 2010),.
Russian Federation is the world’s second-leading country in terms of the
number of immigrants (International Migration Report, 2013).
Migrant workers are especially in demand in the country’s larger cities, with
Moscow being the most popular destination.
Latvia became independent in 1991.
Latvians - 61.1%, Russians -26,2% (Statistical Yearbook of Latvia 2013).
The official policy of Latvia in relation to ethnic minorities is defined as
integration [Integrācijas politika Latvijā, 2014].
276,797 non-citizens (12.7% of the total population) lived in Latvia in 2014
[Naturalizācija, 2014].
99 percent of non-citizens are ethnic minorities, 66% of which are Russians.
[Pilsonības un migrācijas lietu investment iedzīvotāju reģistrs, 2014].
The research hypotheses
The multiculturalism hypothesis: the higher a person’s sense of security, the higher is
a willingness to accept those who are culturally different. Specifically:
• The higher the perceived security, the higher are the support of multicultural
ideology and ethnic tolerance (for both minority group and members of the larger
society).
The integration hypothesis: those who prefer the integration strategy have higher
psychological and sociocultural adaptation. Specifically:
• The higher the preference for the acculturation strategy of integration among
minority group members, the higher is their level of life satisfaction and better
sociocultural adaptation.
• The higher the preference for multiculturalism among members of the larger
society, the higher is their level of life satisfaction.
The contact hypothesis: intercultural contact and sharing promote mutual
acceptance (under certain conditions, especially that of equality). Specifically:
• The higher the intensity of friendly contacts with the larger society among
minority’ members, the higher is their preference for the integration or
assimilation strategies.
• The higher the intensity of friendly contacts with immigrants among members of
the larger society, the higher are their preference of multiculturalism and melting
pot acculturation expectations and the level of ethnic tolerance.
Method
Participants
• The sample in Russia (Moscow)included 1029 adult respondents:
651 were Russian Muscovites and 378 were migrants from the
North Caucasus and South Caucasus states (Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Georgia).
• The sample in Latvia (Riga) included 692 adult respondents: 363
were Latvians and 336 were ethnic Russians.
Measures
• The study used the MIRIPS questionnaire, and the scales were
translated into Russian and Latvian and adapted for use in Russia
(Lebedeva & Tatarko, 2009, 2013) and Latvia (Plotka).
• The scales used are: Perceived security scale, Multicultural Ideology,
Ethnic Tolerance, Acculturation strategies, Acculturation
expectations, Sociocultural adaptation, Life satisfaction,
Intercultural (Ethnic) Contacts.
• Data processing: structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS
version 20.
Model tested for minority
Model tested for majority
Results of SEM for all three hypothesis combined (migrants in Moscow)
•
(χ2 =683; p<.001; χ2 /df = 1.8; CFI =.91; AGFI=.87; RMSEA =.05; PCLOSE = .84)
Results of SEM for all three hypothesis combined (Moscovites)
(χ2 =554; p<.001; χ2 /df = 2.3; CFI =.91; AGFI=.91; RMSEA = .05; PCLOSE = .87)
Results of SEM for all three hypothesis combined (Russians in Riga)
χ2 =834,5; p<.001; χ2 /df = 1.7; CFI =.90; AGFI=.84; RMSEA = .05; PCLOSE= .78
Results of structural equation modeling for integration hypothesis:
(model for Russians in Riga)
χ2 =107; p<.001; χ2 /df = 2.1; CFI =.93; AGFI=.91; RMSEA = .06
Results of SEM for all three hypothesis combined (Latvians in Riga)
χ2 =472,3; p<.001; χ2 /df = 1.8; CFI =.87; AGFI=.88; RMSEA = .05; PCLOSE= .58
Conclusion
The multiculturalism hypothesis: the perceived security promotes tolerance
toward other cultural groups in three samples (migrants in Moscow, Russian
Moscovites and Latvians) and both tolerance and support for multicultural
ideology in Latvians. There is no significant relations in Latvian Russians.
The integration hypothesis: the preference for integration among migrants in
Moscow and Russians in Latvia (independent model) promotes their better
sociocultural adaptation. The preference for multiculturalism has a significant
impact on the life satisfaction of Muscovites, but has no any impact in
Latvians.
Contact hypothesis: intercultural contacts promote mutual acceptance:
preference for integration and assimilation strategies among migrants in
Moscow and Russian minority in Riga, preference for multiculturalism and
melting pot expectation in Russian Muscovites and ethnic tolerance among
Latvians in Riga.
Thus, all three hypotheses have received partial support in Moscow, but
multiculturalism hypothesis has not been confirmed with Russians in Latvia
and integration hypothesis was not supported with Latvians.
Insights from the combined models
Perceived security and contacts are not related to each other in Moscow, but
have negative significant relations in Riga. This means that to have friendly
intercultural contact in Moscow a person need not feel secure. But in Riga
intercultural contacts make Russians and Latvians to feel unsecure or vice
versa: low sense of security impedes intercultural contacts from both sides.
Tolerance and support for multicultural ideology are significantly related to each
other in all four samples. This represents a composite positive orientation to
accepting cultural "others".
A preference for integration is positively related to multicultural ideology, while
the opposite relationship exists for assimilation in both groups in Moscow and
in Latvians in Riga. This pattern shows the different nature of these two
acculturation strategies. But we have positive and significant relationship
between assimilation and multicultural ideology among Russians in Latvia.
The multiculturalism expectation significantly links with a higher level of life
satisfaction among Muscovites; but not among Latvians in Riga.
Intercultural contacts are related to migrants’ preference for
integration in Moscow, which in turn predicts their better
sociocultural adaptation. Among Russians in Latvia we have the
same pattern, but integration doesn’t predict their better
sociocultural adaptation.
For Muscovites, intercultural contact was related to their preference for
multiculturalism, but not to their preference for the melting pot. For
Latvians in Riga intercultural contacts don’t relate to their
acculturation expectations. The intercultural contacts of Latvians in
Riga predict their tolerance and life satisfaction, but these contacts
require sense of secure.
There are some unexpected and controversial results. First, there is a
positive and significant relationship of multicultural ideology with
integration in both groups in Russia and in Latvians, and with
assimilation in Russians in Latvia. Second, among Russians and
Latvians in Riga there is significant negative relationship between
intercultural contact and perceived security.
Both findings require additional analysis of the sociopolitical and
historical context in Latvia in order to understand the psychological
outcomes of mutual acculturation of minority and majority groups.
Some parallel to other research
• In Berry’s (1990, 1997) terms, the Estonian formulation of
integration policy only incorporates the participation
dimension, and the political terminology of integration is
much closer to the acculturative strategy of assimilation.
• “The ethnically connoted nation-state model equates
integration with forced acculturation—and as the majority
of Estonian Russians do not wish to assimilate, integration
for them means something to avoid”(p. 15). Therefore, the
term integration itself has a negative meaning among
ethnic Russians (Kruusvall et al., 2009).
• The participation in Estonian culture predicted more
positive ethnic attitudes; however, Russian cultural
maintenance and perceived group devaluation were
associated with both negative ethnic attitudes and lower
life satisfaction (Kus-Harward, Ward, 2015).
Thanks for your attention!
nlebedeva@hse.ru
www.scr.hse.ru
Means comparison in Russia
Name of the
scale
Perceived
security
Multicultural
ideology
Ethnic
tolerance
Life
satisfaction
Ethnic
contacts
Sociocultural
adaptation
Migrants
Moscovites
M
SD
M
SD
t-test
scores
3.27
1.55
3.50
1.30
3.4***
4.07
.74
3.76
.82
6.1***
3.13
1.03
3.24
.98
1.03
3.17
.90
3.30
.78
2.3*
2.4
1.2
1.8
1.33
7.4***
4.44
.96
-
Means comparison in Latvia
Name of the scale
Latvians
Russians
M
M
3,10
2,46
9,25***
3,36
3,52
-2,76**
Ethnic tolerance
3,48
3,73
-3,73***
Life satisfaction
3,18
3,23
-0,77
Ethnic contacts
3,63
3,96
-4,63***
Perceived security
Multicultural
ideology
Sociocultural
adaptation
3,85
t
Russia
Name of the scale
Migrants
Moscovites
t
M
M
4.32
3.93
7.60***
Assimilation/ Melting pot
1.74
2.04
6.20***
Separation/Segregation
2.42
2.21
4.01***
Marginalization/Exclusion
1.64
1.78
3.02**
Integration/
Multiculturalism
Latvia
Name of the scale
Russians
Latvians
t
M
M
Integration/ Multiculturalism
3.99
4.33
5.64***
Assimilation/ Melting pot
1.77
2.10
5.47***
Separation/Segregation
2.72
2.08
-10.44***
Marginalization/Exclusion
2.23
1.76
-8.72***