Evaluation of three hypotheses for intercultural relations in Russia and Latvia
Nadezhda Lebedeva, Alexander Tatarko
National Research University Higher School of Economics
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia and other former Soviet republics faced new challenges of achieving mutual acceptance and adaptation among members of the larger society and members of other ethnic groups. We present the empirical examination of three hypotheses of intercultural relations (multiculturalism hypothesis, integration hypothesis and contact hypothesis) in
Russian and Latvian contexts.
The research hypotheses
1.
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).
2.
The integration hypothesis: those who prefer the integration strategy have higher psychological and sociocultural adaptation. Specifically:
2a. 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.
2b. The higher the preference for multiculturalism among members of the larger society, the higher is their level of life satisfaction.
3.
The contact hypothesis: intercultural contact and sharing promote mutual acceptance (under certain conditions, especially that of equality). Specifically:
3a. 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.
3b. 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 Latvians (N= 363) and ethnic Russians (N= 336).
Data processing For the testing of our three hypotheses, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS version 20.
Results
1 Multiculturalism hypothesis
Figures 1 a, b, c, d present the empirical models, testing this hypothesis for the four groups.
1 a Migrants 1 b. Muscovites
1

The measures of goodness of global fit are satisfactory for migrants group (χ 2
=108; p
<.001; χ 2
/ df = 1.9;
CFI =.93; AGFI=.93; RMSEA = .05; PCLOSE = .50) and for dominant group (χ 2
=97.1; p
<.001; χ 2
/ df =
1.8; CFI =.97; AGFI=.96; RMSEA = .03; PCLOSE = .98).
1 c. Russians in Latvia 1d Latvians
The measures of goodness of global fit are satisfactory for Russians in Latvia (χ 2 =54; p <.001; χ 2 / df =
1.4; CFI =.96; AGFI=.95; RMSEA = .04) and for Latvians (χ
2
=94; p <.001; χ
2
/ df = 2,9; CFI =.86;
AGFI=.91; RMSEA = .08)
For the Moscow sample we can see that the levels of support for tolerance among migrants as well as among members of the dominant society are predicted by their sense of security. For the Riga sample we can see the same pattern for both the dominant and minority groups, but the coefficients are significant only for the dominant group. However, the prediction of support for multicultural ideology, while positive is not significant in both the Russia’s samples and in Russians in Latvia. In the sample of
Latvians the perceived security has significant impact on the support for multicultural ideology. The levels of tolerance among Russian Muscovites and Russians in Latvia are also positively related to their level of support for multicultural ideology, while there is no such relationship among migrants in Moscow and Latvians in Riga.
2 Integration hypothesis
Figure 2 a, b, c, d present the empirical models assessing the integration hypothesis for the four groups.
2 a Migrants 2 b.Muscovites
2

The measures of goodness of global fit are satisfactory for migrants group (χ 2
=150; p
<.001; χ 2
/ df = 1.9;
CFI =.96; AGFI=.93; RMSEA = .05; PCLOSE = .61) and for dominant group (χ 2 =47.5; p <.004; χ 2 / df =
1.9; CFI =.98; AGFI=.97; RMSEA = .03; PCLOSE = .98).
2 c. Russians in Latvia 2d Latvians
The measures of goodness of global fit are satisfactory for Latvians (χ 2 =107; p <.001; χ 2 / df = 2.1; CFI
=.93; AGFI=.91; RMSEA = .06) and Russians in Latvia (χ
2
=226; p <.001; χ
2
/ df = 2.2; CFI =.95;
AGFI=.90; RMSEA = .06).
Consistent with the hypothesis, a preference for the integration strategy among migrants in Moscow has positive impact on their sociocultural adaptation, however the relationship with life satisfaction, while positive is not significant. Among Muscovites, the acculturation expectation of multiculturalism is also positive, but has a non-significant impact on their life satisfaction. In Riga we can see positive and significant impact of the acculturation expectation of multiculturalism on their tolerance, while the impact on life satisfaction is non-significant. In the group of Russians in Latvia the preference for integration strategy has positive but non-significant impact on their sociocultural adaptation, which is positively related to their life satisfaction. Thus, we can conclude that minorities’ preference for the strategy of integration indeed contributes to their sociocultural adaptation to living in Moscow, but not significantly
3

to living in Riga, while the sociocultural adaptation among Russians in Riga has positive relationship with their life satisfaction.
3 Contact hypothesis
Figure 3 a,b,c,d present the results of empirical testing of the contact hypothesis for four groups.
3 a Migrants 3 b. Muscovites
The measures of goodness of global fit are satisfactory for migrants group (χ 2
=180; p
<.001; χ 2
/ df
= 2.0; CFI =.92; AGFI=.92; RMSEA = .05; PCLOSE = .34) and for dominant group (χ 2
=201.5; p <.001;
χ 2
/df = 2.5; CFI =.93; AGFI=.94; RMSEA = .05; PCLOSE = .53).
3 c. Russians in Latvia 3d Latvians
4

The measures of goodness of global fit are satisfactory for Latvians (χ
2
=142; p <.001; χ
2
/ df = 1.9;
CFI =.92; AGFI=.92; RMSEA = .05) and for Russians in Latvia (χ
2
=127; p <.001; χ
2
/ df = 2.1; CFI =.95;
AGFI=.91; RMSEA = .06).
For migrants, having frequent friendly contacts among the Moscow population positively and significantly affect their acculturation strategies of integration and assimilation. Among Russian
Muscovites, having friends among migrants and frequency of contacts with them positively and significantly affect their acculturation expectation of multiculturalism. With respect to tolerance, for migrants, the impact of their frequency of contacts with the Moscow population, while negative is not significant. However, for Muscovites contact is related positively and significantly to their level of tolerance. However, the impact of contacts with migrants on the acculturation expectation of melting pot among Muscovites, is non-significant. For Latvian Russians having frequent friendly contacts among
Latvians positively and significantly affect their acculturation strategies of integration and assimilation.
With dominant groups of Latvians all the relations while positive are non-significant.
Conclusion
1.
The multicultural hypothesis has fully been confirmed with the dominant group in Riga (Latvians) and has partly been confirmed with both dominant and non-dominant groups in Russia and
Russian minority in Latvia. The sense of perceived security promotes tolerance toward other cultural groups in three samples. However, perceived security has no significant relationship with multicultural ideology in Moscow samples; this means that security is not a prerequisite for support for multicultural ideology. But in the group of Latvians we have discovered such impact.
These findings are generally consistent with research findings in other countries.
2.
With respect to the second hypothesis, there is partial support for the role of the integration and multiculturalism strategies in promoting wellbeing. Our results show that a preference for the integration strategy among migrants in Moscow promotes their better sociocultural adaptation.
However, the preference for integration/multiculturalism does not have a significant impact on the life satisfaction of either sample. Thus the integration hypothesis has been confirmed with migrants in Moscow and partly – with Russian minority in Riga. As to the dominant groups, the integration hypothesis has been confirmed with Latvians, but not with Russian Muscovites. These results generally support the numerous findings of other researchers who reported that the strategy of integration is most conducive to wellbeing (Berry, 1997; Nguyen & Benet-Martinez, 2013; Sam
& Berry, 2006).
3.
The third hypothesis assessed the role of contact in positive intercultural relations. Our results have provided some support for the effect of intercultural contact on acceptance of others, in three groups: migrants in Moscow, Russian minority in Riga and the dominant group in Moscow. With dominant groups of Latvians all the relations while positive are non-significant. Thus the contact hypothesis is partially supported with both samples in Moscow and with minority sample in Riga.
In general, we consider that the key conditions for positive intercultural relations is the presence of a sense of security, and the acceptance of multiculturalism in the larger society, both in public attitudes and public policy.
5