Author(s)
Nationalistic Attitudes and Perceived Threat Determine
Romaphobia among Bulgarian and Romanian Youth
Radosveta Dimitrova1
Carmen Buzea2
Vanja Ljujic3
Venzislav Jordanov4
Abstract
This study explores relations among nationalism, ethnic identity, perceived threat
and attitudes towards the Roma among 178 Bulgarian and 211 Romanian
adolescents (age: M = 16.96, SD = .75). Results indicated that Bulgarian youth
revealed stronger nationalism, ethnic identity, perceived threat and negative
attitudes toward Roma than their Romanian peers. A path model showed that
perceived threat was a positive predictor of Romaphobia for both groups.
Furthermore, we observed that Romaphobia was strongly related to adolescents’
nationalism and this relationship was mediated by perceived economic, symbolic and
physical threat. Findings are discussed in terms of difference in salience and
similarity of relations between nationalism and romaphobic attitudes for youth in
two neighbor countries with a similar post-communist history.
Keywords: Romaphobia, nationalism, perceived threat, ethnic identity, Bulgarian
and Romanian youth
Introduction
Attitudes toward Roma, the Europe’s largest ethnic minority are one of the
greatest issues of the day. There is much interest in understanding intergroup
relationships involving Roma population in line with the current European
Union priorities and the Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies
(European Commission, 2011). However, there is still a dearth of research
examining the relationship between national in-group and out-group attitudes
related to Roma and specifically across ethnically diverse samples. Only one
study we are aware of has studied the influence of nationalism and perceived
threat on Romaphobia in Serbian adolescents as a way of identifying
1
Stockholm University, Frescati Hagväg 14, SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden,
radosveta.dimitrova@psychology.su.se
2
Transilvania University of Brasov, Eroilor Bvd. 29, 500036, Brasov, Romania,
carmen.buzea@unitbv.ro
3
University of World and National Economy, 1700 Studentski grad, Sofia, Bulgaria
venzislavjordanov@gmail.com
4
Dutch Council for Refugees, Surinameplein 122, 1058 GV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
v.ljujic@gmail.com
1
2
Romaphobia in Bulgaria and Romania
antecedents and predictors in negative attitudes toward Roma (Ljujic, Vedder,
& Dekker, 2012). Therefore, we set out to a) extend research on the relationship
between nationalism and perceived threat in new samples of Bulgarian and
Romanian youth and b) assess how nationalism, ethnic identity, and perceived
threat are associated with Romaphobia among these youth. We were
particularly interested in the context of Bulgaria and Romania, as these
countries host the biggest Roma populations in Europe and interethnic relations
between Roma and the mainstreamers are of great importance. Bulgaria and
Romania are unique contexts to study Romaphobia and its relation to
nationalism, ethnic identity and threat (Dimitrova, Buzea, Ljujic, & Jordanov,
2013). Both countries have faced a difficult economic and political transition to
a free market economy, which created a favorable context for the rise of strong
nationalism and national identity (Volgyi, 2007). Also, both countries have
recorded ethnic tensions in the relationship with their Roma minority
populations which favored interethnic hostilities and national in-group attitudes
(Dimitrov, 2000; Mihailescu, 2005).
The paper is structured as follows: first, the theoretical background of the
study is presented including the threat theory and the key concepts (nationalism,
ethnic identity, Romaphobia); second, the national context regarding the Roma
minority in the two countries under study is introduced; third, the methodology
of the study is presented, followed by results, discussion, practical implications,
limitations of findings and directions for further research.
Threat Theory of Prejudice
The idea that perceived threat constitutes a key for negative prejudice finds
its roots in realistic group conflict theory (Sherif, 1966), and symbolic racism
theory (Kinder & Sears, 1981). Both theories emphasize conflict among social
groups resulting from a scarcity of economic or cultural resources. Stephan and
Stephan (1996; 2000) united the above theoretical frameworks into an integrated
threat theory by proposing different types of threats that cause intergroup conflict.
An important consideration regards whether the threat involves realistic (tangible)
or symbolic (intangible) harm to the in-group. Realistic threats include economic
threats, threats to political power, and threats of physical harm. Symbolic threats
concern threats to the in-group’s identity, values and beliefs (Kinder & Sears,
1981; McConahay, 1982).
The integrated threat theory proposes that the social and psychological
mechanisms underlying negative feelings towards out-groups involve both types of
perceived threat and their antecedents (e.g. in-group attitudes) (Riek, Mania, &
Gaertner, 2006, for a meta-analysis). However, distinctions between types of threat
are important because they may lead to different consequences. For instance,
symbolic threats are more likely to elicit emotions related to moral evaluation of
the out-group (e.g., contempt and disgust), whereas realistic threats tend to cause
feelings of insecurity and frustration. In addition, overall perceptions of threat
Author(s)
3
prone negative emotional responses and reduce emotional empathy for members of
the out-group (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). These consequences, combined with a
lack of empathy for the other group, can portray relevant interethnic conflicts,
especially for an extremely marginalized minority such as the Roma in Bulgaria
and Romania.
Drawing on the integrated threat theory, this study refers to the threat
hypothesis (according to which perception of threat leads to negative attitudes
toward out-groups) by introducing nationalism and ethnic identity as antecedents of
Romaphobia. Towards this end, we present theory and research on nationalism and
ethnic identity followed by the study context, including the history of ethnic
relations between Roma minority and majority population in Bulgaria and
Romania.
Nationalism and Ethnic Identity
Nationalism has been operationalized as an ideology, a movement, a
process of nation-state building, and an individual’s political orientation (Dekker,
Malova & Hoogendoorn, 2003). In the current paper, the notion of nationalism is
viewed as an individual’s attitude reflecting the affection and feeling of
favorableness toward national in-group and the national state (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1980). The model proposed by Dekker, Malova and Hoogendoorn (2003) defines
the attitude of nationalism as a wish to keep the nation as pure as possible, being
first a result of common history and consanguinity.
Research findings show that nationalism is closely related with historical
experiences (Calhoun, 1997; Smith, 1995) involving the right to territorial selfdetermination (Brown, 2000). In countries with various ethnic groups, work based
on the threat theory (Sears & Jessor, 1996) found that minority groups are
perceived as threatening by mainstreamers, favoring hostile sentiments (Stephan &
Stephan, 2000). Scholars also showed that negative attitudes toward ethnic
minorities are associated with a strong attitude of nationalism, although the inverse
relation is also viable (Kleinpenning & Hagendoorn, 1993). Other factors affecting
the strengths and levels of nationalism relate to concern about political, economic,
social, and/or cultural future. Most importantly, in the context of our study,
research based on the integrated threat theory has shown that the experience of
threat leads to a higher prevalence of nationalist attitudes among youth in postcommunist regions of Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic (Boehnke,
Kindervater, Baier, & Rippl, 2007).
Closely related to national in-group attitudes is the concept of ethnic
identity. A central issue for adolescents, ethnic identity has been defined as a
process of maintaining positive distinctiveness, and feelings associated with a sense
of ethnic group belonging (Phinney & Ong, 2007). Research indicates that ethnic
identity also includes a strong desire to distinguish between the group and outgroups. In order to achieve a positive in-group identity, people’s intergroup
comparison often has negative, even derogatory implications for out-groups, i.e.
4
Romaphobia in Bulgaria and Romania
ethnocentrism (Weiss, 2003). However, it is not clear how the relations between
ethnic identity and nationalism may influence perceived threat and in turn relate to
feelings toward the Roma in Bulgarian and Romanian youth, a question this study
was set out to address. In so doing, we test a model on the relationship between
Romaphobia, nationalism and ethnic identity and how this relationship is mediated
by perceived threat. We base our model on prior research on Romaphobia testing
these relations among Serbian and Dutch youth (Ljujic et al., 2012a, 2012b).
Romaphobia
A closer look at social, cultural and psychological antecedents of anti-Roma
attitudes has immense practical importance. The Roma history in Europe has
heavily been burdened by rejection, exclusion, and persecution (Crowe, 2008) and
therefore, Romaphobia remains a common denominator of limited life
opportunities and discrimination against the Roma (Ljujic et al., 2012). This
phenomenon in many countries of the European Union triggered interest for Roma
among both scientists and policy makers. Such interest resulted in several studies
that demonstrate poor life circumstances, limited access to health care, low
education and high unemployment rates of Roma in South-Eastern Europe, but also
rejection, stigmatization, even incidents of ethnic profiling and deportations from
the receiving Western countries (Mikloš, Smederevac, & Tovilović, 2009; Milcher,
2009; Petrova, 2003; Phillips, 2010; Prieto-Flores, 2009).
Furthermore, stereotypical evaluations of Roma reflect both evident
discrepancy in status (i.e., poverty) and unfavorable perception of Roma culture in
terms of downward contrastive comparisons (Ljujic, Vedder, Dekker, & Geel,
2012). Perceived differences in status trigger perception of economic threat, which
reflects the fear to share resources with Roma, whereas perceived differences in
values trigger a threat to the majority culture. Research also shows that perceived
threat is not necessarily dependent on actual competition for scarce resources (such
as employment and housing), which is typically related to minority proportion and
contact opportunities (Burjanek, 2001; Nordberg, 2004; Sigona, 2005). A recent
study among Dutch adolescents shows that the majority group members perceive
Roma as a threatening out-group even in the circumstances where actual contact
with Roma is minimal or virtually impossible (Ljujic et al., 2012a).
Reluctance to share scarce resources with Roma, and intolerance towards
the Roma culture reflect an unsupportive social context for intercultural
relationships (Phillips, 2010). The current socio-economic and ideological climate
in Europe is not favorable for Roma (Prieto-Flores, 2009). In particular, growing
nationalism has been an important source of mistrust, perceived threat and negative
evaluation of Roma minority regardless of whether they represent a historic
minority (like in Eastern Europe) or a recent immigrant group (like in the
Netherlands) (Ljujic et al., 2012a; Ljujic et al., 2012b).
Author(s)
5
The Roma in Bulgaria and Romania
Exact demographic information about Roma is unavailable, primarily
because of their unclear residence status (e.g., refugees) and ethnic mimicry (the
refusal to disclose ethnic identity out of fear of discrimination). Research indicates
that many Roma engage in ethnic mimicry in order to secure access to equal
opportunities at the job market and avoid negative stigmatization and prejudice
(Prieto-Flores, 2009). The total number of Roma in Bulgaria is estimated between
325,343 and 800,000 people out of the nearly 7 million national population
(National Statistics Institute, 2011). According to Romanian Census (2011), Roma
people number 619,000, while informal estimates suggests that this number is
almost 2,5 million (Open Society Foundation, 2007).
Similar to other Eastern European post-communist societies, both Bulgaria
and Romania have endured deep political and economic instability along the
transition from communist to capitalist based economy (Fishkin, 2007). However,
Bulgaria presents lower economic development than Romania having a higher
unemployment rates, whereas in Romania there is much more positive growth due
to a strong export performance and a higher GDP (The World Fact Book, 2011).
Already poor, the Roma population has been affected by further impoverishment.
In fact, over the past decade, the Roma in Bulgaria and Romania have been leaving
their homes in search for better life in the Western Europe (Matras, 2000). Poverty
and social rejection have been found to represent main reasons for massive Roma
migrations (Sigona & Trehan, 2009).
In both Bulgaria and Romania, the Roma constitute the largest ethnic
minority group next to the Turkish-Bulgarians and the Hungarian-Romanians,
respectively. As a consequence of being such a prominent minority group,
Bulgarian and Romanian Roma are typically associated with unwanted distribution
of social benefits and economic threat. Poor education is considered the major
cause of massive unemployment for Roma, which is estimated at 48,6% in
Romania and 58,7% in Bulgaria (Soros Foundation, 2011). Being a poverty profile
group, the Roma are also more susceptible to health problems stemming from
overcrowding, lack of sanitation and poor housing conditions (Fishkin, 2007).
Although in the last decade, both the Romanian and Bulgarian governments have
launched programs to improve the life circumstances of Roma, especially in the
areas of education and health care (Filipescu, 2009; Russinov, 2001), still, a quarter
of Romanian Roma and 12% of Bulgarian Roma remain illiterate due to the low
level of school participation (Sigona & Trehan, 2009). In addition to these adverse
conditions, Roma are frequently subjected to hate speech or violent attacks by
rightwing groups (Wolfe-Murray, 2010). Recent mass expulsions of Bulgarian and
Romanian Roma from some Western European countries add to their negative
social status, therefore making them a convenient and easily identifiable scapegoat
to blame for social problems in their home countries (Brearley, 2001; Nacu, 2012).
6
Romaphobia in Bulgaria and Romania
The Current Study
This study builds on the integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 1996)
which considers perceived threat as the main predictor of negative attitude. We
focus on perceived economic (intergroup competition for scarce resources),
symbolic (morals, norms, and values) and physical threat (physical harm) toward
the Roma. We also examine the relationships between nationalism, ethnic identity,
and threat in affecting feelings towards Roma in Bulgaria and Romania. We focus
on adolescents because of the important implications that social context and
interethnic relations have in this age group (Masseria, Mladovsky, & HernándezQuevedo, 2010; Woodcock, 2007). Feelings of negative attitudes toward Roma
among youth may lead to increase of discrimination and hostile interethnic
relationships in the school years and develop further to young adulthood. In
general, an unfavorable context (e.g., economic crisis, uncertainty about future,
limited opportunities) has negative influence on adolescents (Berry et al., 2006). In
addition, most of violent attacks against Roma youngsters are committed by their
peers, i.e., national youth (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child,
2008).
First, we analyze differences in nationalism, ethnic identity, threat, and
Romaphobia between Bulgarian and Romanian youth. Second, we test a conceptual
model examining whether and to what extent Romaphobia is affected by the
relationship among nationalism, identity, and threat, and whether these
relationships are comparable between Bulgarian and Romanian youth. The
hypotheses are:
1) Following the national attitude model (Dekker et al., 2003) and generally
lower socioeconomic development in Bulgaria, we anticipate stronger national
attitudes, ethnic identity, threat and Romaphobia in Bulgarian than Romanian
participants (Hypothesis 1). This approach has been based on previous findings on
economic nationalism which place the socioeconomic development as a core factor
determining national attitudes (Nakano, 2004) in the direction of a stronger
nationalism in countries with scarce resources (Karolewski & Suszycki, 2011).
2) In line with previous research (Ljujic et al., 2012a,b), we expect that in both
Bulgarian and Romanian samples, nationalism and ethnic identity will predict
Romaphobia and that such a relation will be mediated by perceived economic,
symbolic, and physical threat. More specifically, we expect that perceived threat
mediates the relationship between nationalism and Romaphobia. However, given
recent economic transition and instability in both countries, we expect economic
threat to be a stronger predictor in both samples.
Method
Participants. The sample consisted of 178 Bulgarian and 211 Romanian
adolescents (of which 45.2% Bulgarians and 33.6 % Romanians were female). A
mean age of the whole sample was 16.96 years (SD = .75). Both samples consisted
of mainstream group members (i.e., ethnic Bulgarians and ethnic Romanians) only.
Author(s)
7
The mean age of the Bulgarian sample was 16.87 (SD = .72), and for the
Romanian sample 17.04 (SD = .76). Fifteen percent of the Bulgarian students’
fathers and 11 % percent of the mothers had a university degree. In the Romanian
sample, 34 % of students’ fathers and 32% of the mothers had a university degree.
Thirty-three percent of the Bulgarian students’ fathers and 36 % percent of the
mothers had a post academic degree such as Master or PhD. In the Romanian
sample, 22 % of students’ fathers and 10% of the mothers had a post academic
degree. Preliminary analyses revealed gender differences with more boys in the
Romanian compared to the Bulgaria group, χ²(1, N = 388) = 5.40, p < .05. Groups
also differed with respect to age, with Romanian being on average one year older
than Bulgarian youth, F(1, 388) = 5.11, p < .05.
Procedure
Bulgarian data were collected in the capital Sofia, which has 1,291,591
inhabitants of whom approximately 18,000 Roma (National Statistics Institute,
2011). Roma communities are concentrated in suburban area in a neighborhood
named Fakulteta. Roma in Sofia live in their own neighborhoods, also as a result of
resettlement policy during the communist regime which has assigned housing in
new apartment complexes for Roma. Roma in Sofia experience severe
marginalization, lower educational and socioeconomic levels compared to the
mainstream population (Russinov, 2001).
Romanian data were collected in Brasov, a city with 227,961 inhabitants, of
which 7,77% are Hungarian-Romanian and 3,55% are Roma (National Institute of
Statistics, 2011). In the neighborhood of Brasov more than 10,000 Roma live in a
community named Gîrcin, where the extreme poverty remains highly visible
(Buzea & Buzea, 2009). The Roma from Gîrcin livein houses without electricity or
running water and about 35 % rely on social aid as main source of income. Their
families are characterized by high birth rates, with an average number of children
from six to seven. The dropout rate is 85% at secondary school levels (Buzea &
Buzea, 2009).
Participants for this study were sampled from a total of five public high
schools, three in Sofia (Bulgaria) and two in Brasov (Romania). Participants were
recruited in classrooms with the consent of the school management staff who was
previously informed about the aim of the study and the methodology. In each class,
additional verbal instructions have been given and questions have been answered
whenever necessary. Students were assured that participation was entirely
voluntary and confidential and that they could discontinue their participation at any
time.
Measures
Identical scales were used for the Bulgarian and Romanian samples. The
scales were adapted using a translate–back translate protocol from English to
8
Romaphobia in Bulgaria and Romania
Bulgarian and Romanian. The first part of the questionnaire contained
demographic questions of age, ethnicity, gender, and education of the parents.
Romaphobia was measured with a four-item scale, based on a measure
developed by Stephan and colleagues (1999, 2000). Participants were asked to
indicate to what extent the words empathy, warmth, sympathy, and approval (all
reverse-scored), reflected their feelings towards the Roma. Responses ranged from
1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the Bulgarian sample
was α = .85 (Bulgarian) and α = .75 (Romanian).
Perceived threat. Three threat scales were used based on instruments
applied in previous work on perceived out-group threat (Stephan et al., 2002). The
items of both scales were scored on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (totally
disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Economic threat was measured with a four-item
scale (sample item: “Too much money is spent on Roma educational programs”).
Cronbach’s alpha for the Bulgarian sample was .87 and .90 for the Romanian.
Symbolic threat was measured with a six-item scale (sample item: “Roma do not
understand the way non-Roma view the world”). Cronbach’s alpha for the
Bulgarian sample was .88 and .84 for the Romanian. Physical threat was measured
with a five-item scale (sample item: “Roma contribute to the increase of the
crime”, “I am afraid when I see a large group of Roma”). Cronbach’s alpha for
both samples was .80.
Nationalism was measured with a fifteen-item scale extracted from a scale
developed by Dekker and colleagues (2003). Items composing the scale tapmain
attitudes of national feeling and sense of belonging to a particular nation (“I prefer
being a Bulgarian/Romanian citizen more than any other citizenship in the world”,
“Bulgaria/Romania is the best country in which to live”). Cronbach’s alpha was α
= .88 (Bulgarian) and α = .92 (Romanian).
Ethnic Identity was measured with an eight-item scale adapted from
Dekker et al.’s scale (2003)reflecting a sense of belonging to own ethnic group and
culture. Sample items were: “I am proud to be a member of my ethnic group (e.g.,
Bulgarian/Romanian)”; “I am proud to be a citizen of this country” and “I am
happy to be part of my ethnic culture”. Responses are given on five-point Likert
scale ranged from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Cronbach’s alpha were α
= .82 (Bulgarian) and α = .87 (Romanian).
Results
Descriptive statistics computed for both groups are presented in Table 1.
We then examined group differences in nationalism, identity, threat and
Romaphobia (Hypotheses 1), between Bulgarian and Romanian groups, using
multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA). Lastly, we tested our
conceptual model on the influence of nationalism, identity, and threat on
Romaphobia (Hypothesis 2) using a multigroup path analysis (Arbuckle, 2009). Fit
indices used to analyze the model fit were the χ² test, the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA; recommended value ≤ .08), and the comparative fit index
Author(s)
9
(CFI; recommended value ≥.90) (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Marsh, Hau, &
Grayson, 2005).
Table 1. Description of Samples
Bulgarian
(n = 178)
Romanian
(n = 211)
Variable
Age, M (SD)
Gender, n (%)
Boys
Girls
Romaphobia
Perceived Threat
Economic
Symbolic
Physical
Ethnic identity
Nationalism
Group comparisons
F value
η2
16.87 (.72)
17.04 (.76)
F(1, 388) = 5.11**
54.8
45.2
2.99 (1.02)
66.4
33.6
2.68 (.83)
χ²(1, N = 388) = 5.40**
F(1, 377) = 13.93***
.036
3.23 (.88)
3.55 (.91)
3.99 (.91)
4.09 (.79)
3.40 (.86)
2.83 (.91)
3.19 (.74)
3.51 (.91)
3.84 (.77)
3.15 (.24)
F(1, 377) = 20.95***
F(1, 377) = 19.25***
F(1, 377) = 29.85***
F(1, 377) = 9.22***
F(1, 377) = 8.51**
.053
.049
.074
.024
.022
** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Group Comparisons
We conducted a MANCOVA with group (2 levels) as independent variable,
nationalism, ethnic identity, perceived threat (economic, symbolic and physical),
and Romaphobia as dependent variables and, age, gender as covariates. The
multivariate test was significant, Wilks’ lambda = .89, F(1, 377) = 7.35, p < .001,
(partial) 2 = .107. The analyses revealed a significant group effect for each
dependent variable. In line with expectations, Bulgarian compared to Romanian
youth reported higher scores on nationalism, (F(1, 377) = 8.51, p < .001, η2 =
.022), ethnic identity (F(1, 377) = 9.22, p < .001, η2 = .024), economic threat (F(1,
377) = 20.95, p < .001, η2 = .053), symbolic threat (F(1, 377) = 19.25, p < .001, η2
= .049), physical threat (F(1, 377) = 29.85, p < .001, η2 = .074), and Romaphobia,
F(1, 377) = 13.93, p < .001, η2 = .036 (Table 1).
Association of Nationalism, Identity, Threat, and Romaphobia
For our second hypothesis, we tested a path model using AMOS (Arbuckle,
2009). Multigroup analyses testing direct relations among nationalism, identity,
threat and their influence on Romaphobia were computed. The structural residuals
model showed a good fit, χ²(24, N = 389) = 46.20, p = .004, RMSEA = .049 and
CFI = .957. However, the modification indices suggested adding a path between
ethnic identity and symbolic threat. We rerun the model by adding direct relations
between those variables, which significantly improved the model fit. The structural
residuals model showed an adequate fit (χ²(23, N = 389) = 39.17, p = .019, RMSEA
10 Romaphobia in Bulgaria and Romania
= .043 and CFI = .969), therefore we opted for this model as the most restrictive
one with a good fit (Table 2). The parameters of nationalism, threat, and their
influence on Romaphobia within both groups were statistically significant (Figure
2). There was a significant relationship between nationalism and perceived threat.
It is also of interest that the relationship between nationalism and Romaphobia was
significantly mediated by perceived threat. As predicted, perceived threat and
specifically economic threat were the most significant predictors of Romaphobia.
Ethnic identity was significantly related to symbolic threat, whereas no such
relation emerged for overall perceived threat. In both groups, there was also a
significant positive relation between ethnic identity and nationalism.
Table 2. Fit Indices of Nationalism, Ethnic Identity Perceived Threat, and
Romaphobia Path Model for Bulgarian and Romanian Groups
Model
Configural invariance
Measurement weights
Structural weights
Structural covariances
Structural residuals
χ² (df)
25.78 (12)
28.38 (15)
36.35 (19)
38.50 (22)
39.17 (23)
∆χ²
(∆df)
2.6 (3)
7.97 (4)
2.15 (3)
0.67 (1)
AGFI RMSEA
CFI
∆CFI
.924
.935
.935
.940
.942
.974
.974
.967
.968
.969
-.007
.001
.001
.001
.054
.048
.049
.044
.043
Note. Selected model with a good fit is printed in italics.
Discussion
The study aimed to examine Romaphobia and its relation to nationalism,
ethnic identity and perceived threat of youth from Bulgaria and Romania, two
similar countries in respect to their past communist history and geographic
proximity on the Eastern European map. Our results demonstrate two major
findings. First, we found that Bulgarian adolescents show more nationalism and
ethnic identity, perceive more threat and are more romaphobic in comparison to
their Romanian peers. Second, strong national in-group attitudes predicted
Romaphobia in both countries and this relation was mediated by perception of
threat.
Group Comparisons
National attitudes and ethnic identity differed significantly in Bulgarian and
Romanian youth in the direction of a more importance of national attitudes and
feelings of ethnic identity recorded for the Bulgarian participants. This result may
be explained in the light of differences between history of ethnic tensions and
policy of assimilation among the two countries. Thus, in Bulgaria compared to
Romania, more intense interethnic conflicts and negative attitudes toward Roma
and Turkish ethnic minorities have been recorded. In line with this greater tension,
strong attitudes of nationalism may be expected in Bulgaria rather than Romania.
(Kleinpenning & Hagendoorn, 1993). As a consequence, Bulgarian youth may be
Author(s)
11
more prone than Romanian youth to emphasize their culture and national unity. In
addition, the lower economic development may also be a determinant of enhanced
national attitudes in Bulgarian compared to Romanian youth, which suggests that
the model may be able to adequately predict national attitudes and ethnic culture
identification within two different former communist countries form South Eastern
Europe.
Nationalism
.18***/.18***
.41***/.41***
Threat
.28***/.32***
Romaphobia
-.00/-.00
Ethnic
Identity
.10***/.11***
.60***/.59***
.72***/.81***
*
2***
83***/.80***
**
Symbolic
Economic
Physical
Figure 1. Path Model of Nationalism, Ethnic Identity, Perceived Threat, and Romaphobia
of Bulgarian and Romanian Groups
Note. The parameters represent standardized coefficients. First parameter next to an arrow
is the coefficient in the Bulgarian sample; the second coefficient refers to the Romanian
sample. ***p < .001.
In this study, Bulgarians also perceived more threat and negative feelings
toward Roma than Romanian students. We could interpret this result in light of
actual intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954). Bulgarian Roma typically live in
urban area, whereas the Romanian Roma inhabit predominantly rural areas. Given
the fact that the data for our study were collected in the cities, it is likely that
Bulgarian adolescents were exposed to more frequent and proximal contact with
Roma than their Romanian peers. According to contact theory (Pettigrew & Tropp,
2006), intergroup threat may counter negative expectations about out-group under
optimal contact conditions, such as equal status and goals. Both of these optimal
contact conditions are apparently lacking in Bulgarian context, as demonstrated by
apparent status gap and the salience of perceived economic, symbolic and physical
threat.
12 Romaphobia in Bulgaria and Romania
Threat and Romaphobia
The results of this study support the threat theory, according to which
perceived threat to material and cultural values of the dominant group lead to
negative feelings towards out-groups (Stephan & Stephan, 1996). Consistent with
our expectations, perception of economic, symbolic, and physical threat was
strongly related to adolescents’ levels of Romaphobia. Past research suggests that
perception of threat among the dominant group reflects a socio-political context in
which inter-group relationships take shape (Abu-Rayya & White, 2010; Montreuil
& Bourhis, 2004). In both Romania and Bulgaria, the intergroup relationships are
clearly challenged by economic instability and sociopolitical conflict between
ethnocentrism and Eurocentrism (Dunbar & Simonova, 2003). On one hand,
unfavorable views about Roma as a foundation of immoral customs and survival
strategies may elicit unfavorable evaluations of Roma in terms of contempt and
pity, i.e., downward contrastive comparisons (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008; Fiske
Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). On the other, a perceived discrepancy in status and
goals may indicate both socioeconomic and emotional distance from Roma (Ljujic,
2012). In both Bulgaria and Romania, the salience of economic, symbolic, and
physical threat may certainly be attributed to the circumstances of economic crises,
but also to the apparent status differences between the Roma and majority
population (Spirova & Stefanova, 2009).
Our findings also indicate that a strong identification with one’s national
group may lead to prejudices in case this nationalistic attitude is threatened by
other groups. At a more general level, these findings correspond to earlier studies
showing strong relationships between nationalism and prejudice which not only
expresses a personal wish for ethno-cultural uniformity, but also entails
unfavorable evaluations of subordinate out-groups (Li & Brewer, 2004; Woodock,
2007). The salience of threat among both Bulgarian and Romanian youth may be
attributed to ethnocentric conception of in-group culture (Mummendey, Klink, &
Brown, 2001). Nationalists derive their self-concept from the national group to
which they belong; hence a perceived threat to one’s heritage culture and economic
welfare may become the basis for negative prejudice, including Romaphobia.
We also observed a significant positive relation between symbolic threat
and ethnic identity. This finding points to the fact that for both Bulgarian and
Romanian youth, the perception of threat to their in-group identity, values and
beliefs, is related to their feelings of ethnic group belonging. They also show that
when ethnic group membership is highly salient, ethnic identity is likely to play a
key role in the way individuals view themselves and perceive members of the outgroup. A feeling of belonging and a secure, confident sense of their ethnic group
membership appear to influence the way Bulgarian and Romanian youth perceive
threats on their values and beliefs about Roma minority.
Author(s)
13
Limitations and Future Research
Our findings provide the first comparative perspective on antecedents and
mediating factors of Romaphobia in Bulgarian and Romanian youth, given that
issues related to Roma are of great concern and debate across all Europe. However,
there are a number of limitations that need to be addressed. First, the results have to
be verified using mixed methods on more representative samples including larger
minority groups in Bulgarian and Romanian contexts. Our study was concerned
with two mainstream samples, thereby limiting our ability to generalize any
observed effects to other groups in these countries. A replication of the study
should also involve mainstream samples where Roma live in more intense contact
with the mainstreamers particularly in provincial areas in Bulgaria and Romania.
Additional replication in minority groups in Bulgaria (Turkish-Bulgarian) and in
Romania (Hungarian-Romanian) will increase our confidence in the current
findings.
Future studies should also include Roma samples to tackle their perception
of threat and negative attitudes toward their community by members of the
mainstream society. It would be desirable to examine more closely the Roma
student’s experiences of belonging to a negatively stereotyped ethnic group.
Perceptions of enduring or recurring experience of stereotype threat among Roma
might have a negative impact on their self-concepts and well-being. The meaning
and impact of threat and negative attitudes as perceived by Roma themselves and
how these attitudes affect social integration and well-being of Roma remains to be
addressed in future research (Dimitrova, Chasiotis, Bender & van de Vijver, 2014).
Finally, an intriguing question remains regarding the relationship between
perceived threat and Romaphobia. The findings presented here build on
adolescents’ perspectives on this relationship. However, socialization processes
may provide an insight into transmission of negative prejudice from relevant others
(e.g., parents, peers, media, and political elite) to adolescents. Future studies should
include multidimensional methods, which could model the more complex,
potentially interactive relationship between threat and Romaphobia.
Implications and Conclusions
Although many other factors contribute to negative out-group attitudes, our
study clearly shows that strong nationalism and perceived threats play a prominent
role for Romaphobia among Bulgarian and Romanian youth. These findings call
for future interventions that can be implemented in schools to combat Romaphobia
by reducing perceived threats because they are a direct cause of interethnic conflict.
This is critically important issue for all EU countries with Roma populations that
calls for urgent policy and practice to design interventions. New educational
practices can be introduced in order to combat negative stereotypes, reduce
perceived dissimilarity, and increase emotional empathy towardRoma. These
practices should also aim at reducing perceived threat by providing opportunities
for intergroup contact and creating a sympathetic understanding of cultural
14 Romaphobia in Bulgaria and Romania
differences, values and beliefs. On a societal level, efforts to address perceptions of
threat should include mass-media as an important vector to promote peaceful coexistence and social norms focused on equal treatment and equal access to different
kind of resources.
References
Abu-Rayya, H. M., & White, F. A. (2010). Acculturation orientations and religious
identity as predictors of Anglo-Australians’ attitudes towards Australian
Muslims. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 592-599. doi:
10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.02.006
Allport, T. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Arbuckle, J. (2009). Amos 19. Crawfordville, FL: AMOS Development Corporation.
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth:
Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 55, 303–332. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00256.x
Blank, T. (1997). Authoritarianism, anomie and self-concept: Can they explain
nationalism and patriotism? Empirical results with German data. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political
Psychology, Kraków.
Bloom, W. (1990). Personal identity, national identity and international relations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boehnke, K., Kindervater, A., Baier, D., & Rippl, S. (2007). Social change as a
source of macrosocial stress: Does it enchance nationalistic attitudes?
European Societies, 9, 65-90. doi:10.1080/14616690601079440
Brearley, M. (2001). The persecution of Gypsies in Europe. American Behavioral
Scientist, 45, 588–599. doi:10.1177/00027640121957367
Brown, D. (2000). Contemporary nationalism. Civic, ethnocultural and
multicultural politics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways in assessing model fit. In
K. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Burjanek, A. (2001). Xenophobia among the Czech population in the context of
post - communist countries and Western Europe. Czech Sociological Review, 9,
53–67.
Buzea, C. & Buzea, R. (2009). Schiţă pentru profilul comunitar. Gîrcin Săcele –
comunitate cu populaţie majoritar romă [Outline for community profile. Gîrcin
Săcele – a Roma community]. In C. Coman (Ed.) ACUM 2008 - International
Conference of Social Sciences (pp. 288–294). Braşov: Transilvania University
of Brasov Publishing House.
Calhoun, C. (1997). Nationalism. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Author(s)
15
Crowe, D. W (2008). The Roma in post-communist Eastern Europe: Questions of
ethnic conflict and ethnic peace. Nationalities Papers, 36, 521–552.
doi:10.1080/00905990802080752
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as
universal dimensions of social perception: The Stereotype Content Model and
the BIAS Map. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology (pp. 61–149). New York: Academic Press.
Dekker, H., Malova, D., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2003). Nationalism and its
explanations. Political Psychology, 24, 345–376. doi:10.1111/0162895X.00331
Dimitrov, V. (2000). In search of a homogeneous nation: The assimilation of
Bulgaria’s Turkish minority, 1984-1985. European Center for Minority Issues
(ECMI) Report. Flensburg, Germany: ECMI.
Dimitrova, R., Chasiotis, A., Bender, M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2014).
Collective identity of Roma youth and their mothers. Journal for Youth and
Adolescence. Special Issue on Challenges and Resilience of Indigenous
Adolescents for Positive Youth Development doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0043-1
Dimitrova, R., Buzea, C., Jujic, L., & Jordanov, J. (2013). The influence of
nationalism and national identity on well-being of Bulgarian and Romanian
youth. Studia UBB Sociologia, LVIII (1), 69-86.
Dunbar, E. & Simonova, L. (2003) Individual difference and social status
predictors of anti-semitism and racism US and Czech findings with the
prejudice/tolerance and right wing authoritarianism scales. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 507–523. doi: 10.1016/S01471767(03)00051-8
European Commission (2009). A renewed framework for European cooperation in
the
youth
field
(2010-2018).
Retrieved
from
http://ec.europa.eu/youth/policy/eu-youth-strategy_en.htm
Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition
research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225
Filipescu, C. (2009). Revisiting minority integration in Eastern Europe: Examining
the case of Roma integration in Romania. Debatte: Journal of Contemporary
Central and Eastern Europe, 17, 297–314. doi:10.1080/09651560903457915
Fishkin, J. (2007). Policies toward the Roma in Bulgaria. Stanford University
Press.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed)
stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from
perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 878–902. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878
Karolewski, I.P., & Suszycki, A. N. (2011). The nation and nationalism in Europe:
An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
16 Romaphobia in Bulgaria and Romania
Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism
versus racial threats to the good life. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 40, 414–441. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.414
Kleinpenning, G., & Hagendoorn, L. (1993). Forms of racism and the cumulative
dimension of ethnic attitudes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56, 21–36.
doi:10.2307/2786643
Li, Q., & Brewer, M. (2004). What does it mean to be an American? Patriotism,
nationalism, and American identity after 9/11. Political Psychology, 25, 727–
739. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00395.x
Ljujic, V., Vedder, P.H. , Dekker, H., & Geel, M., van (2012a). Serbian
adolescents' Romaphobia and their acculturation orientations towards the
Roma minority. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 53–61.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.11.015
Ljujic, V., Vedder, P. H., & Dekker, H. (2012b). Romaphobia among Serbian
adolescents: The role of national in-group attitudes and perceived threat.
Political Psychology, 33, 911–924. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00927.x
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit evaluation in
structural equation modeling. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. McCardle (Eds.),
Contemporary psychometrics: A Festschrift to Roderick P. McDonald (pp.
275–340). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Masseria, C., Mladovsky, P., & Hernández-Quevedo, C. (2010). The socioeconomic determinants of the health status of Roma in comparison with nonRoma in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. European Journal of Public Health
20, 549–554. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckq102
Matras, Y. (2000). Romani migrations in the post-communist era: Their historical
and political significance. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 13, 32–
50. doi:10.1080/09557570008400297
McConahay, J. B. (1982). Self-interest versus racial attitudes as correlates of antibusing attitudes in Louisville: Is it the buses or the Blacks? The Journal of
Politics, 44, 692–720. doi:10.2307/2130514
Mihailescu, M. (2005). Dampening the powder keg: Understanding interethnic
cooperation in post-communist Romania (1990–1996). Nationalism and Ethnic
Politics, 11, 25–59. doi:10.1080/13537110590927647
Mikloš, B. Smederevac, S., & Tovilović, S. (2009). Socioeconomic and cultural
factors of low scholastic achievement of Roma children. Psihologija, 42, 273–
288.
Milcher, S. (2009). Household vulnerability estimates of Roma in southeast
Europe.
Cambridge
Journal
of
Economics,
34,
773–792.
doi:10.1093/cje/bep060
Montreuil, A., & Bourhis, R.Y. (2004). Acculturation orientations of competing
host communities toward valued and devalued immigrants. International
Journal
of
Intercultural
Relations,
28,
507–532.
doi:
10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.01.002
Author(s)
17
Mummendey, A., Klink, A., & Brown, R. (2001). Nationalism and patriotism:
National identification and outgroup rejection. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 40, 159-172. doi:10.1348/014466601164740
Nacu, A. (2012). From silent marginality to spotlight scapegoating? A brief case
study of France's policy towards the Roma. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 38, 1323–1328. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2012.689192
Nakano, T. (2004). Theorising economic nationalism. Nations and Nationalism,
10, 211–229. doi:0.1111/j.1354-5078.2004.00164.x
National Statistical Institute (NSI). (2011). Social and demographic characteristics
of the population. Sofia, Bulgaria: NSI Press.
National Statistical Institute (NSI). (2011). Statistical yearbook 2011, Retrieved
from
http://www.insse.ro/cms/files/Anuar%20statistic/02/02%20Populatie_en.pdf
Nordberg, C. (2004). Legitimising immigration control: Romani asylum-seekers in
the Finnish debate. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30, 717–735.
doi:10.1080/13691830410001699531
Open Society Foundation. (2007). Roma Inclusion Barometer 2007. Retrieved
from http://www.soros.ro/en/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=22
Pettigrew, T. & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. doi:10.1037/00223514.90.5.751
Petrova, D. (2003). The Roma: Between a myth and the future. Social Research:
An International Quarterly, 70, 111–161.
Phillips, J. (2010). The educational system in Romania: An overview of how
communism has influenced current aspects and programs (Seniors Papers
Liberty
University).
Retrieved
from
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1195&context=h
onors
Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic
identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 54, 271–281. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.271
Prieto-Flores, O. (2009). Does the canonical theory of assimilation explain the
Roma case? Some evidence from Central and Eastern Europe. Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 32, 1387–1405. doi:10.1080/01419870903006988
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and
outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 10, 336–353. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
Russinov, R. (2001). The Bulgarian framework programme for equal integration of
Roma: Participation in the policy-making process. Retrieved from
http://www.errc.org/article/the-bulgarian-framework-programme-for-equal
integration-of-roma-participation-in-the-policy-making-process/1729
Sears, D. O., & Jessor, T. (1996). White’s racial policy attitudes: the role of white
racism. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 751–759.
18 Romaphobia in Bulgaria and Romania
Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup
conflict and cooperation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sigona, N. (2005). Locating the ‘‘Gypsy problem’’. The Roma in Italy:
Stereotyping, labelling and nomad camps. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 31, 741–56. doi:10.1080/13691830500109969
Sigona, N., & Trehan, N. (2009) Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe:
Poverty, Ethnic Mobization and Neoliberal Order. Basingstoke: MacMillian
Palgrave.
Smith, A. D. (1995). Nations and nationalism in a global era. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Soros Foundation. (2011). Roma from Romania, Bulgaria, Italy and Spain between
Social
Inclusion
and
Migration.
Retrieved
from
http://www.soros.ro/en/publicatii.php
Spirova, M., & Stefanova, B. (2009). The European dimension of the political
representation of minorities. Paper presented at the EUSA Conference, April
24-26, 2009, Los Angeles, CA
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Predicting prejudice. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 409–426. doi:10.1016/01471767(96)00026-0
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice.
In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23-46).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stephan, W. G., Boniecki, K. A., Ybarra, O., Bettencourt, A., Ervin, K. S., Jackson,
L., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threats in the racial attitudes of Blacks
and Whites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1242-1253.
doi:10.1177/01461672022812009
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2221-2237. doi:10.1111/j.15591816.1999.tb00107.x
The
World
Fact
Book
(2011).
Retrieved
from
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bu.html
Volgyi, B-B. (2007). Ethno-nationalism during democratic transition in Bulgaria:
Political pluralism as an effective remedy for ethnic conflict. Post-Communist
Studies Programme Research Paper Series 003, York University.
Weiss, H. (2003). A cross-national comparison of nationalism in Austria, the Czech
and Slovac Republics, Hungary, and Poland. Political Psychology, 24, 377–
401. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00332
Woodock, S. (2007). Romania and Europe: Roma, Rroma, and Tigani as sites for
the contestation of ethno-national identities. Patterns of Negative attitudes, 14,
493–515. doi:10.1080/00313220701657294
Wolfe-Murray, R. (2010). There's room for 'Roma' and 'Romanian'. The Guardian.
Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/08/romaromanian-name
Author(s)
19
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2008). Wales UNCRC
Monitoring
Group
Concluding
Observations.
Retrieved
from
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/policyandpublicaffairs/wales/briefings/UNCR
CBriefing2008_wdf61519.pdf