

13

  

 

 

SECURITY AND INTEGRATION IN ASIAN REGION

УДК 316.356.4

THE ETHNIC IDENTIFICATION

OF RUSSIANS IN MONO AND POLYETHNIC REGIONS:

REPERTORY GRID ANALYSIS

S.G. Maximova

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4613-4966

D.A. Omelchenko

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2839-5070

O.E. Noyanzina

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1252-6021

Altai State University, Barnaul, Russia,

e-mail: svet-maximova@yandex.ru, daria.omelchenko@mail.ru, noe@list.ru

DOI:10.14258/ssi(2020)2-01

 e identity ofethnic Russians has been shaped inco-habitation with various

ethnic groups and implementation ofnation-building projects, where they always

had special status and mission. Its peculiarities are important for understanding

the actual inter-ethnic relations inRussia and perspectives oftheir development.

A study based on the ofrepertory grid approach was conducted intwo border re-

gions with di erent ethnic composition— the Altai territory (mono-ethnic region,

n=543, 16 to 75 years) and the Republic ofAltai (poly-ethnic region, n=354, 16

to 75 years). It was found, that the most important characteristics for identi cation



14 

and evaluation ofethnic groups are related to security, social and economic posi-

tion, mental similarity. In mono-ethnic region the image ofRussians is construct-

ed on the base ofpositive stereotypes and opposed to ethnic groups, perceived as

di erent. In poly-ethnic region the self-perception is more di erentiated, the eth-

nic identity acquires additional traits, bringing Russians and cohabitating groups

closer. Our study has implications for theories ofsocial identity and interethnic

cooperation, as well as for the literature on national policy under cultural and eth-

nic diversity. It could be used for replication inthe repertory grid analysis aimed

atethnic identity issues.

Keywords: ethnic identi cation; social perception; national mentality; mono-

andpolyethnic regions ofRussia; rep ertory grid analysis

  

    :

  

.. 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4613-4966

.. 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2839-5070

.. 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1252-6021

Алтайский государственный университет, Барнаул, Россия

e-mail: svet-maximova@yandex.ru, daria.omelchenko@mail.ru, noe@list.ru



        

       



      





     



     

          

      

       



 







№ 2 2020





      





     



     







Ключевые слова: этническая идентификация, национальный ментали-

тет, моно- иполиэтнические регионы России, анализ репертуарных решеток

1. Introduction

Regardless ofincreasing globalization and universalization ofculture, ethnicity re

mains very important, becoming ina crisis “an emergency team” for every person (Ver-

kuyten, 2004). International conicts, ethnically motivated violence and social inequali-

ty reinforced the signicance ofethnic factor insocial relations, while commodication

ofethnicity had turned elements ofnational (ethnic) culture into objects ofmarketing and

corporate management (Holton, 2011).

Studied ina multitude ofdisciplines, ethnic identity appears from the perspective

ofsocial psychology as a double result ofcognitive-emotional process: on the one hand it

supposes awareness ofbeing a part ofan ethnos, sense ofsimilarity with some ethnic enti

ty, on the other hand— a cultural distinction, separation from “others” (Soldatova, 1998;

Stefanenko, 2009). It is generally acknowledged that the formation and armation ofeth

nic “Self ” is based on categorization, dierentiation and comparison of“own” and “alien”

ethnic groups (Tajfel and Turner, 2004; Tajfel, 2010) and aected by dierences inmentali

ty and world outlook (Kagan and Dillon, 2001; Rohn, 2011). e content ofethnic identity

includes mutually shared representations about common origin, culture, history, religious

beliefs, customs and traditions, language and statehood ofpeoples (De Vos and Romanuc

ci-Ross, 1995; Evans et al., 2010; Eriksen, 2012).

ese assumptions don’t exhaust all facets ofethnic identity, which is supposed to be

complicated and multidimensional phenomenon. In ethnic psychology there is a tradition

to highlight its three basic components: cognitive, responsible for ethno-dierentiation,

content ofethnic stereotypes and representations about ethnic groups; aective— reect

ing emotions and sense ofbelonging to given ethnic group, and behavioral, displaying

inethno-cultural practices and community events (Cohen, 2004; Phinney and Ong, 2007,

Stefanenko, 2009). Most scholars agree that these components are closely interrelated, and

their weight depends on time and context (Phinney, 2003). Nevertheless, over last decades

there has been a depart from this classic threefold structure. e reasoning about “uidity”

and “exibility”, interdependence oflocal/ethnic and global/universal has become inte

SOCIETY AND SECURITY INSIGHTS

 № 2 2020

gral part ofscientic discourse about ethnic identity, which has been described as having

“double bottom”, external and internal, constant and situational components (Lurye, 1994;

Paredes, 2007; Hakenbeck, 2007; Matute-Bianchi, 2008; Verkuyten, 2009).

Given the cultural, race and language diversity of most contemporary societies,

recent research on ethnic identity is largely focused on mechanisms ofpreservation and

transformation ofethnicity, ethnic borders and landscapes, ecient integration ofminor

ity groups into one civic nation, achievement ofethnic equality and equity. It explores

dual (hyphenated) and multiple identities and allegiances, tries to establish links between

sense ofethnic identity and dierent social contexts (Xu, Farver & Pauker, 2015; Van de

Vijver, Blommaert, Gkoumasi & Stogianni, 2015). us, ethnic identity is treated as fac

tor increasing self-worth, resilience to discrimination and prejudice (Romero et al., 2014;

Brittian et al., 2015; Leen at al., 2015; Ikram et al., 2016; Gummadam, Pittman, & Ioe,

2016), is positively associated with life satisfaction, support for political rights and collec

tive action (Stronge et al. 2016), predicts health and lifestyle behaviors (Moise et al.2018).

Besides, it was found that the salience ofethnic identity is determined by characteristics

ofsocio-cultural environment: it is reduced under cultural conformity and intensied un

der cultural distinction (Bisin et al. 2016).

e studies on the identity ofethnic Russians have undergone considerable develop

ment inthe late 1990s, when many eorts were undertaken to reect changes that had oc-

curred inthe minds ofpeople aer the collapse ofthe USSR and subsequent ethno-social

transformations. Seminal works by K. Kasyanova (1994), Z. Sikevich (1996); P. Valynkin

(1997), P. Pochebut (1997), O. Chernova (1997), N. Lebedeva (1997), E. Shestopal, G. Brit

skiy, M. Denisenko (1999) have shown the growth ofnational consciousness ofRussians,

depicted traits oftheir national character, explored the ethnic identity along with basic

values, life goals and orientations.

It was revealed that Russian ethnic conscience, mass and individual, is very contradic

tory, highly susceptible to “sharp bends” ofnational history (Sykevich, 1996). Typical portrait

ofRussians (without considering age, gender, settlement and other dierences) includes such

positive characteristics as kindness, simplicity, straightforwardness, resignation, stamina and

industry; the traditional negative traits are carelessness, laziness, lack ofinitiative, imperti

nence, bad manners. e self-representation is oen guided by the need to ward o external

treats (real or imagined), hence, the importance ofsuch qualities as peacefulness, courage

and fearlessness (Chernova, 1997). e mentality of Russians has collectivist value-based

orientations, manifested inhospitality, mutual aid, credulity, empathy and altruism, fatalism

and belief inthe best future, that generates unfounded optimism, irresponsibility and lax

ness, mobilization ofall life forces to achieve meaningful goals (Pochebut, 1997).

It was highlighted that Russians are tolerant towards “others”, their individuality is

socially complemented (Sykevich, 1996). Slav peoples,— Ukrainian, Belarussian, Slovak,

Serbian, Bulgar, Czech,— are ethnic groups, usually perceived as culturally, linguistically

and spiritually similar, whereas negative hetero-stereotypes are centered on Muslim and

Caucasian peoples (Shestopal, Britskiy, & Denisenko 1999). Special attention was paid to

the analysis ofdierences inmanifestation ofethnic identity ofRussians innational repub

lics incomparison with so called “Russian core” regions, showing that inminority posi-





№ 2 2020

tion it becomes more emphasized but less oriented towards ethnic solidarity than identity

ofpeople from titular ethnic groups (Drobizheva, 2010).

More recent ndings on Russian identity have revealed its sustainability and strong

relationship with other kinds ofmacro-social identities— national-civic, state or civiliza

tional (Pantin, 2008; Kondakov, Sokolov, & Khrenov 2011; Zhade, 2014; Drobizheva and

Ryzhova 2015). It was shown that self-perception ofRussians is determined by many fac

tors, reecting national policy and nation-building projects: historically rooted poly-eth-

nic and poly-confessional character ofpopulation structure; numerical superiority ofthe

Russian ethnos over other ethnic groups; great inuence and spread ofthe Russian lan

guage and the Russian culture (Sikevich, 2014, Ryzhova, 2016).

Despite signicant volume ofresearch, the Russian identity is usually studied sep

arately (who Russians are and how they perceive themselves), or in minority position

(Russians inBuryatia, Russians in the Caucasus) (see, for example, Shestopal, Britskiy,

& Denisenko 1999; Denisova and Ulanov 2003; Volkogonova and Titarenko, 2010), au

to-stereotypes ofRussians are compared with hetero-stereotypes ofconcrete ethnic group

(Ukrainians, Armenians, Ossetians etc., see, for example, Allik, Alyamkina, & Meshch

eryakov 2015; Gritsenko, Brazhnik, & Orlova 2016; Novikova, Ogannisyan, & Shlyakh-

ta 2017). Meanwhile, it seems appropriate to combine the analysis ofself-identication

ofRussians along with perception ofmultiple ethnic “others”, neighboring or distant, and

thereby to promote a better understanding oftheir self-positioning on the Russian and

global stage. ere is a parallel need to compare identities ofRussian at regional level, jus

tied by considerable dierences inethnic composition, caused inter alia by growth ofin-

ternational and internal migration, to provide empirical evidence about changes inethnic

self-consciousness ofRussians and its current state.

Using the foregoing as a starting point, this article discusses opportunities ofpsy

chosemantic methodology and repertory grid techniques for the analysis ofethnic identity.

On the basis ofthe results ofpsychosemantic experiments intwo regions ofRussia with

dierent ethnic composition and administrative-territorial status it presents an analysis

ofstable and changed features ofthe Russian identity.

2. Materials and Methods

Ethnic identity is a multidisciplinary and a multidimensional concept, measured by

means ofexplicit, focused on recognized feelings and thoughts, and implicit methods, per

mitting to disclose its unconscious components. e most authoritative measures ofethnic

identity include the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) (Phinney, 1992; Yoon,

2011), the Ethnic Identity Scale, EIS (Santos and Umaña-Taylor, 2015), original methods

ofacculturation by J. Berry and separate questionnaires for single nationalities created on

its base (se detailed description and psychometric analysis ofsuch questionnaires inCok

ley, 2007; Taras, 2008). Russian scholars not only adapted these methods but also elaborat-

ed original instruments, for instance, the scale ofexpress-assessment offeelings, related to

ethnic identity (by N.M. Lebedeva), the method ofassessment ofpositivity and indeter

minacy ofethnic identity (by A.N. Tatarko and N.M. Lebedeva), the scale-based question-

naire ofethnic identity for children and youngsters (by O.L. Romanova).

SOCIETY AND SECURITY INSIGHTS

18 № 2 2020

Most of above-mentioned methods, despite evident advantages, seem unable to

explore attitudinal components ofethnic identity, responsible for self-positioning inthe

space ofpossible identications. us, our idea to study the Russian identity interactively,

along with other ethnic groups, required referral to theories and methods, allowing to

study public conscience informalized and visually interpretable manner. us, experimen

tal psychosemantics was chosen as the general methodological approach (Petrenko, 1988,

2015; Petrenko, Mitina, & Betnikov 2003; Shmelev, 1982), and a modied version ofrep

ertory grid analysis— as a practical instrument for its implementation (Fransella, Bell, &

Bannister 2004; Jankowicz, 2005). e modication consisted inusing supplied constructs

instead ofelicited, as prescribed inoriginal “idiographic” approach (Kelly, 1955, 2003; Ad

ams-Webber, 1970; Caputi, Viney, Walker, & Crittenden, 2011). ese changes make rep-

ertory grid analysis close to semantical dierential, commonly used inethnical studies (see

examples Morland and Williams, 1969; Grossman, Wirt, & Davids 1985; Berberyan and

Berberyan, 2016) for opportunities to receive standardized results, make groups compari

sons and generalizations, convenient for large-scale surveys.

e list ofevaluated elements, selected on the bases offocus groups with experts

and target population, included seven meta-ethnic groups, describing ethnic compositions

ofRussia,— “Russians”, “European peoples”, “Asian peoples”, “Slav peoples”, “Caucasian

peoples”, “Central Asian peoples”, “Small indigenous peoples ofthe North, Siberia and the

Far East”, the group of“Migrants” representing abstract transnational entity with strong

ethnic connotations and two reference groups— “Friendly people” and “Hostile people”.

e list ofconstructs consisted of22 bipolar seven-point scales: Own / alien; Similar /

dierent; Distant/close; Lazy, goes with the ow/hard-working, purposeful; Friendly / hos

tile; Cunning, quick-witted / naïve, credulous; Practical, rational / emotional, impulsive;

Indierent, disinterested / compassionate, empathic; Aggressive, warrior / peaceable; Un

pleasant / inspiring sympathy and respect; Conservator, traditionalist/supporting progress

and innovations; Individualist, puts personal interests before public interests / Collectivist,

puts public interests before personal goals; Intolerant / tolerant towards other opinions and

ways oflife; Aspires to superiority, exceptionality/equality, justice; Uncivilized, ignorant

/ Well-educated, intelligent, culturally developed; Responsible, disciplined / easygoing,

hopes for the best; Honest, decent / insincere, deceitful; Brave/ cowardly; Free, independ

ent / dependent; (Not) arousing envy; Poor / rich; Take high / low position on the social

ladder. e choice ofelements and descriptors was justied by the need to link our data

with previous research, described above, and specic goals and tasks ofthe scientic pro

ject. All questionnaires were administered during face-to-face interviews at respondent’s

home.

e study was conducted in2017-2018 inthe Altai territory— a region with dom

inant Russian population— about 94% according to the all-Russian Census 2010 (a mo-

no-ethnic region) and inthe Republic ofAltai, where signicant number ofpopulation was

represented by Turkic peoples, including Altaians (among them Telengits, Tubalars, Chel

kans), Kazakhs, Kumandins and other ethnic groups, proportion ofRussians was about

56% (a poly-ethnic region). e quota sampling and random walking procedures were

used to recruit respondents. In the Altai territory the sample consisted of543 respondents,



№ 2 2020

living inBarnaul, Kytmanovsky, Soloneshensky and Ust-Pristansky districts. In the Repub-

lic ofAltai, the sample contained 354 people, interviewed inGorno-Altaysk, Mayminsky,

Chemalsky, Choysky and Shebalinsky districts. Gender and age structure ofsample was

similar intwo regions (χ2 test, p>0.05) (table 1). All respondents have identied them

selves as ethnic Russians, based on the classic question “What nationality do you belong

to?”

Table 1.

Gender and age distribution ofrespondents intwo regions

Sex/Age 16–29 years 30–49 years 50–75 years Total

Altai territory

Male 72 93 72 237

Female 84 90 132 306

Total 156 183 204 543

Republic ofAltai

Male 60 69 51 180

Female 42 63 69 174

Total 102 132 120 354

Preliminary analysis ofrelative frequencies, conducted on three-dimensional data

(respondents, elements and descriptors) was followed by MANOVA and pairwise compar

isons to depict general features ofethnic identity ofRussians intwo regions and important

socio-demographic factors, determining dierences inevaluations.

On the next step, hierarchical cluster and factor analysis were performed on ag

gregated matrices to nd out similarities/dissimilarities inevaluated positions and latent

factors, governing the ethnic categorization and dierentiation. e “Pvclust” algorithm

and multiscale bootstrap resampling were used to reveal signicant clusters (Suzuki and

Shimodaira, 2006). e factorial congruence was measured by the Tucker’s congruence co

ecient (φ). en, based on singular-value-decomposition method a semantic space was

built for each region to visualize interrelations among “Russians” and other groups inthe

light ofthe meaning ofthe two rst factors and signicant descriptors. All calculations and

visualization were made using IBM SPSS 23.0 and R environment, especially the package

“OpenRepGrid” (Heckmann, 2014).

3. Results

3.1. Auto-stereotypes ofRussians intwo regions

Relative frequency analysis has shown that most important characteristics attrib

uted to Russians— “similar” (82% ofhigh values), “close” (80%) and “own” (70%) con-

stituted the identication triad and indicated that almost all respondents felt themselves

not only as formal representatives oftheir ethnic group, but also had very strong sense

SOCIETY AND SECURITY INSIGHTS

20 № 2 2020

ofbelonging, their ethnic identity was personally signicant. Only few percent possessed

negative identity, conicting with their representations and feelings (table 2).

Auto-stereotypes of Russians included such evaluative characteristics and moral

qualities as “inspiring sympathy and respect” (77%), “brave” (67%), “friendly (65%), “com

passionate, empathic” (63%), “peaceable” (61%), “free, independent” (58%), “hard-work-

ing, purposeful” (54%), “well-educated, intelligent, culturally developed” (51%), “hon-

est, decent” (51%), that was mostly inline with ndings ofprevious studies. Although

remaining scales hadn’t more than 50% ofhigh values, it was worth noting, that about

40% ofrespondents described Russians as tolerant, defending public interests and social

justice, supporting progress and innovations, that reected recent public discourse and

sharp debates on the development ofcivil society and political modernization inRussia

(Dorozhkin, 2016).

Several indicators were assessed ambiguously, positive and negative poles were cho

sen by relatively comparable number ofparticipants, that was indicative ofcontradictions

and ambivalent qualities, co-existing inthe self-image ofRussians, including gullibility and

wiliness, responsibility and carelessness, impulsivity and rationality. Meanwhile, it had no

connection with either economic (poverty/ richness) or social (low/high social position)

characteristics (less than 10% ofhigh and low values), that reected substantial changes

inthe conscience ofthe Russian population.

Table 2.

Auto-stereotypes ofRussians intwo regions, merged data, %

Le pole (negative)

Low

values

(1–2

points)

Middle

values

(3–5

points)

High

values

(6–7

points)

Right pole (positive)

Dierent 1 17 82 Similar

Distant 1 19 80 Close

Unpleasant 0 23 77

Inspiring sympathy and

respect

Alien 3 28 70 Own

Cowardly 1 32 67 Brave

Hostile 6 29 65 Friendly

Indierent, disinterested 0 37 63 Compassionate, empathic

Aggressive, warrior 1 38 61 Peaceable

Dependent 3 39 58 Free, independent

Lazy, goes with the ow 2 45 54 Hard-working, purposeful

Uncivilized, ignorant 1 48 51

Well-educated, intelligent,

culturally developed



№ 2 2020

Le pole (negative)

Low

values

(1–2

points)

Middle

values

(3–5

points)

High

values

(6–7

points)

Right pole (positive)

Insincere, deceitful 3 46 51 Honest, decent

Aspires to superiority,

exceptionality

4 50 46 Aspires to equality, justice

Conservator, traditionalist 6 53 41

Supporting progress and

innovations

Individualist, puts

personal interests before

public interests

4 55 41

Collectivist, puts public

interests before personal

interests

Intolerant 6 58 36 Tolerant

Cunning, quick-witted 11 58 31 Naïve, credulous

Easygoing, hopes for the

best

14 60 26 Responsible, disciplined

Practical, rational 17 61 22 Emotional, impulsive

Not arousing envy 39 49 11 Arousing envy

Poor 10 79 11 Rich

Take low social position 9 87 5 Take high social position

A MANOVA analysis, performed on the entirety of scales, revealed statistically

signicant eects ofage, treated as a xed factor with three levels— “16-29 years”, “30-

49years” and “50 years and more” (F (22, 241) = 1.77, p = 0.032 partial η2 =0.14), place

ofresidence— urban or rural (F (22, 241) =4.46, p < 0.0005; partial η2 =0.29) and region

(F(22, 241) = 3.17, p <0.0005; partial η2 = 0.22).

Follow-up univariate testing and pairwise comparisons have shown that dier

ences inevaluations by age groups were focused on relational descriptors, highlighting

nuances ofcooperation/confrontation between Russians and other ethnic groups. ey

included such characteristics as “Peaceable/aggressive, warrior”, “Indierent/compassion

ate”, “Inspiring sympathy and respect/unpleasant”, “(Not) arousing envy”. In all cases the

oldest group (50+) has given signicantly higher assessments than the youngest group

(16-29years), and on the descriptor “(Not) arousing envy”— than the middle age group

(30-49years) (Figures 1 and 2). us, while older generations have preserved steadier and

more optimistic image oftheir ethnic “Self”, inherited from soviet identity, where Rus

sian ethnos played a role of“Big brother” and had indisputable authority, representations

ofyouth have become expressively more negative (only inthis group Russians were de

scribed as “aggressive, warrior” or “unpleasant”), that witnessed about its disorientation

innew social and political conditions, the lack ofimportant senses and symbolic vacuum,

great inuence ofcontradictory mass-media discourse, shown inworks on contemporary

identities ofthe Russian youth (Evgenieva, Selezneva, 2007; Samygin, Vereshchagin, & Be

lov 2015).

SOCIETY AND SECURITY INSIGHTS

22 № 2 2020

Figure 1— Pairwise comparisons ofmeans among three age groups for the descriptors “Peaceable” (A)

and “Compassionate, empathic” (B), means and p-values ofKruskal-Wallis tests.

Figure 2— Pairwise comparisons ofmeans among three age groups for the descriptors “Respected” (A)

and “Enviable” (B), means and p-values ofKruskal-Wallis tests.

Further analysis by place ofresidence has revealed that Russians living inrural area

had more positive self-image than people from towns: inthe group ofrural residents as

sessments were higher on identication criteria (“Own”, “Similar”, “Distant”), evaluative

and moral characteristics (“Hard-working”, “Friendly”, “Inspiring sympathy and respect”,

“Well-educated, intelligent, culturally developed”, “Cunning, quick-witted”, “Practical, ra

tional”, “Responsible, disciplined”, “Brave”, “Independent”, “Rich”), collectivist orientations,

inspiration for progress and innovations. At the same time rural inhabitants were more

likely to note that Russians were not enviable by other peoples, while for city-dwellers

being Russian has meant to be inmore favorable position than other ethnic groups (table



№ 2 2020

3). Hence, the persistent gap between “village” and “town”, inherent for Russia throughout

time and even enhancing with active urban modernization, dierence instandards ofliv

ing and life styles have led to dierences incontents ofethnic identity, which preserved

idealized and more traditional traits inrural area and became more dierentiated inurban

environment, where social dynamic and inter-ethnic relations are more intense.

Table 3.

Pairwise comparisons ofmeans and condence intervals for urban and rural areas

Dependent variable (DV)

Mean

dierence (I-J)

SE Sig.b

95% CI

Lower

bound

Upper

bound

Own –0.562 0.145 0.000 –0.847 –0.277

Similar –0.745 0.155 0.000 –1.050 –0.441

Close –0.663 0.147 0.000 –0.952 –0.375

Hard-working –0.524 0.186 0.005 –0.890 –0.159

Friendly –0.532 0.213 0.013 –0.112 –0.952

Cunning, quick-witted –0.730 0.223 0.001 –0.292 –1.169

Practical, rational –0.927 0.229 0.000 –0.476 –1.379

Inspiring sympathy and respect –0.484 0.139 0.001 –0.757 –0.210

Supporting progress and

innovations

–1.015 0.215 0.000 –1.439 –0.591

Collectivist, puts public interests

before individual

–0.647 0.215 0.003 –1.070 –0.224

Well-educated, intelligent,

culturally developed

–0.666 0.160 0.000 –0.981 –0.352

Responsible, disciplined –0.710 0.234 0.003 –0.249 –1.170

Brave –0.561 0.171 0.001 –0.225 –0.896

Independent –0.979 0.208 0.000 –0.570 –1.387

Not arousing envy –0.966 0.248 0.000 –1.455 –0.477

Rich –0.624 0.175 0.000 –0.969 –0.279

b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Ultimately, the results show that, keeping all other things equal, inthe Altai ter-

ritory mono-ethnic region identication was stronger (MD=0.47-0.53 for identication

descriptors, p < 0.01) and auto-stereotypes were more positive than inthe Republic ofAl

tai (poly-ethnic region). In the Altai territory Russians were more frequently described as

“well-educated, intelligent, culturally developed” (53.3% ofhigh values against 46.2%, χ2,

SOCIETY AND SECURITY INSIGHTS

24 № 2 2020

p<0.05), “inspiring sympathy and respect” (79.2% and 73.7%, χ2, p<0.05), whereas inthe

Republic ofAltai— as more “credulous and naïve” (46.1% ofhigh values vs 22.0% inthe

Altai territory, χ2, p<0.05), “emotional and impulsive” (26.5% and 19.1%, χ2, p<0.05) (ta

ble 4).

Table 4.

Signicant dierences between descriptors intwo regions

Dependent variable

(DV)

Mean dierence (MD)

(the Altai territory–

the Republic ofAltai)

SE Sig.

95% CIb

Lower

bound

Upper

bound

Own 0,525 0,145 0,000 0,239 0,811

Similar 0,512 0,155 0,001 0,206 0,817

Close 0,469 0,147 0,002 0,179 0,759

Credulous, naive –1,16* 0,223 0,000 –1,606 –0,729

Emotional, impulsive –0,794 0,229 0,001 –1,245 –0,344

Well-educated, intelligent,

culturally developed

0,508 0,160 0,002 0,193 0,823

Inspiring sympathy and

respect

0,444 0,139 0,002 0,171 0,717

b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

3.2.Russians and “others”: peculiarities ofself-categorization and dierentiation inthe

space ofmeta-ethnic groups

e next step consisted inthe analysis ofself-evaluations ofRussians along with

other meta-ethnic entities, permitted to reveal factors, determining commonality ineval

uations and depict interrelations among signicant characteristics ofthe Russian identity.

e hierarchical cluster analysis, conducted on the aggregated data from the Altai

territory has revealed two clusters, dividing all positions into two major groups— con

ditional “owns” and “aliens”. e rst has united “Russians”, “Slavic peoples”, a reference

group of“Friendly people”, and “Small indigenous peoples ofthe North, Siberia and the

Far East”. All others constituted opposite cluster embracing two distinct groups— the

rst has united Caucasian peoples and the reference category ofHostile people, and the

second included “Asians”, “Central Asian peoples” and “Migrants”. European peoples oc

cupied rather remote position and were added to this group at the last steps ofagglom-

eration (Figure 3).

Clusters inthe Republic ofAltai were signicant only at marginal level (alpha=0.9,

Figure 4, marked inblue). e complex Russians— Friendly people— Slavic people re

mained relevant, but the position ofIndigenous peoples has moved into the second cluster

where it joined three other groups— Europeans, Asians and Caucasians. Central Asian

peoples were identied with Migrants as well, whereas Hostile people took isolated posi

tion, hence, none ofstudied groups was perceived negatively as a real or potential enemy.





№ 2 2020

Figure 3— Results ofthe hierarchical cluster analysis inthe Altai territory (bootstrap probabilities (BP) are

shown ingreen and approximately unbiased (AU) probabilities— inred).

Figure 4— Results ofthe hierarchical cluster analysis inthe Republic ofAltai (bootstrap probabilities (BP)

are shown ingreen and approximately unbiased (AU) probabilities— inred).

e factor analysis conducted ineach region (Principal components method with va-

rimax rotation was used) has uncovered three important grounds determining categoriza-

tion ofethnic groups (in the Altai territory these factors explained 56.6%, 27.7%, and 10.4%

oftotal variance, inthe Republic ofAltai— 62.7%, 14.0% and 9.9% respectively) (table 5).

SOCIETY AND SECURITY INSIGHTS

 № 2 2020

e rst factor was at 98% congruent inboth regions. It included scales (loadings >

0.8), describing moral qualities and aspects ofrelations (“friendly”, “credulous”, “empath

ic”, “honest”, “supporting equality and equity”, “tolerant”, “hard-working”), evaluative (“in-

spiring sympathy and respect”) and identication (“own”, “similar”, “close”) characteristics.

It was the factor ofthe general assessment, determining positive or negative perception

ofethnic groups.

e second factor inthe Altai territory corresponded mostly to the third factor

inthe Republic ofAltai (Tucker’s φ =0.75). Its meaning was based on the descriptors ofso

cio-economic position (“rich”, “high social position”), cultural level (“well-educated”, “in-

telligent, culturally developed”), mentality and behavior (“support for innovations”, “inde-

pendence”, “discipline”). e negative pole was dened by the variable “Not arousing envy”.

e third factor (Tucker’s φ 0.68 with the second factor inthe Republic ofAltai)

incorporated oppositions rational/emotional; innovative/traditional; tolerant, liberal/rig

orous; responsible, disciplined/easy-going, that largely reected dierences between the

Western (rational, practically oriented, tolerant) and the Oriental (intuitive, emotional)

cultures and civilizations.

Table 5.

Factor loadings aer varimax rotation

Descriptors (Positive poles)

e Altai territory e Republic ofAltai

F1 F2 F3 F1 F2 F3

Own 0.91 0.35 –0.13 0.93 0.06 0.07

Similar 0.86 0.40 –0.09 0.92 0.11 0.15

Close 0.90 0.33 –0.14 0.92 0.06 0.14

Hard-working 0.85 0.49 0.03 0.81 0.49 –0.06

Friendly 0.90 0.20 0.31 0.96 0.12 –0.25

Credulous, naive 0.95 –0.20 0.07 0.91 –0.21 –0.12

Emotional, impulsive –0.03 –0.33 –0.91 0.25 –0.84 –0.14

Empathic 0.96 0.23 –0.05 0.96 0.06 –0.05

Peaceable 0.93 0.13 0.32 0.89 0.31 –0.22

Inspiring sympathy and respect 0.91 0.39 0.12 0.91 0.36 0.00

Supporting innovations 0.46 0.68 0.46 0.46 0.77 0.12

Collectivist 0.95 0.11 –0.04 0.93 –0.11 –0.13

Tolerant 0.85 0.19 0.49 0.88 0.31 –0.20

Aspiring to equality 0.97 0.07 0.21 0.96 –0.02 –0.22

Well-educated 0.60 0.75 0.25 0.85 0.35 0.35





№ 2 2020

Responsible 0.14 0.68 0.53 0.23 0.90 0.20

Honest 0.88 0.37 0.23 0.96 0.10 –0.08

Courageous 0.76 0.41 –0.45 0.97 0.12 0.05

Independent 0.56 0.78 –0.16 0.90 0.25 0.15

Not arousing envy –0.47 –0.84 –0.09 –0.07 –0.16 –0.15

Rich –0.02 0.99 0.06 –0.17 0.08 0.97

High social status 0.02 0.96 0.23 –0.01 0.29 0.84

Joint spatial representation ofelements ineach region (Figures 5 and 6) permitted

to match results from cluster and factor analysis, conrm, that categorization and dier

entiation, underpinning identication ofRussians, dier considerably depending on so-

cio-cultural conditions, and describe signicant clusters ofmeta-ethnic groups inthe light

oftheir relationships and content ofneighboring descriptors.

e semantic space relevant for the Altai territory, disclosed again the proximity

of“Russians”, “Slavs”, and “Friendly people”, situated on the right extremity ofthe rst fac

tor axis near the identication descriptors and evaluative characteristics “hard-working”,

“brave”, “sympathetic”, “sincere”.

“Indigenous peoples”, situating inthe le ha-plane, corresponding to positive iden

tication and evaluation, took relatively distant position from Russians and were described

as “collectivist”, “credulous, naïve”, “friendly”, “tolerant”, “peaceable” and “compassionate”.

e image of“Hostile people” occupied the extreme position on the opposite side ofthis

axis and was depicted as “aggressive”, “aspiring to superiority”, “indierent”, “intolerant”,

“cunning” and “individualist”. e location of“Caucasian peoples”, situating near “Hostile

people” was identied negatively as “unpleasant”, “insincere”, “cowardly”.

“Central Asian peoples” and “Migrants” were located near each other and inprox

imity to “Asians”. eir common features were: “poor”, “conservative”, “ignorant”, “depend-

ent”, “low social status”, “impulsive”, “not arousing envy”, “easy-going”. e “Europeans”

took opposite position and were associated with richness, innovations, high social status,

intelligence, independence, rationality, responsibility and envy.

In the semantic space ofthe Republic ofAltai “Russians” occupied more distant

position from “Friendly people” and “Slavs”, than inthe Altai territory, situating however

inthe same quadrant near coordinates ofidentication descriptors. “Indigenous peoples”,

being titular nationalities inthe Republic, were evaluated as more “own”, but, at the same

time, “naïve” and having low social status. “Central Asian peoples”, “Caucasians”, “Europe

ans” were located near the center ofcoordinate system, that was indicative for their neu-

tral position on both factors, they were not opposed to Russians as it was inmono-ethnic

region, their stereotypes were similar but smoothed and less negative. us, “Caucasians”

were perceived as more “responsible” and less “emotional and impulsive”, “Europeans”—

as “arousing envy”, and “Central Asian peoples”— as “cunning”, “conservative” and “poor”.

e reference category of the “Hostile people” was associated with characteristics

“hostile”, “lazy”, “dependent” (but at the same time “aspiring to superiority”), “cowardly”, “ag

gressive”, “intolerant”, individualist”, “ignorant”, so as a whole it was similar to the image ofthe

SOCIETY AND SECURITY INSIGHTS

28 № 2 2020

ethnic enemy inthe Altai territory. It took isolated position, far away from other groups, that

was consistent with results ofcluster analysis, and illustrated once again that Russians’ atti

tudes towards other nationalities inthis region were to a large extent friendly and tolerant.

Figure 5— e semantic space (the Altai territory).

Figure 6— e semantic space (the Republic ofAltai).

e position of the Asian peoples was signicantly dierent compared to other

meta-ethnic entities and reference groups, associated inminds ofpopulation with high



№ 2 2020

culture and technological progress. According to the supplementary comparison ofeval-

uations, in the Republic ofAltai the category of Asians were perceived as more “own”

(7.6 % ofhigh values against 2.7% inthe Altai territory, χ

, p<0.05), “empathic” (25.4%

against 14.4%, χ

, p<0.001), “sympathetic” (38.1% against 16.6%, χ

, p<0.001), “supporting

progress and innovations” (30.2% against 18.2%, χ

, p<0.01), “well-educated, culturally

developed” (37.6% against 18.8%, χ

, p<0.001), “independent” (45.3% against 20.6%, χ

p<0.001), and less “lazy” (4.3% against 17.1%, χ

, p<0.01), “aggressive and warrior” (3.5%

against 14.4%, χ

, p<0.01), “individualist” (6.0% against 17.1%, χ

, p<0.01), “dominating,

aspiring to superiority” (6.8% against 22.1%, χ

, p<0.001).

4. Discussion and conclusions

Over the past decades, it has been widely acknowledged that ethnic identity is a so

cial construct, resulting from both social structures and actions undertaken by individuals

and social groups inpreserving and developing their cultural Self. It is neither immutable

nor xed, the great impact on its evolution has “the perception ofits meaning to dierent

audiences, its salience indierent social contexts, and its utility indierent setting” (Nagel

1994: 155). In contemporary Russia, the ethnic identity ofthe majority (ethnic Russians)

represents a complex ofattitudes, images, representations and stereotypes, polished by his

tory, targeted policy, global international and local inter-ethnic relations. We have attempt-

ed to describe its resilient and temporary components by means ofrepertory grid analysis,

applied on the actual survey data.

Psychosemantic experiments conducted in mono- and poly-ethnic regions have

revealed that ethnic grounds keep important role in formation of coherent self-image

ofRussians, irrespectively ofage, gender or territorial location. e ethnic identity ofmost

respondents was strong and positive, relying on stable national character stereotypes,

representing the Russian nation as peaceable and friendly, and its members— as com

passionate, hard-working, courageous, honest, well-educated. e research has partially

conrmed (only 40% ofresponses) ndings ofa decade ago that Russians have collectivist

orientations, are focused on justice and equity, and, ingeneral, reproduced conclusions

about contradictory character ofthe Russian identity, combining opposite traits— gullibil

ity and ruse, responsibility, perseverance and carelessness, pragmatism and emotionality.

Being Russian doesn’t mean to be poor or rich, take low or high position at the social

ladder. Signicant dierences inevaluations between young people and older generations

designate that the Russian identity is under constant transformation, directed, unfortu

nately, towards the loss ofself-esteem and the distortion oftraditional Russian national im-

age, centered on justice and peaceful intentions. e ethnic identity faces more challenges

incities, where people become more skeptical, while inrural area Russians preserve more

positive auto-stereotypes despite worse economic conditions.

e ethnic identity is stronger and linked to representations about the civic nation

inmono-ethnic region, where Russians are semantically included ina broad polyethnic

framework with small indigenous and other “friendly” peoples. In poly-ethnic region the

self-perception ofRussians is more leniently, they describe themselves more frequently as

naïve and impulsive. At the same time, Russians inhabiting poly-ethnic region have more

SOCIETY AND SECURITY INSIGHTS

30 № 2 2020

positive attitudes towards ethnic groups usually evaluated negatively (Caucasians), and

feel closer to indigenous groups, residing on its territory. e perception ofmigration also

diers, although semantically it has clear reference to Central Asian and more broadly to

Asians peoples: if inmono-ethnic region with higher international migration growth mi

grants possess explicit characteristics, inthe Republic ofAltai they are perceived as rather

abstract social category.

e research has revealed that the comparison ofown and other meta-ethnic enti

ties, forming grounds for symbolic boundaries and identication, is based on three prin-

cipal factors, comprising the factor ofgeneral evaluation, determining overall positive or

negative attitudes, distinction between friend and foe; the factor ofsocio-economic, tech

nological and cultural development, reecting global hierarchy ofpeoples and their ght

for the “place under the sun” and possibility to manage the world; and the factor ofbinary

opposition between the Western and Oriental cultures and civilizations.

Our research had objective restrictions, related to the coverage ofregions, repre

sented by only two ofthem, hence, the results obtained can’t be generalized to all Russia

and are relevant at least partially for regions with dominant Russian population and a spe

cic national republic. Nevertheless, the methodology based on the repertory grids has

proved to be heuristic for the ethnic identity analysis, and future research will be directed

towards further development ofthe original method, elaboration ofmodels, linking ethnic

and civic, global and local components ofthe Russian identity.

Funding: is research was supported by the Russian presidential grant for leading

scientic schools “Return migration and migration policy: adaptive strategies ofreturnees

and receiving population inborder regions ofRussia” [№ НШ-2632.2020.6].

 

Валынкин П.В. Этническая идентичность, этноаффилиация иэтнические стереоти

пы русских— коренных жителей Саратовской области. Вкн.: Этническая психоло-

гия иобщество. М. 1997. С. 145–155.

Волкогонова О.Д., Татаренко И.В. Этническая идентификация русских, или иску

шение национализмом. Мир России. Социология. Этнология, 2001, 10 (2), 149–166.

Гриценко В.В., Бражник Ю.В., Орлова А.П. Авто- игетеростереотипы как показате

ли степени выраженности эмоционального компонента этнической идентичности

младших школьников. Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия:

Психология ипедагогика, 2016, No. 4, 67–79.

Денисова Г.С., Уланов В.П. Русские на Северном Кавказе: анализ трансформации

социокультурного статуса. Ростов: РГПУ, 2003.

Дорожкин Ю.Н. Политическая система современной России: демократия или авто

ритаризм? Власть, 2016, No. 8, 14–18.

Дробижева Л.М. Идентичность иэтнические установки русских всвоей ииноэтни

ческой среде. Социологические исследования, 2010, No. 12, 49–58.

Дробижева Л.М., Рыжова С.В. Гражданская иэтническая идентичность иобраз же



№ 2 2020

лаемого государства вРоссии. Полис, 2015, No. 5, 9–24. doi:10.17976/jpps/2015.05.03

Дубов И.Г. Ментальность россиян: Специфика сознания больших групп населения

России. М.: Имидж-Контакт, 1997.

Евгеньева Т.В., Селезнева А.В. Образ «врага» как фактор формирования националь

ной идентичности современной российской молодежи. Полития. Анализ. Хроника.

Прогноз, 2007, 46(3), 83–89.

Жаде З.А. Российская цивилизационная идентичность вменяющемся мире. Власть,

2014, No. 4, 53–58. doi: 10.31171/vlast.v0i4.2601

Касьянова К. Орусском национальном характере. М.: Академический Проект, 2003.

Кондаков И.В., Соколов К.Б., Хренов Н.А. Цивилизационная идентичность впере

ходную эпоху. Москва: Прогресс-Традиция, 2011.

Лебедева Н.М. Новая русская диаспора: социально-психологический анализ. Мо

сква: Институт этнологии иантропологии Российской академии наук, 1997.

Лурье С.В. Метаморфозы традиционного сознания: опыт разработки теоретиче

ских основ этнопсихологии иих применения к анализу исторического иэтнографи-

ческого материала. Санкт-Петербург: Издательство Котлякова, 1994.

Новикова И. А., Оганнисян А. А., Шляхта Д. А. Соотношение индивидуально-лич

ностных факторов сэтническими стереотипами иустановками урусских иармян-

ских студентов. Психология образования в поликультурном пространстве, 2017,

No. 37, 53–64.

Пантин В.И. Политическая ицивилизационная самоидентификация современного

российского общества вусловиях глобализации. Полис, 2008, No. 3, 29–39.

Петренко В.Ф. Основы психосемантики. Москва: Литрес, 2015.

Петренко В.Ф. Психосемантика сознания. Москва: Рипол Классик, 1988.

Почебут Л.Г. Психология иценностные ориентации русского народа. Вкн.: Этниче

ская психология иобщество: Изд-во ИЭА РАН, 1997. С. 115-119.

Самыгин С.И., Верещагина А.В., Белов М.Т. Угрозы национальной идентичности

винформационном пространстве современного социума ириски информационной

безопасности. Экономические игуманитарные исследования регионов, 2015, No.4,

78–85.

Сикевич З. Национальное самосознание русских: Социологический очерк. M.: Ме

ханик, 1996.

Солдатова Г.У. Психология межэтнической напряженности. Москва: Смысл, 1998.

Стефаненко Т.Г. Этническая идентичность: отэтнологии к социальной психологии.

Вестник Московского университета. Серия 14. Психология, 2009, No:2, 3–17.

Татарко А.Н., Лебедева Н.М. Методы этнической икросскультурной психологии.

М.: НИУ ВШЭ, 2011. doi:10.17323/978-5-7598-0867-1.

Уфимцева Н.В. Русские: опыт еще одного самопознания. В кн.: Этнокультурная

специфика языкового сознания. Москва: Эйдос, 1996. С. 139-162.

SOCIETY AND SECURITY INSIGHTS

32 № 2 2020

Чернова О.В. Психологические аспекты роста национального самосознания рус-

ских. Вкн.: Лебедева Н.М. (Ред.) Этническая психология иобщество. Москва: Ин-

ститут этнологии иантропологии РАН, 1997. С. 126–130.

Шестопал Е.Б., Брицкий Г.О., Денисенко М.В. Этнические стереотипы русских. Со

циологические исследования, 1999, No. 4, 62–70.

Шмелев А.Г. Традиционная психометрика и экспериментальная психосемантика:

объектная исубъектная парадигмы анализа данных. Вопросы психологии, 1982, No.

5, 36–46.

Adams‐Webber J. Elicited Versus Provided Constructs in Repertory Grid Technique:

AReview. British Journal ofMedical Psychology, 1970, 43 (4), 349–54.

Allik J, Alyamkina E., Meshcheryakov B. e Personality Stereotypes of ree Cohabiting

Ethnic Groups: Erzians, Mokshans, and Russians. Cross-Cultural Research, 2015, no 2, 111–134.

Berberyan A., Berberyan H.S. Ethnopsychological Aspects ofthe Meaning-of-Life and

Value Orientations ofArmenian and Russian Student. Psychology inRussia: State ofthe

Art, 2016, no 1, 121–137. doi:10.11621/pir.2016.0109

Bisin A., Patacchini E., Verdier T., Zenou Y. Bend It Like Beckham: Ethnic Identity

and Integration. European Economic Review, 2016, no 90, 146–164. doi:10.1016/j.

euroecorev.2016.01.006

Brittian A.S., Kim S.Y., Armenta B.E., Lee R.M., Umaña-Taylor A.J., Schwartz S.J., Castillo

L.G. Do Dimensions ofEthnic Identity Mediate the Association Between Perceived Ethnic

Group Discrimination and Depressive Symptoms? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority

Psychology, 2015, no 1, 41–53. doi:10.1037/a0037531

Caputi P., Viney L.L., Walker B.M., Crittenden N. Personal Construct Methodology. John

Wiley & Sons, 2011.

Cohen E.H. Components and Symbols of Ethnic Identity: A Case Study in Informal

Education and Identity Formation inDiaspora. Applied Psychology, 2004, no 1, 87–112.

doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00162.x

Cokley K. Critical Issues inthe Measurement ofEthnic and Racial Identity: A Referendum

on the State of the Field. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2007, no 3, 224–234.

doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.224

De Vos G., Romanucci-Ross L. Ethnic Identity: A Psychocultural Perspective. In:

L.Romanucci-Ross, G.A. De Vos (Eds.), Ethnic Identity: Creation, Conict, and

Accommodation. Rowman Altamira, 1995. P. 349–380.

Eriksen T.H. Ethnicity. e Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia ofGlobalization, 2012.

Evans N.J., Forney D.S., Guido F.M., Patton L.D., Renn K.A. Student Development inCollege:

Research, eory, and Practice. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

Fransella F., Bell R., Bannister D. A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique. John Wiley &

Sons, 2004.

Grossman B., Wirt R., Davids A. Self-Esteem, Ethnic Identity, and Behavioral Adjustment

Among Anglo and Chicano Adolescents inWest Texas. Journal ofAdolescence, 1985, 8 (1),

57–58.



№ 2 2020

Gummadam P., Pittman L.D., Ioe M. School Belonging, Ethnic Identity, and Psychological

Adjustment Among Ethnic Minority College Students. e Journal of Experimental

Education, 2016, 84 (2), 289–306. doi:10.1080/00220973.2015.1048844.

Hakenbeck S.E. Situational Ethnicity and Nested Identities: New Approaches to an Old

Problem. Anglo-Saxon Studies inArchaeology and History, 2007, No. 14, 19–25.

Heckmann M. OpenRepGrid: An R Package for the Analysis ofRepertory Grids. ZENODO,

7 September, 2014. doi:10.5281/zenodo.11623.

Holton R.J. Globalization and the Nation State. Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. doi:10.1007/978-

1-349-26636-4.

Ikram U.Z., Snijder M.B., de Wit M.A., Schene A.H., Stronks K., Kunst A.E. Perceived

Ethnic Discrimination and Depressive Symptoms: e Buering Eects ofEthnic Identity,

Religion and Ethnic Social Network. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2016,

No. 5, 679–688. doi:10.1007/s00127-016-1186-7.

Jankowicz D. e Easy Guide to Repertory Grids. John Wiley & Sons, 2005.

Kagan O., Dillon K. 2001. A New Perspective on Teaching Russian: Focus on the Heritage

Learner. e Slavic and East European Journal, 2001, No. 3, 507–518. doi:10.2307/3086367.

Kelly G. e Psychology ofPersonal Constructs. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1955.

Kelly G. e Psychology of Personal Constructs: Volume Two: Clinical Diagnosis and

Psychotherapy. Routledge, 2003.

Kolaczyk E.D., Csárdi G.G. Statistical Analysis ofNetwork Data with R. New York: Springer,

2014.

Lee J.P., Lee R.M., Hu A.W., Kim O.M. Ethnic Identity as a Moderator against Discrimination

for Transracially and Transnationally Adopted Korean American Adolescents. Asian

American Journal ofPsychology, 2015, No. 2, 154–163. doi:10.1037/a0038360.

Matute-Bianchi M. E. Situational Ethnicity and Patterns ofSchool Performance among

Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Mexican-Descent Students. In: J.U. Ogbu (Ed.), Minority

status, oppositional culture, and schooling. New York: Routledge, 2008.

Moise R.K., Meca A., Schwartz S.J., Unger J.B., Lorenzo-Blanco E.I., Ángel Cano M.C.,

Lizzi K.M. e Use ofCultural Identity inPredicting Health Lifestyle Behaviors inLatinx

Immiigrant Adolescents. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 2019, No. 3,

371–378. doi:10.1037/cdp0000229.

Morland J.K., Williams J.E. Cross-Cultural Measurement or Racial and Ethnic Attitudes by

the Semantic Dierential. Social Forces, 1979, No. 1, 107–112. doi: 10.2307/2575474

Nagel J. Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic Identity and Culture.

Social Problems, 1994, No. 1, 152–176. doi:10.2307/3096847

Omelchenko D., Maximova S., Noyanzina O., Goncharova N., Avdeeva G. National Identity

and Patriotism among Russian Youth: Representations, Feelings and Actions. Asian Social

Science, 2015, No. 6, 27–37. doi:10.5539/ass.v11n6p27

Paredes M. Fluid identities: Exploring ethnicity inPeru. Centre for Research on Inequality,

Human Security and Ethnicity, 2007.

SOCIETY AND SECURITY INSIGHTS

34 № 2 2020

Petrenko V.F., Mitina O.V., Bertnikov K.A. Russian Citizens’ Representations of the

Country’s Position inthe Geopolitical Space ofthe Commonwealth ofIndependent States,

Europe, and the World. European psychologist, 2003, No. 4, 238–251. doi: 10.1027/1016-

9040.8.4.238

Phinney J. Ethic Identity and Acculturation. In: K. M. Chun, P. Balls Organista, and G.Marín

(Eds.), Acculturation: Advances intheory, measurement, and applied research, 2003. pp. 63-

81. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10472-006.

Phinney J. e Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A New Scale for Use with Adolescents

and Young Adults from Diverse Groups. Journal ofAdolescent Research, 1992, No. 7, 156–

176.

Phinney J.S., Ong A.D. Conceptualization and Measurement ofEthnic Identity: Current

Status and Future Directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2007, No. 3, 271–281.

doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.271.

Rohn U. Lacuna or Universal? Introducing a New Model for Understanding Cross-Cultural

Audience Demand. Media, Culture & Society, 2011, No 4, 631–641.

Romero A.J., Edwards L.M., Fryberg S.A., Orduña M. Resilience to Discrimination Stress

across Ethnic Identity Stages ofDevelopment. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 2014,

No. 1, 1–11. doi:10.1111/jasp.12192.

Santos C.E., Umaña-Taylor A.J. Studying ethnic identity: Methodological and conceptual

approaches across disciplines. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association,

2015.

Stronge S., Sengupta N.K., Barlow F.K., Osborne D., Houkamau C.A., Sibley Ch.G.

Perceived Discrimination Predicts Increased Support for Political Rights and Life

Satisfaction Mediated by Ethnic Identity: A Longitudinal Analysis. Cultural Diversity and

Ethnic Minority Psychology, 2016, No. 3, 359–368. doi:10.1037/cdp0000074.

Suzuki R., Shimodaira H. Pvclust: An R Package for Assessing the Uncertainty

inHierarchical Clustering. Bioinformatics, 2006, No.12, 1540–1542.

Tajfel H. Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Tajfel H., Turner J.C. e Social Identity eory ofIntergroup Behavior. In: J.T. Jost, J.

Sidanius (Eds.), Key Readings inSocial Psychology. Political Psychology: Key Readings. New

York, NY, US: Psychology Press, 2004. P. 276–293.

Taras V. Catalogue ofInstruments for Measuring Culture. Calgary, AB: University ofCalgary,

2008.

Van de Vijver F.J., Blommaert J., Gkoumasi G., Stogianni M. On the Need to Broaden the

Concept ofEthnic Identity. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 2015, No. 46,

36–46. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.021.

Verkuyten M. e Social Psychology of Ethnic Identity. Psychology Press, 2004.

doi:10.4324/9780203338704.

Xu Y., Farver J.A.M., Pauker K. Ethnic Identity and Self‐Esteem among Asian and European

Americans: When a Minority Is the Majority and the Majority Is a Minority. European

Journal ofSocial Psychology, 2015, No. 1, 62–76. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2061





№ 2 2020

Yoon E. Measuring Ethnic Identity inthe Ethnic Identity Scale and the Multigroup Ethnic

Identity Measure-Revised. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 2011, No. 2,

144–155. doi:10.1037/a0023361.

REFERENCES

Valynkin, P.V. (1997). Ehtnicheskaya identichnost’, ehtnoaliaciya i ehtnicheskie stereoti

py russkih— korennyh zhitelej Saratovskoj oblasti [Ethnic Identity, Ethno-Aoliation and

Ethnic Stereotypes ofRussians— Indigenous Inhabitants ofe Saratov Oblast]. In: Et

nicheskaya psihologiya i obshchestvo [Ethnic Psychology and Society] (pp.145–155). Mos-

cow.

Volkogonova, O.D., Tatarenko, I.I. (2001). Ehtnicheskaya identikatsiya russkikh, ili isk

ushenie natsionalizmom [Ethnic Identication ofRussians or Temptation ofNationalism].

World ofRussia. Sociology. Ethnology, 10 (2), 149–166.

Gricenko, V.V., Brazhnik, Yu.V., Orlova, A.P. (2016). Avto- i GETEROSTEREOTIPY kak

pokazateli stepeni vyrazhennosti emocional’nogo komponenta etnicheskoj identichnosti

mladshih shkol’nikov [Auto- and Heterostereotypes As Indicators ofExpressiveness De

gree inPrimary School Age Children’s Ethnic Identity Emotional Component]. Vestnik

Rossijskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Psihologiya i pedagogika, no 4, 67–79.

Denisova, G.S., Ulanov, V.P. (2003). Russkie na Severnom Kavkaze: analiz transformatsii

sotsiokul’turnogo statusa [Russians at the North Caucasus: e Analysis ofSocial Status

Transformation]. Rostov: Rostov State Pedagogical University.

Dorozhkin, Yu.N. (2016). Politicheskaya sistema sovremennoj Rossii: demokratiya ili

avtoritarizm? [Russia’s Present-Day Political System: Democracy or Authoritarianism?]

Vlast’, no 8, 14–18.

Drobizheva, L.M. (2010). Identichnost’ i ehtnicheskie ustanovki russkih v svoej i inoeht

nicheskoj srede [Identity and Identical Attitudes ofRussians inOwn and Other Ethnical

Environment]. Sociologicheskie Issledovaniya, no 12, 49–58.

Drobizheva, L.M., Ryzhova, S.V. (2015). Grazhdanskaya i etnicheskaya identichnost’ i

obraz zhelaemogo gosudarstva v Rossii [Civic and Ethnic Identity and Perception ofthe

Preferable State inRussia]. Polis, no 5, 9–24. doi:10.17976/jpps/2015.05.03.

Dubov, I.G. (1997). Mental’nost’ rossiyan. Specika soznaniya bol’shih grupp naseleniya

Rossii [Menatlity ofRussians. Specics ofConscience ofBig Groups ofPopulation ofRus

sia]. Moscow: Imidzh-Kontakt.

Evgenieva, T.V., Selezneva, A.V. (2007). Obraz «vraga» kak faktor formirovaniya nacion

al’noj identichnosti sovremennoj rossijskoj molodezhi [“Enemy” Image As the Factor

ofthe Formation ofModern Russian Youth’s National Identity]. Politeia. Analysis. Chron

icle. Forecast, 46 (3), 83–89.

Zhade, Z.A. (2014). Rossijskaya civilizacionnaya identichnost’ v menyayushchemsya mire

[Russian Civilizational Identity ina Changing World]. Vlast’, no 4, 53–58. doi: 10.31171/

vlast.v0i4.2601

Kasyanova, K. (2004). O Russkom Nacional’nom Haraktere [About Russian National Char

acter]. Moscow: Akademicheskij Proekt.

SOCIETY AND SECURITY INSIGHTS

 № 2 2020

Kondakov, I.V., Sokolov, K.B., Khrenov, N.A. (2011). Civilizacionnaya identichnost’ v pe-

rehodnuyu epohu [Civilizational Identity inTransitory Age]. Moscow: Progress-Tradiciya.

Lebedeva, N.M. (1997). Novaya russkaya diaspora: social’no-psihologicheskij analiz [New

Russian Diaspora: Social-Psychological Analysis]. Moscow: Institute of Ethnology and

Anthropology ofthe Russian Academy ofSciences.

Lur’e, S.V. (1994). Metamorfozy tradicionnogo soznaniya: opyt razrabotki teoreticheskih os

nov etnopsihologii i ih primeneniya k analizu istoricheskogo i etnogracheskogo materiala

[Metamorphoses ofTraditional Conscience: Experience ofElaboration ofeoretical Ba

sis ofEthnopsychology and eir Application to the Analysis ofHistorical and Ethno-

graphic Material]. Saint-Petersburg, Kotlyakov Publishing House.

Novikova, I.A., Ogannisyan, A.A., Shlyahta, D.A. (2017). Sootnoshenie individual’no-lich

nostnyh faktorov s etnicheskimi stereotipami i ustanovkami u russkih i armyanskih stu-

dentov [Relations ofBig Five Factors with Ethnic Stereotypes and Attitudes inRussian and

Armenian Students]. Educational Psychology inPolycultural Space, no 37, 53–64.

Pantin, V.I. (2008). politicheskaya i civilizacionnaya samoidentikaciya sovremennogo

rossijskogo obshhestva v usloviyah globalizacii [Political and Civilizational Self-Identica

tion ofContemporary Russian Society inthe Context ofGlobalization]. Polis, no. 3, 29–39.

Petrenko, V.F. (2015). Osnovy psihosemantiki [Basis ofpsychosemantics]. Moscow: Litres.

Petrenko, V.F. (1988). Psihosemantika soznaniya [Psychosemantics ofthe consciousness].

Moscow: Ripol Klassik.

Pochebut, L.G. (1997). Psihologiya i cennostnye orientacii russkogo naroda [Psychology

and Value-Based Orientation ofthe Russian People]. In: Etnicheskaya psihologiya i obsh

chestvo [Ethnic psychology and society] (pp. 115–119). Institute ofethnology and anthro-

pology ofthe Russian Academy ofSciences.

Samygin, S.I., Vereshchagina, A.V., Belov, M.T. (2015). Ugrozy nacional’noj identichnosti v

informacionnom prostranstve sovremennogo sociuma i riski informacionnoj bezopasnos

ti [reats ofNational Identity ine Information Space ofModern Society and Informa-

tion Security Risks]. Economic and Humanities Research Areas, no. 4, 78–85.

Sikevich, Z. (1996). Nacional’noe samosoznanie russkih. Sociologicheskij ocherk [National

Conscience ofRussians. Sociological Essay]. Moscow: Mehanik.

Soldatova, G.U. (1998). Psihologiya mezhetnicheskoj napryazhennosti [Psychology ofIn

ter-Ethnic Tension]. Moscow: Smysl.

Stefanenko, T.G. (2009). Etnicheskaya identichnost’: ot ehtnologii k social’noj psiholoii

[Ethnic Identity: from Ethnology to Social Psychology]. e Moscow University Herald.

Series 14. Psychology, no 2, 3–17.

Tatarko, A., Lebedeva, N. (2011). Metody etnicheskoj i krosskul’turnoj psihologii [Meth

ods ofEthnic and Cross-Cultural Psychology]. Moscow: HSE. doi:10.17323/978-5-7598-

0867-1

Umceva, N.V. (1996). Russkie: Opyt Eshche Odnogo Samopoznaniya [Russians: Expe

rience of Another Self-Knowledge]. In: Etnokul’turnaya specika yazykovogo soznaniya

[Ethnocultural Specics ofLanguage Conscience] (pp. 139–162). Moscow: Eydos.





№ 2 2020

Chernova, O.V. (1997). Psihologicheskie Aspekty Rosta Nacional’nogo Samosoznaniya

Russkih [Psychological Aspects ofGrowth oftahe National Consciousness ofRussians].

In: Etnicheskaya psihologiya i obshchestvo [Ethnic Psychology and Society] (pp. 126–130).

Moscow: Institute ofEthnology and Anthropology ofthe Russian Academy ofSciences.

Shestopal, E.B., Brickij, G.O., Denisenko, M.V. (1999). Ehtnicheskie stereotipy russkih

[Ethnic Stereotypes ofRussians]. Sotsiologicheskye Issledovaniya, no 4, 62–70.

Shmelev, A.G. (1982). Tradicionnaya psihometrika i eksperimental’naya psihosemantika:

ob”ektnaya i sub”ektnaya paradigmy analiza dannyh [Traditional psychometrics and ex

perimental psychosemantics: object and subject paradigms ofdata analysis]. Voprosy Psy-

chologii, no 5, 36–46.

Adams‐Webber, J. (1970). Elicited Versus Provided Constructs inRepertory Grid Tech

nique: A Review. British Journal ofMedical Psychology, 43 (4), 349–354.

Allik, J., Alyamkina, E., Meshcheryakov, B. (2015). e Personality Stereotypes ofree

Cohabiting Ethnic Groups: Erzians, Mokshans, and Russians. Cross-Cultural Research, no

2, 111–134.

Berberyan, A., Berberyan, H.S. (2016). Ethnopsychological Aspects ofthe Meaning-of-

Life and Value Orientations ofArmenian and Russian Student. Psychology inRussia: State

ofthe Art, no 1, 127–137. doi:10.11621/pir.2016.0109

Bisin, A., Patacchini, E., Verdier, T., Zenou, Y. (2016). Bend It Like Beckham: Ethnic Iden

tity and Integration. European Economic Review, no 90, 146–164. doi:10.1016/j.euroecor-

ev.2016.01.006

Brittian, A.S., Kim, S.Y., Armenta, B.E., Lee, R.M., Umaña-Taylor, A.J., Schwartz, S.J., Cas

tillo, L.G. (2015). Do Dimensions ofEthnic Identity Mediate the Association Between Per-

ceived Ethnic Group Discrimination and Depressive Symptoms? Cultural Diversity and

Ethnic Minority Psychology, no 1, 41–53. doi:10.1037/a0037531

Caputi, P., Viney, L.L., Walker, B.M., Crittenden, N. (2011). Personal Construct Methodol

ogy. John Wiley & Sons.

Cohen, E.H. (2004). Components and Symbols ofEthnic Identity: A Case Study inIn

formal Education and Identity Formation inDiaspora. Applied Psychology, no 1, 87–112.

doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00162.x

Cokley, K. (2007). Critical Issues inthe Measurement ofEthnic and Racial Identity: A

Referendum on the State ofthe Field. Journal of Counseling Psychology, no 3, 224–234.

doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.224.

De Vos, G., Romanucci-Ross, L. (1995). Ethnic Identity: A Psychocultural Perspective. In:

L.Romanucci-Ross, G.A. De Vos (Eds.), Ethnic Identity: Creation, Conict, and Accommo

dation (pp. 349–380). Rowman Altamira.

Eriksen, T.H. (2012). Ethnicity. e Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia ofGlobalization.

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F.M., Patton, L.D., Renn, K.A. (2010). Student Develop

ment inCollege: Research, eory, and Practice. John Wiley & Sons.

Fransella, F., Bell, R., Bannister, D. (2004). A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique. John

Wiley & Sons.

SOCIETY AND SECURITY INSIGHTS

38 № 2 2020

Grossman, B., Wirt, R., Davids, A. (1985). Self-Esteem, Ethnic Identity, and Behavioral

Adjustment Among Anglo and Chicano Adolescents inWest Texas. Journal ofAdolescence,

8 (1), 57–68.

Gummadam, P., Pittman, L.D., Ioe, M. (2016). School Belonging, Ethnic Identity, and

Psychological Adjustment Among Ethnic Minority College Students. e Journal ofExper

imental Education, 84 (2), 289–306. doi:10.1080/00220973.2015.1048844.

Hakenbeck, S.E. (2007). Situational Ethnicity and Nested Identities: New Approaches to an

Old Problem. AngloSaxon Studies inArchaeology and History, no 14, 19–25.

Heckmann, M. (2014). OpenRepGrid: An R Package for the Analysis ofRepertory Grids.

ZENODO, 7 September. doi:10.5281/zenodo.11623.

Holton, R. (2011). Globalization and the Nation State. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-

1-349-26636-4

Ikram, U.Z., Snijder, M.B., de Wit, M.A., Schene, A.H., Stronks, K., Kunst, A.E. (2016). Per

ceived Ethnic Discrimination and Depressive Symptoms: e Buering Eects ofEthnic

Identity, Religion and Ethnic Social Network. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiolo

gy, no 5, 679–688. doi:10.1007/s00127-016-1186-7.

Jankowicz, D. (2005). e Easy Guide to Repertory Grids. John Wiley & Sons.

Kagan, O. Dillon, K. (2001). A New Perspective on Teaching Russian: Focus on the Her

itage Learner. e Slavic and East European Journal, no 3, 507–518. doi:10.2307/3086367.

Kelly, G. (1955). e Psychology ofPersonal Constructs. New York: W. W. Norton & Com

pany.

Kelly, G. (2003). e Psychology ofPersonal Constructs: Volume Two: Clinical Diagnosis and

Psychotherapy. Routledge.

Kolaczyk, E.D., Csárdi, G.G. (2014). Statistical Analysis ofNetwork Data with R. New York:

Springer.

Lee, J.P., Lee, R.M., Hu, A.W., Kim, O.M. (2015). Ethnic Identity as a Moderator against

Discrimination for Transracially and Transnationally Adopted Korean American Adoles

cents. Asian American Journal ofPsychology, no 2, 154–163. doi:10.1037/a0038360.

Matute-Bianchi, M.E. (2008). Situational Ethnicity and Patterns ofSchool Performance

among Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Mexican-Descent Students. In: J.U. Ogbu (Ed). Mi

nority status, oppositional culture, and schooling (pp. 397–432). New York: Routledge.

Moise, R.K., Meca, A., Schwartz, S.J., Unger, J.B., Lorenzo-Blanco, E.I., Ángel Cano, M.C.,

Lizzi, K.M. (2019). e Use ofCultural Identity inPredicting Health Lifestyle Behaviors

inLatinx Immiigrant Adolescents. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, no 3,

371–378. doi:10.1037/cdp0000229.

Morland, J.K., Williams, J.E. (1979). Cross-Cultural Measurement or Racial and

Ethnic Attitudes by the Semantic Differential. Social Forces, no 1, 107–112. doi:

10.2307/2575474

Nagel, J. (1994). Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic Identity and Cul

ture. Social Problems, no 1, 152–176. doi:10.2307/3096847



№ 2 2020

Omelchenko, D., Maximova, S., Noyanzina, O., Goncharova, N., Avdeeva, G. Nation-

al Identity and Patriotism among Russian Youth: Representations, Feelings and Actions.

Asian Social Science, no 6, 27–37. doi:10.5539/ass.v11n6p27

Paredes, M. (2007). Fluid identities: Exploring ethnicity inPeru. Centre for Research on

Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity.

Petrenko, V.F., Mitina, O.V., Bertnikov, K.A. (2003). Russian Citizens’ Representations

ofthe Country’s Position inthe Geopolitical Space ofthe Commonwealth ofIndependent

States, Europe, and the World. European Psychologist, no 4, 238–251. doi: 10.1027/1016-

9040.8.4.238

Phinney, J. (2003). Ethic Identity and Acculturation. In: K. M. Chun, P. Balls Organista,

G.Marín (Eds). Acculturation: Advances intheory, measurement, and applied research (pp.

63-81). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10472-006.

Phinney, J. (1992). e Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A New Scale for Use with

Adolescents and Young Adults from Diverse Groups. Journal ofAdolescent Research, no7,

156–176.

Phinney, J.S., Ong, A.D. (2007). Conceptualization and Measurement ofEthnic Identity:

Current Status and Future Directions. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, no 3, 271–281.

doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.271.

Rohn, U. (2011). Lacuna or Universal? Introducing a New Model for Understanding

Cross-Cultural Audience Demand. Media, Culture & Society, no 4, 631–641.

Romero, A.J., Edwards, L.M., Fryberg, S.A., Orduña, M. (2014). Resilience to Discrimina

tion Stress across Ethnic Identity Stages ofDevelopment. Journal ofApplied Social Psychol-

ogy, no 1, 1–11. doi:10.1111/jasp.12192.

Santos, C.E., Umaña-Taylor, A.J. (2015). Studying Ethnic Identity: Methodological and Con

ceptual Approaches Across Disciplines. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological As-

sociation.

Stronge, S., Sengupta, N.K., Barlow, F.K., Osborne, D., Houkamau, C.A., Sibley, Ch.G.

(2016). Perceived Discrimination Predicts Increased Support for Political Rights and Life

Satisfaction Mediated by Ethnic Identity: A Longitudinal Analysis. Cultural Diversity and

Ethnic Minority Psychology, no 3, 359–368. doi:10.1037/cdp0000074

Suzuki, R., Shimodaira, H. (2006). Pvclust: An R Package for Assessing the Uncertainty

inHierarchical Clustering. Bioinformatics, no 12, 1540–1542.

Tajfel, H. (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C. (2004). e Social Identity eory of Intergroup Behavior. In:

J.T.Jost, J. Sidanius (Eds), Key Readings inSocial Psychology. Political Psychology: Key Read

ings (pp. 276–293). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.

Taras, V. (2008). Catalogue ofInstruments for Measuring Culture. Calgary, AB: University

ofCalgary.

Van de Vijver, F.J., Blommaert, J., Gkoumasi, G., Stogianni, M. (2015). On the Need to

Broaden the Concept ofEthnic Identity. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, no

46, 36–46. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.021.

SOCIETY AND SECURITY INSIGHTS

40 № 2 2020

Verkuyten, M. (2004). e Social Psychology of Ethnic Identity. Psychology Press.

doi:10.4324/9780203338704

Xu, Y., Farver, J.A.M., Pauker, K. (2015). Ethnic Identity and Self‐Esteem among Asian and

European Americans: When a Minority Is the Majority and the Majority Is a Minority.

European Journal ofSocial Psychology, no 1, 62–76. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2061

Yoon, E. (2011). Measuring Ethnic Identity inthe Ethnic Identity Scale and the Multigroup

Ethnic Identity Measure-Revised. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, no 2,

144–155. doi:10.1037/a0023361.