The Role of Liking and Social Identities in the Attitudes of Russians toward Other Nations

 
PIIS086904990007566-4-1
DOI10.31857/S086904990007566-4
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: PhD Student, Doctoral School of Psychology, Social Sciences Faculty Researcher-Intern of the International Research and Teaching Laboratory for Socio-Cultural Research, Expert Institute, National Research University “Higher School of Economicsˮ
Affiliation:
Department of sociology
Expert Institute of the National research University " Higher school of Economics "
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Occupation: Head of the International Research and Teaching Laboratory for Socio-Cultural Research, Expert Institute, National Research University “Higher School of Economicsˮ
Affiliation: Doctor of psychology, Professor, Department of psychology, faculty of social Sciences
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameObshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost
EditionIssue 6
Pages141-156
Abstract

This article examines the association between liking, multiple identities, and attitudes of Russians toward other nations. Eighty-five Russians participated in an online survey incorporating measures of affective attitudes, self-identification, feelings of liking, and factors indicating group-related bias. It was revealed that liking other nations was directly related to perceived similarity with them. Social identities showed nation-specific effects: national identity was positively associated with both culturally similar (Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Serbians) and culturally distinct nations (Americans); European identity was positively related to intercultural contacts with countries perceived as having common European roots (Germany, USA); and religious identity had negative relation to liking of non-Christian nations. Further, appreciation for cultural diversity facilitated the frequency of intercultural contacts and liking of the members of other nations

Keywordssocial identity, liking, affective attitudes, multiculturalism, nations
Received19.12.2019
Publication date23.12.2019
Number of characters31523
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной
1 Человеческие установки и отношения в значительной степени зависят от субъективных факторов. С одной стороны, социальная идентичность и членство в разных группах влияют на отношение к представителям других групп и могут быть источником и позитивных, и негативных установок, даже предрассудков и дискриминации [Dovidio, Gaertner 2010]. С другой стороны, к предвзятым суждениям могут привести и эмоциональные факторы [Loewenstein, Lerner 2003]. Определенные эмоции регулируют и направляют взаимодействие представителей социальных групп (например, гнев, страх, отвращение, восхищение) и предсказывают их специфические реакции (например, конфронтация, избегание, исключение, принадлежность или поддержка) [Mackie, Smith, Ray 2008]. Исследования показали, что чувства гнева и отвращения к определенным группам предполагают враждебное поведение [Mackie, Devos, Smith 2000] и нежелание вступать в контакт с их представителями [Esses, Dovidio 2002], в то время как межгрупповые страхи предсказывают избегание и нежелание противостоять и атаковать [Dumont, Yzerbyt, Wigboldus, Gordin 2003]. Межгрупповая вина провоцирует уступчивость [Leach, Iyler, Pedersen 2006] и готовность к извинениям [McGarty, Pedersen, Leach, Mansell, Waller, Bliuc 2005].
2 Так как в современных условиях расширяются возможности взаимодействия разных групп и культур и ставятся вопросы улучшения межкультурных отношений, настоящее исследование направлено на изучение роли множественных социальных идентичностей и симпатии в формировании межкультурных установок россиян по отношению к представителям разных национальных групп. Эта тема актуальна, и данное исследование предлагает новый взгляд на межкультурные отношения россиян с представителями других национальных групп, ставя акцент на значимости внутренних мотиваторов межгруппового взаимодействия.
3 Аффективный компонент аттитюдов Аттитюды описываются как механизмы, бессознательно направляющие поведение человека [Fazio, Olson 2003] и функционирующие как постоянные когнитивные структуры, которые хранятся в человеческой памяти [Fazio, Williams 1986]. Они активируются автоматически и служат фильтрами представлений о разных объектах [Asch 1940]. Это означает, что сразу после активации аттитюды направляют восприятие других объектов, и поэтому последующие суждения и поведение оказываются спонтанной реакцией на непосредственные восприятия.
4 Согласно трехкомпонентной модели установок, эмоции, настроения и чувства привязаны к оценке и впоследствии ассоциируются с объектом как отражение аффективного компонента [Eagly, Chaiken 1998]. Говорилось и об аффективном компоненте установок как об эмоции, ориентированной на определенный объект, более непосредственной и спонтанной и менее подверженной воздействию доступных когнитивных процессов, чем другие эмоции [Ortony, Clore, Collins 1988]. Например, исследования установок продемонстрировали, что респонденты реагировали на свои чувства и эмоции по отношению к объектам быстрее, чем на мысли об объектах [Verplanken, Hofstee, Janssen 1998]. Установок, основанных на аффективных реакциях, обследуемые придерживались с большей уверенностью по сравнению с когнитивно обоснованными [Edwards 1990], а аффективный компонент установок продемонстрировал особую значимость в качестве прямого мотиватора поведения человека [Peters 2006]. Проведенные исследования связи аффективного компонента и поведения подтвердили значение эмоций, так как эмоциональные оценки воспринимаются как более достоверные, чем неэмоциональные [Fazio 1995], и они напрямую связаны с поведением [Chen, Bargh 1999].

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 569

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Allport G.W. (1991) The nature of prejudice. Oxford: Addison-Wesley.

2. Asch S.E. (1940) Studies in the principles of judgments and attitudes: II. Determination of judgments by group and ego standards. Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 12, pp. 433–465.

3. Barrett M., Davis S.C. (2008) Applying social identity and self-categorization theories to children’s racial, ethnic, national, and state identifications and attitudes. The Handbook of Race, Racism and the Developing Child. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, pp. 72–110.

4. Brewer M.B. (2001) The many faces of social identity: Implications for political psychology. Political Psychology, vol. 22, pp. 115–125.

5. Byrne D., Clore G.L. Jr., Worchel P. (1966) Effect of economic similarity-dissimilarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 220–224.

6. Chambers J.R., Schlenker B.R., Collisson B. (2013) Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science, vol. 24, pp. 140–149.

7. Checkel J.T., Katzenstein P.J. (2009) European identity. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

8. Chen F.F., Kenrick D.T. (2002) Repulsion or attraction? Group membership and assumed attitude similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 111–125.

9. Chen M., Bargh J.A. (1999) Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 215–224.

10. Chen X., Graham S. (2015) Cross-Ethnic Friendships and Intergroup Attitudes Among Asian American Adolescents. Child Development, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 749–764.

11. Clement R.W., Krueger J. (2002) Social categorization moderates social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 38, pp. 219–231.

12. Cohen G. L., Garcia J. (2005) "I Am Us": Negative Stereotypes as Collective Threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 566–582.

13. Dovidio J.F., Gaertner S.L. (2010) Intergroup bias. Handbook of social psychology. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons Inc., pp. 1084–1121.

14. Dovidio J.F., Gaertner S.L., Kafati G. (2000) Group identity and intergroup relations: The common in-group identity model. Advances in Group Processes. Stamford (CT): JAI, pp. 1–35.

15. Dumont M., Yzerbyt V.Y., Wigboldus D., Gordijn E. (2003) Social categorization and fear reactions to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulleti, vol. 29, pp. 112–123.

16. Eagly A.H., Chaiken S. (1998) Attitude structure and function. Handbook of social psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill, pp. 269–322.

17. Edwards K. (1990) The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 202–216.

18. Epley N., Waytz A. (2010) Mind perception. Handbook of social psychology. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons Inc., pp. 498–541.

19. Esses V.M., Dovidio J.F. (2002) The role of emotions in determining willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1202–1214.

20. Fazio R.H. (1995) Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. Ohio State University series on attitudes and persuasion, Vol. 4. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 247–282.

21. Fazio R.H., Olson M.A. (2003) Implicit Measures in Social Cognition Research Their Meaning and Uses. Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 54, pp. 297–327.

22. Fazio R., Williams C.J. (1986) Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of personality and social psychology, vol. 51, pp. 505–514.

23. Gaertner S.L., Dovidio J.F., Rust M.C., Banker B.C., Ward C. M, Mottolo G.M., Houlette M. (1999) Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 76, pp. 388–402.

24. Garcia-Retamero R., Muller S., Rousseau D. (2012) The Impact of Value Similarity and Power on the Perception of Threat. Political Psychology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 179–93.

25. Heider F. (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons Inc.

26. Hogg M.A., Abrams D., Brewer M.B. (2017) Social identity: The role of self in group processes and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 570–581.

27. Kaprio J., Koskenvuou M., Rose R.J. (1990) Change in cohabitation and intra-pair similarity of monozygotic (MZ) cotwins for alcohol use, extroversion, and neuroticism. Behavior Genetics, vol. 20, pp. 265–276.

28. Karna M.N. (1999) Language, Region and National Identity. Sociological Bulletin, vol. 48, no. 1–2, pp. 75–96.

29. Leach C., Iyer A., Pedersen A. (2006) Anger and guilt about in-group advantage explain willingness for political action. Personality & social psychology bulletin, vol. 32, pp. 1232–1245.

30. Loewenstein G., Lerner J.S. (2003) The role of affect in decision making. Handbook of Affective Science. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 619–642.

31. Mackie D.M., Devos T., Smith E.R. (2000) Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 79, pp. 602– 616.

32. Mackie D.M., Devos T., Smith E.R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive actions in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol.79, pp. 602–616.

33. Mackie D.M., Smith E.R., Ray D.G. (2008) Intergroup emotions and intergroup relations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, vol. 2, pp. 1866–1880.

34. McGarty C., Pedersen A., Leach C., Mansell T., Waller J., Bliuc A-M. (2006) Group?based guilt as a predictor of commitment to apology. The British journal of social psychology, vol. 44, pp. 659–680.

35. Mitchell K. (2015) Rethinking the “Erasmus Effect” on European Identity. Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 330–348.

36. Ortony A., Clore G. L., Collins A. (1998) The cognitive structure of emotions. New York (NY): Cambridge Univ. Press.

37. Peters E. (2006) The functions of affect in the construction of preferences. The construction of preference. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 454–463.

38. Plaut V.C. (2010) Diversity science: Why and how difference makes a difference. Psychological Inquiry, vol. 21, pp. 77–99.

39. Rattan A., Ambady N. (2013) Diversity ideologies and intergroup relations: An examination of colorblindness and multiculturalism. European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 12–21.

40. Richeson J.A., Nussbaum R.J. (2004) The impact of multiculturalism versus colorblindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 40, pp. 417–423.

41. Rokeach M. (1960) The open and closed mind. Oxford: Basic Books.

42. Ross L., Greene D., House P. (1977) The false consensus effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 279–301.

43. Rose R.J., Kaprio J. (1988) Frequency of social contact and intrapair resemblance of adult monozygotic cotwins — or does shared experience influence personality after all? Behavior Genetics, vol. 18, pp. 309–328.

44. Rothgerber H., Worchel S. (1997) The view from below: Intergroup relations from the perspective of the disadvantaged group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 1191–1205.

45. Scheepers P., Gijsberts M., Hello E. (2002) Religiosity and Prejudice against Ethnic Minorities in Europe: Cross-National Tests on a Controversial Relationship. Review of Religious Research, vol. 43, pp. 242–265.

46. Smith A. (1992) National Identity and the Idea of European Unity. International Affairs, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 55–76.

47. Stephan W.G., Renfro C.L. (2002) The role of threats in intergroup relations. From prejudice to intergroup emotions. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 191–208.

48. Stephan W.G., Stephan C.W. (2000) An integrated threat theory of prejudice. Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 23–45.

49. Stephan W.G., Ybarra O., Morrison K. R. (2009) Intergroup threat theory. Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 43–59.

50. Tajfel H., Turner J.C. (1979) An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey (CA): Brooks/Cole, pp. 33–47.

51. Turner J.C., Hogg M.A., Oakes P.J., Reicher S.D., Wetherell M.S. (1987) Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge (MA): Basil Blackwell.

52. Verplanken B., Hofstee G., Janssen H.J.W. (1998) Accessibility of affective versus cognitive components of attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 23–35.

53. Verkuyten M. (2005) Ethnic group identification, and group evaluations among minority and majority groups: Testing the multiculturalism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 88, pp. 121–138.

54. Verkuyten M. (2007) Religious group identification and inter-religious relations: A study among Turkish-Dutch Muslims. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, vol. 1, pp. 341–357.

55. Verkuyten M. (2009) Support for multiculturalism and minority rights: The role of national identification and out-group threat. Social Justice Research, vol. 22, pp. 31–52.

56. Vorauer J.D., Gagnon A., Sasaki S.J. (2009) Salient intergroup ideology and intergroup interaction. Psychological Science, vol. 20, pp. 838–845.

57. Winkielman P., Knutson B., Paulus M.P. Tujillo J.T. (2007) Affective influence on decisions: Moving towards the core mechanisms. Review of General Psychology, vol. 11, pp. 179–192.

58. Wolsko C., Park B., Judd C.M. (2006) Considering the tower of Babel: Correlates of assimilation and multiculturalism among ethnic minority and majority groups in the United States. Social Justice Research, vol. 19, pp. 277–306.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up