Insufficiency of Theoretical Models in the Field of Intergroup Relations ...

Insufficiency of Theoretical Models in the Field of Intergroup Relations: Towards the Ethnic Tolerance Scale Elaboration. Gershons Breslavs (Baltic Psychology and Management University College)

Paper presented at 11th EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, Riga, Latvia 31 August – 3 September, 2011

Participants and support • The study was executed by U. Abele, Abele, L. Derjabo, I. Pi Pish shinska inska,, J. Roze & G. Breslavs, with assistance in data collection by A. Siljane in 2007/ 2007/2008 2008.. • The study based on the project Elaboration of a method of societal tolerance monitoring supported by the EU grant subdivision “Forwarding social integration in Latvia”.

What is tolerance? • The second and third senses of the notion tolerance in the last edition of the APA Dictionary: • 2. Acceptance of others whose actions, beliefs, physical capabilities, religion, customs, ethnicity, nationality, and so on differ from one’s own. • 3. A fair and objective attitude toward points of view different from one’s own” (APA Dictionary, 2007, p.944).

(2) & (3) together • It seems important to combine both aspects because tolerant intergroup perception should include both: • a) acceptance of others (with different social belonging); • b) fair and objective attitude to opinions of others.

What is the core of tolerance ? • Central to the analysis of tolerance is the •

•

question of how members deal with intergroup differencess. difference If the outgroup's differences differences are judged to be non--normative and inferior, devaluation, non discrimination, and hostility are likely responses toward the outgroup. Judging the outgroup's differences differences to be normative or positive leads to acceptance and appreciation of this group (Mummendey, & Wenzel, 1999).

Our definition of social tolerance • The outout-group group’’s perception and estimation without prejudices and opinions based only on in in--group criteria (values, norms, traditions) and acceptance of human (cultural, religious, gender, age, opinions, etc.) differences that are not harmful for other groups’ members (Breslavs, Ābele, Derjabo, Pišinska & Roze, 2008).

Integrated Threat theory (ITT) • W. G. Stephan and C.W. Stephan (1996, 2000) proposed the ITT which classifies intergroup threats into four major types: realistic threat, symbolic threat, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes.

Toward ethnic tolerance scale elaboration • Our aim: to elaborate an ethnic tolerance scale (ETS) •

that should combine the assessment of positive and negative aspects of intergroup relations in Latvia. Taking into account that the two main ethnic groups in Latvia are Latvians and Russians, our particular objective was the elaboration of measure for Latvian Latvians tolerance/intolerance to Latvian Russians and for Latvian Russians tolerance/intolerance to Latvian Latvians assessment simultaneously.

The stages of ETC elaboration • The fivefive-stage process of ETC elaboration comprises: • a) phenomenological data collection through structural interviews and main • • • •

topics description about existing positive and negative ethnic stereotypes, forms of cooperation and competition, points of misunderstanding, types of attitudes;; attitudes b) formulation of the set of statements (93) from this data collection according to the Threat theory and pilot study; c) preparation of the first 8989-item inventory with six subscales (realistic threat, symbolic threat, intergroup anxiety and negative stereotypes, positive stereotypes and positive attitude); d) data collection with the 8989-item inventory and factor analysis of the data resulting in the reduction of statements to 50 with three subscales (negative attitude + negative stereotypes, positive stereotypes, and positive attitude) ; e) twotwo-stage data collection with the 50 50--item inventory and 18 18--items’ antipathy scale with contrast samples, and quantitative analysis (including factor, variance and correlational analysis) of the data.

Participants • The target group comprised 445 Latvian residents from different regions. • 180 participants on stages 11-4 and 265 on stage 5 (225 accepted; 122 – ethnic Latvians, including 52 social workers, 61 – police staff & lawyers; 9 – military personnel; 103 – Russian--speaking, 36 medical staff, 39 police Russian staff & lawyers, 28 military personnel).

Participants (demographic variables) Langua ge

Latvian (144)

Occupa tion

S-M

P-LA

Female

Russian (107) S-M

P-L-A S-M

Male

P-LA

S-M

Together

Female

P-L-A S-M

P-LA

Male

S-M

P-L-A

Total

Gender

58

54

0

32

58

86

28

25

12

42

40

67

Age

42.4

21.8

0

23.1

42.4

22.3

44.6

22.5

40.8

25.2

43.4

24.2

Family (S)

48

43

0

26

48

69

14

13

9

25

23

38

Family (m)

10

11

0

6

10

17

14

12

3

17

17

29

Educ. (U)

26

2

0

8

26

10

16

1

10

3

26

4

Educ (S)

32

52

0

24

32

76

12

24

2

39

14

63

Factor component analysis (Latvian) • First factor (negative 12

10

8

Eigenvalue

attitudes+stereotypes) explaining 23.942 % of the total variance • Second factor (positive stereotypes) - explaining 11.537% of the total variance. variance. • Third factor (positive attitudes) explaining 5.641% of the total variance. • The three factor structure of the 50 50--item ETS was confirmed in Latvian sample, explaining 41.12% of the total variance,

Scree Plot

6

4

2

0 49 47 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1

Component Number

Three factors with Eigen value>2 are distinguishable on the Scree Plot.

Factor component analysis (Russian) • First factor (negative attitudes+ Scree Plot

12.5

10.0

Eigenvalue

stereotypes) explaining 24.665 % of the total variance • Second factor (positive stereotypes) - explaining 8 8.6 .669 69% % of the total variance.. variance • Third factor (positive attitudes) explaining 6. 6.046 046% % of the total variance is not distinguishable well enough. • The three factor structure of the 50 50--item ETS was confirmed in Russian sample, explaining 39.38% of the total variance,

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0 49 47 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1

Component Number

Three factors with Eigen value>2,5 are distinguishable on the Scree Plot.

Analysis of variance & intercorrelations 1.factor

• The analysis of variance using the method of contrast samples (police, lawyers & military personnel versus medical staff and social workers) showed one significant difference on positive stereotypes (2) in Latvian sample only and one in Russian sample (1). • Intercorrelations between the ETC’ factors are significant in predicted directions (first table – Latvian sample, second – Russian)

2.factor

3.factor

1.factor 2.factor - 0.119 3.factor -.679** 1.factor

0.330** 2.factor

1.factor 2.factor

- 0.406**

3.factor

- 0.594** 0.596**

3.factor

The ETS reliability • Internal consistency

•

•

(Cronbach’s alpha) ranging between .740 to .930 (see first table) Retesting reliability (two--months’ interval) (two between .688 to .899 (see second table) The data has shown good reliability

Factors

Latvian (α (α)

Russian (α (α)

1

.908

.930

2

.846

.863

3

.740

.833

Factors

1

Latvian (n=57) .698***

Russian (n=66) .839***

2

.688***

.834***

3

.723***

.898***

The ETS construct validity • The comparison of ETC with the 1818-item Hate scale (Breslavs, Tjumeneva, 2008) showed predicted covariations – positive with the first factor of the ETS, and negative or the lack of significant link with the second and third factors.