Factors Affecting Attitude of Local People Towards Migrants in Russia: In-group and Out-group Concept

全文

(1)Factors Affecting Attitude of Local People Towards Migrants in Russia: Ingroup and Out-group Concept. by Petrova Natalia. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: C. Rosa Yeh, Ph.D.. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan February 2020.

(2) ACKNOWLEDGMENT Studying in NTNU IHRD has been truly wonderful time filled with extremely useful experience. First of all, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Chu-Chen Rosa Yeh which did anything possible and impossible to help me go through the process, always cheering me up, answering my questions, showing me path and helping me do not give up. I would like to recognize the invaluable support that you provided during my study; I would never achieve anything without your help. I also would like to thank my committee members Dr. Chang WeiWen Vera and Dr. Chun-Hsiao Wang for priceless comments which let me finish my thesis. I would like to pay my special regards to all staff of IHRD department office who answered on tones of my questions any time I need. Special thanks to Tracy who provided an invaluable support to me, I do not know how to express my gratitude to you. I wish to show my gratitude to my family, Mom and Dad, and my sister, even I am far from my home, I always feel you are with me, thanks for encouraging me every day. I am indebted to my husband who despite of constant busyness did his best to support me in every step. To my friend Daria Chubova who kept me smiling even when I felt upset and sad, your friendship helped me to keep going. Finally, thanks to all people of Taiwan, even being in different culture I always feel me safe and welcome..

(3) ABSTRACT Nowadays there is a big influx of labor migrants in Russia. A lot of local Russian people are concerned about this issue and are afraid of possible consequences for their own well-being and the economy of the country in general. In the Russian society there is a process of stratification of ethnic groups, the formation of their hierarchy, as well as other social groups. So, the society is divided into different groups, and currently there is dangerous tension between such groups. The purpose of this present study is to investigate the factors that may affect attitude of local people towards migrants in Russia and check how exactly these factors may affect people's attitude in terms of in-group and out-group concept. For the research the data from the European Social Survey (ESS) was used, the data was analyzed by quantitative method using SPSS. Belonging to minority/majority, holding the citizenship of Russia and origin of parents were identified as main factors which affect attitude towards migrants of Russian people. The results of the current study reflect significant tension towards migrants which are perceived as a threatening out-group. The results of this research hope to provide useful information in order to improve the situation with tension between local people and migrants in Russia.. Keywords: migrants, in-group, out-group, social identity theory. I.

(4) TABLE OF CONTENTS. ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... I TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. IV LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. V CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1 Background of the Study ............................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 4 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 5 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 5 Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 5 Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................... 6. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 8 Brief introduction of Russia .......................................................................................... 8 Xenophobic Sentiments in Russia ................................................................................. 9 In-groups and Out-groups ........................................................................................... 15 Stereotypes .................................................................................................................. 19 The Social Identity Theory.......................................................................................... 23 Hypothesis Development ............................................................................................ 30. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 35 Research Framework ................................................................................................... 35 Research Procedure ..................................................................................................... 36 Research Methods ....................................................................................................... 37 Population and Sample ................................................................................................ 37 ESS Sampling Procedure in Russia............................................................................. 37 Research Hypothesis ................................................................................................... 38 Data Source ................................................................................................................. 38 Measurement ............................................................................................................... 41 Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................... 43 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 44. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ...................................... 45 II.

(5) Sample Profile ............................................................................................................. 45 Association between Variables ................................................................................... 47 Hypothesis Testing ...................................................................................................... 49. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .................................. 54 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 54 Theoretical Implications.............................................................................................. 55 Practical Implications .................................................................................................. 56 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 56 Suggestions for Future Research ................................................................................. 57. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 58 APPENDIX A: ESS RUSSIAN QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................... 64 APPENDIX B: SOURCE QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................. 68. III.

(6) LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1. Distribution of Sample on Age……………………………………………….....…46 Table 4.2. Distribution of Sample on Years of Full-time Education Completed…...…….…..46 Table 4.3. Correlation………………………………………………………………….……..48 Table 4.4. Multiple Comparison among Groups by Origins of Parents………………..…..…51 Table 4.5. Hypotheses Testing Results Summary………………………………….…..…......52. IV.

(7) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Attitude towards migrant labors from other regions with a predominantly Russian Population……………………………………………………………………...………….….10 Figure 2.2 Attitude towards migrant labors from Ukraine……………………...…….………………………………….……………………….11 Figure 2.3 Attitude towards migrant labors from Belarus…………………………...…………………………………………………….….…..11 Figure 2.4 Attitude towards migrant labors from Transcaucasia (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan) …………………………………..………………………..……………...……....12 Figure 2.5 Attitude towards migrant labors from the Central Asian Republics (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan) …………………………………………………….…………...…....13 Figure 2.6 Attitude towards migrant labors from the North Caucasian Republics (Dagestan, Chechnya, Ingushetia) ……………………………………………………………….…….....13 Figure 3.1 Research framework…………………………………………………..,,………....35 Figure 3.2 Research procedure………………………………………………………….…....36 Figure 3.3 Research procedure in ESS………………………………………….………………………………………..….……40. V.

(8) CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter presents an insight of the current. It includes the background of the study, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, research questions, the significance of the study and definitions of terms. In the modern world, migration has become one of the biggest problems, difficulties caused by this mainly uncontrolled process has political, social and cultural nature. Essentially it is a system of problems that requires a systematic approach. In the context of the global financial crisis, this problem can really worsen to the level of socio-political conflict both inside and outside Russia. At the same time, it should be noted that the borders of the conflict may go beyond the official state borders or the borders of the ethnic population.. Background of the Study Russia's transition from an authoritarian regime to a model of a state based on democratic principles induced the movement of goods, capitals and labor, so migration processes intensified a lot. The Russian community has faced a new social phenomenon - a massive inflow of foreign labor (Heleniak , 2002). This phenomenon became new for Russia due to the following circumstances: firstly, the history of the country did not yet know such a mass external labor migration; Secondly, in the USSR the exchange of labor resources was totally regulated by the government and mostly happened within the USSR and was perceived as internal migration. Currently there are no unambiguous interpretations of the concept of "foreign labor", the influx and activity of foreign labor is complicated in managing and regulation, there are no universal way of integrating foreign labor into the community of the host country (Ladan, 2009). The News Website 33 Live (2017) presents cultural and political events, incidents and accidents of the 33 regions, providing reliable information in real time. It claimed that there is a big influx of labor migrants in Russia recently. A lot of local Russian people, especially from big cities, are concerned about this issue and are afraid of possible consequences for their own well-being and the economy of the country in general. According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the 2017, 14 million migrant workers have arrived in Russia. This is almost 20% of the economically active population of Russia. Most often people move from disadvantaged areas with not developed economy (33 Live, 2017). 1.

(9) The Role of Foreign Labor for Russian Economy Researchers claim that immigration of foreign citizens to Russia surely has some impact on the Russian economy. First of all, Russia as a country importing labor, solves the problem of reducing production costs. Migrants receive significantly less wages than local workers, which helps to reduce production costs. The development of immigration allows the country to save money on training, as well as to solve some social problems: foreign workers are not provided with pensions and other benefits. Labor migration plays the main role in the migration process in general. (Kondratov, Starikova, & Syltigova, 2016) There is the illegal arrival of labor migrants, an exact calculation of which is not possible. They are profitable for entrepreneurs, which can save a lot on wages, and also get away from some taxes. In this regard, the budget of the state does not receive significant amounts of money, and thus expanding the shadow economy. Law enforcement authorities are intensely fighting illegal migration, in particular in Article 322 of The Criminal Code of the Russian provides for responsibility for the illegal crossing of the state border, the organization of illegal migration, fictitious registration and registration at the place of stay in a residential building in the Russian Federation. (The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, 2015) Political security as a component of social security assumes the state protects political interests, rights and freedoms of citizens. Compliance with laws is the basis for taking effective measures to prevent political threats to the citizens of the country. (Kuntsman & Sultygova, 2014). According to the latest polls of the analytical center "Laboratory of Information Consulting" more than half of Russians (52.3%) believe that competition with labor migrants can soon go beyond the segment of low-skilled labor; 33.2% of Russians believe that such competition will continue to be maintained only on low-paid positions; and only 14.5% of the inhabitants of Russia replied that there was enough work for everyone (Zakham, 2017). Nowadays, Russia has a lack of population capable of participating in production. So, with the proper organization of mechanisms for the reception of labor migrants, Russia will be able to accept all, without worsening the living conditions for the indigenous population. Similar mechanisms operate, for example, in Canada, where applicants are selected according to their real abilities and willingness to work, to bring something to improve the overall standard of living. However, in Russian society there is still a destructive idea of not letting “strangers” come. The idea came from the opinion that foreign labor mostly come from. 2.

(10) disadvantaged areas to get the available resources and benefits, at the same time posing a danger to Russian people and culture (33 Live, 2017).. The Current Situation Levada analytical center, one of the largest Russian centers in sociological research and appears often on national and international media (Levada analytical center, 2019), indicated that migration is connected with social unsettledness, economic and social losses. As a result, many migrants (up to 70%) even after a successful arrival to a new place experience stress and a sense of psychological trauma. After arrival to a new location, migrants face a negative attitude of local residents. According to surveys conducted in Russia, up to 80% of respondents consider migrants to be a source of increased criminal danger; a lot of Russian people are against the admission of migrants of non-indigenous nationality at all. The arrival of large numbers of migrants complicates the social and economic situation in the region (Levada analytical center, 2017). It was noted that contradictions and conflicts with local residents lead to the unification of migrants on the basis of national and nationality, including the formation of criminal and semi-criminal units. There is a dangerous situation in Russian society because of perception of foreigners – the certain attitude towards migrants may cause conflicts and tension between locals and foreigners. The danger is mainly due to the combination of different factors: the presence of criminal experience before migration, the loss of social connections in the migration process and the absence of the possibility to restore them after migration. Even the objectively positive effects of immigration, such as the replenishment of labor resources and the improvement of the demographic situation, are perceived skeptically by the population. And for some of them the presence of migrants has turned into an irritating factor what cause tension and conflicts between local people and migrants (Dolgovaya , 2007). It is obvious that the current situation in media discourse about migrants, which leads to the activation of the emotional component of public consciousness, is unsafe. Since a negative stereotype about migrants has already established, it can provoke aggravation of social tension, the formation of racist sentiments, the emergence of interethnic conflicts. Due these reasons there are some serious concerns that situation may become dangerous and seriously affect social and economic life in Russia.. 3.

(11) Statement of the Problem The anti-immigrant sentiments prevailing in the Russian society and the approval by the majority of the population of administrative and other arrangements that impede the integration of migrants, create a base for discrimination (Levada analytical center, 2017). The lack of free access to labor markets, labor rights, social protection and social dialogue is a Russian reality faced by most migrants. Discrimination reinforces the desire for isolation of migrant groups, cohabitation among only their inner groups. The isolation of migrants, partly forced, contributes to their social exclusion. Obviously, the Russian economy is not able to exist without foreign workers. K. Romodanovsky, the director of the Federal Migration Service in his interview to News Agency Vesti.ru (2007) said: "Who is a migrant? It is a labor force." Of course, migrants are needed, we will still fight for labor, for labor migrants. There are not enough workers. " At the same time, generally speaking foreign labor is ambiguously perceived by Russian society. Migrant workers experience serious difficulties with adaptation to a new socio-cultural and labor environment. In the Russian society there is a process of stratification of ethnic groups, the formation of their hierarchy, as well as other social groups, when representatives of migrant minorities have a certain social niche. As Mukomel (2011) mentioned in his research, the consequences of ethno-social stratification are very serious. Firstly, socio-economic discrimination, ethno-social stratification and separation of foreign migrants’ support and reproduce ethnic identity to the detriment of the civil, becoming a serious obstacle to the formation of civil society. Secondly, ethno-social stratification and segmentation of society based on ethnic grounds erode social norms and values. Thirdly, the separation of foreign migrants, the formation of subcultural migrant enclaves in the host environment, including territorial enclaves, becomes a problem that threatens socio-economic and political stability. Currently such processes are taking place in Russian cities, mainly near large retail outlets and other places of mass employment of migrants. Fourth, ethnic discrimination is gradually extended to all representatives of this migrant minority, including those with Russian citizenship. Fifthly, ethnic discrimination directly threatens the functioning of basic social institutions: the civil service, the army, the judiciary, and education system. Xenophobia is not pragmatic, it threatens the Russian statehood. (Mukomel , 2011). 4.

(12) These problems create new contradictions in the Russian society and raise social conflicts. It requires special studies devoted to formation separated groups in society, attitudes towards migrants, the factors affecting them and characteristics of intergroup relationships.. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this present study is: 1. To investigate the factors that may cause negative attitude of local people towards migrants in Russia 2. To identify how the selected factors affect people’s attitude in terms of in-group/outgroup concept 3. To provide suggestions for improving current situation in the context of negative attitudes towards migrants in Russia. Research Questions Based upon the purposes, this study will investigate the following questions: 1. What are the significant factors that may cause negative attitude of Russian people towards migrants? 2. Whether the concept of in-group vs. out-group can explain the attitude of local people in Russia towards migrants?. Significance of the Study Most of researches in the field were conducted for European countries. Russia as a country with absolutely different culture and history have different conditions, therefore may show absolutely different results. Migrants mostly come not just from other countries but from former USSR countries which used to share the same history but have different culture at the same time. The situation is worsening by the fact that although Russia is multinational country there is only one major nation and religion and not well-established economy yet. Current study points out main problems and reflects current situation in general, so it is possible to give some relevant recommendations in order to improve the situation. According to the results of this 5.

(13) study it is possible to define key factors which affect people’s attitude towards migrants reflecting trends in society what can help create some effective steps to influence unfavorable attitude avoiding impracticable activities in prospect.. Definition of Terms Social Identity Theory Social Identity Theory in social psychology is the study of the interplay between personal and social identities. Social identity theory aims to specify and predict the circumstances under which individuals think of themselves as individuals or as group members. The theory also considers the consequences of personal and social identities for individual perceptions, group behavior, in-group and out-group relations (Ellemers, 2018). Migrants Although there is no formal legal definition of an international migrant, most experts agree that an international migrant is one who changes the country of his usual residence, regardless of the reason for migration or legal status. (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2020). In-group vs. Out-group In-group is a group or social category, in relation to which the individual experiences a sense of identity and belonging. The individual perceives members of this group as "we" (Frolov, 2010). Out-group is a group of people in relation to which the individual does not have a sense of identity or belonging. Members of such a group are seen by the individual as "not us" or "strangers" (Frolov, 2010). Attitude towards migrants Attitude towards migrants is the behavior of local residents in relation to people who came from other countries to work or to get permanent residence. A negative attitude A negative attitude is a feeling, or behavior which is not constructive, collaborative, or optimistic. (Cheprasov, 2018).. 6.

(14) A positive attitude A positive attitude is a state of mind that involves beliefs and feelings that influence people's behavior, perceptions and the decisions they make in optimistic state of mind with belief that good things will occur in their future life.. 7.

(15) CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter offers a review of the most relevant literature and studies of the variables to be examined in order to provide a theoretical basis of the current research. It provides definitions of the key variables and the relationships among them. This chapter also presents the hypotheses for this research.. Brief introduction of Russia Russia or the Russian Federation is a state in Eastern Europe and Northern Asia, it is the largest country in the world, population is 146 million people. The territory of Russia is 17 125 191 km² (Federal Service of State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography (Rosreestr), 2017). It takes the first place in the world in terms of territory, the sixth - in terms of GDP in terms of PPP and the ninth place in terms of population. National language is Russian. Russia is a Presidential-parliamentary republic with a federal structure. The Russian Federation includes 85 subjects, 46 of which are called regions, 22 - republics, 9 - edges, 3 - cities of federal significance, 4 - autonomous regions and 1 - autonomous region. In total there are about 157 thousand settlements in the country Russia borders on twenty states (the largest indicator in the world), including two partially recognized and two unrecognized countries. Russia is a multinational state, distinguished by a great ethno-cultural diversity. Most of the population (about 75%) refers to Orthodoxy which makes Russia a country with the largest Orthodox population in the world. According to the 2010 population census, there are representatives of more than 180 nationalities (ethnic groups) in Russia. The largest part of population are Russians (115 million people or 80% of the country's population), Tatars (5.5 million people), Ukrainians (about 3 million people), Bashkirs, Chuvashs, Chechens and Armenians, the number of which exceeds 1 million people. Russians are prevailing nation only in the Central, Central Black Earth and Northwest regions, while all other regions, especially the North Caucasus, have a complex national composition of the population. On the territory of the Volga-Vyatka region, Russians, Mari, Chuvash and Mordovians live; in the Northern region - Russians, Karelians, Komi, Nenets and Sami; in the Urals - Russians, Tatars, Bashkirs, Udmurts, Komi-Permyaks; in the Volga region - Russians, Tatars, Kalmyks, Kazakhs; in 8.

(16) Western Siberia - Russians, Altaians, Nenets, Selkups, Khanty, Mansi, Shors, Kazakhs, Germans; in Eastern Siberia - Russians, Buryats, Tuvans, Khakasses, Nenets, Dolgans, Evenks; in the Far East - Russians, Yakuts, Chukchi, Koryaks, Jews, Evenks, Evens, Nanai, Udege, Orochi, Nivkhs and other small nations (Geography of Russia, 2019). Russia owns the nuclear superpower, one of the world's leading industrial and space powers. Russia is among the countries with the richest cultural heritage. The Russian language belongs to the world's richest languages, the language of world significance, one of the six official languages of the UN, UNESCO and other international organizations. Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council with the right of veto. After the collapse of the USSR in late 1991, the Russian Federation was recognized by the international community as a successor state to the USSR in matters of nuclear potential, foreign debt, state property abroad, and membership in the UN Security Council. Russia is represented by a number of international organizations: the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the UNECE, the CIS, the BSEC, the CSTO, the GFRM, WIPO, IMO, WTO, UNWTO, WWF, SCO, APEC, BRICS, COOMET, IOC, IEC, ISO, EUREKA, IRENA, G20 and others. According to the World Bank, GDP for PPP for 2014 was 3.745 trillion dollars (25,636 dollars per person). The monetary unit is the Russian ruble (the average rate for 2017 is 58.31 rubles for 1 US dollar (Wikipedia, 2018).. Xenophobic Sentiments in Russia There is a survey conducted by Levada analytical center (2016) which took place at 5-8 August 2016. It was conducted throughout all of Russia in both urban and rural settings. The survey was conducted among 1600 people over the age of 18 in 48 of the country’s regions. The survey was conducted using personal interview in respondents’ homes. According to this survey ethnophobia could be named as the trend of the 2016 year. The highest percentage people who thinks there should be restrictions on the residency in Russia answered that they would restrict the amount of people from the Caucasus and people from Central Asian former Soviet Republics. Most of responders said they have no particular feelings towards people from southern republics, next to frequency answers were annoyance and contempt. On the question “What is your attitude towards the idea of “Russia for Russians”?” most of responders answered that they think it wouldn’t be bad to implement it, but within reason. At the same time most of responders do not think there is palpable inter-ethnic tension in the city, region they live. On the question “Which political course do you think Russia should take: attempt to 9.

(17) limit the flow of migrants into the country or attempt to use it to Russia’s benefit and not place any administrative barriers in its way?” most of responders answered that they would like to attempt to limit the flow of migrants. There is another survey took place between 17-20 February 2017 conducted by Levada analytical center as well, it was conducted throughout all of Russia in both urban and rural settings as personal interviews in respondents’ homes. According to the survey it is possible to observe different attitude or Russians towards different categories of migrants. Responders were asked about their perception of migrants from different places (Levada analytical center, 2017).. 8% 23% 16%. Good, sympathize with them. Tolerant, neutral Bad. 53%. It is difficult to say. Figure 2.1 Attitude towards migrant labors from other regions with a predominantly Russian Population. Adapted from Levada Analytical Center “Attitudes towards migrants” by Levada Analytical Center, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.levada.ru/en/2017/05/29/attitudestoward-migrants/ (2017). Copyright 2003-2020, Levada-Center. One of the questions asked was “How would you characterize your attitude towards migrant labors from other regions with a predominantly Russian Population?” According to figure 2.1 more than a half of Russian people sympathize with migrant labors from other region with a predominantly Russian Population. Only 16% have bad attitude towards them.. 10.

(18) 4% Good, sympathize with them. 25%. 19%. Tolerant, neutral Bad. 52%. It is difficult to say. Figure 2.2 Attitude towards migrant labors from Ukraine. Adapted from Levada Analytical Center “Attitudes towards migrants” by Levada Analytical Center, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.levada.ru/en/2017/05/29/attitudes-toward-migrants/ (2017). Copyright 20032020, Levada-Center. Another question asked was “How would you characterize your attitude towards migrant labors from Ukraine?” According to figure 2.2, 25% of Russian people have good attitude towards Ukrainian migrant labors and 52% are neutral, only 19% have bad attitude towards Ukrainian migrant labors.. Good, sympathize with them. 5% 13%. 25%. Tolerant, neutral Bad. 57%. It is difficult to say. Figure 2.3 Attitude towards migrant labors from Belarus. Adapted from Levada Analytical Center “Attitudes towards migrants” by Levada Analytical Center, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.levada.ru/en/2017/05/29/attitudes-toward-migrants/ (2017). Copyright 20032020, Levada-Center.. 11.

(19) Another question asked was “How would you characterize your attitude towards migrant labors from Belarus?” According to figure 2.3, 25% of Russian people have good attitude towards migrants labors from Belarus and 57% of Russian people are neutral, only 13% of Russian people have bad attitude towards them.. Good, sympathize with them. 5% 10%. Tolerant, neutral 34% Bad 51% It is difficult to say. Figure 2.4 Attitude towards migrant labors from Transcaucasia (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan). Adapted from Levada Analytical Center “Attitudes towards migrants” by Levada Analytical Center, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.levada.ru/en/2017/05/29/attitudes-toward-migrants/ (2017). Copyright 20032020, Levada-Center.. Another question asked was “How would you characterize your attitude towards migrant labors from Transcaucasia (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan)?” According to figure 2.4, only 10% of people in Russia have good attitude towards migrant labors from Transcaucasia, 51% of people are neutral, 34% of Russian people have bad attitude towards them.. 12.

(20) Good, sympathize with them. 5% 10%. Tolerant, neutral 38% Bad 47%. It is difficult to say. Figure 2.5 Attitude towards migrant labors from the Central Asian Republics (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan)? Adapted from Levada Analytical Center “Attitudes towards migrants” by Levada Analytical Center, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.levada.ru/en/2017/05/29/attitudes-toward-migrants/ (2017). Copyright 20032020, Levada-Center. “How would you characterize your attitude towards migrant labors from the Central Asian Republics (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan)?” According to figure 2.5, only 10% of people in Russia have good attitude towards migrant labors from the Central Asian Republics, 47% of people are neutral, 38% of Russian people have bad attitude towards them.. Good, sympathize with them. 7% 9%. Tolerant, neutral. 41%. 43%. Bad It is difficult to say. Figure 2.6 Attitude towards migrant labors from the North Caucasian Republics (Dagestan, Chechnya, Ingushetia). Adapted from Levada Analytical Center “Attitudes towards migrants” by Levada Analytical Center, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.levada.ru/en/2017/05/29/attitudes-toward-migrants/ (2017). Copyright 20032020, Levada-Center.. 13.

(21) “How would you characterize your attitude towards migrant labors from the North Caucasian Republics (Dagestan, Chechnya, Ingushetia)?” According to figure 2.6, only 9% of people in Russia have good attitude towards migrant labors from the North Caucasian Republics, 43% of people are neutral, 41% of Russian people have bad attitude towards them. Thereby these surveys support the claim that Russian people have negative attitude towards migrants, moreover they differently treat migrants from different ethnic groups. The large-scale migration flows that are observed in the modern world give rise to many conflicts. The variety of different types of migrants, based on their sociocultural characteristics causes social tension among the host population and develops negative attitude towards migrants. Contrary to the popular belief that conflicts are created by migrants, the dangerous situations are most often created by the local population. (Population matters, 2018) Calderon (2017) notes that anti-immigrant movements are causing the rise of populist politicians. A growing number of migrants and increasing focus on migration reflect numerous trends, including the civilian nature of recent conflicts. According to Dikun (2013), most of the conflicts between migrants and local people are caused by ethno-cultural interaction. Migrants who arrived from the same country, have a common culture, are a social ethnic community whose members recognize themselves as an integral, independent subject of social action and behavior therefore they form a group. The local population of the host society also represents a separate group. Both of these groups have a self-identification and a sense of group solidarity. Any internal or external impact, which threatens to violate the integrity of these groups to a conflict. Recently the problem of negative perception of migrants is getting a lot of attention from the government and various research centers. The general director of Ipsos Institute for Sociological Research, Ozlem Bora, in his interview to the News Website Dünya commented on the results of his study: "...when we take into account the general trend since 2011, significant changes in the perception of migrants in many countries become evident. For example, Germany and Sweden come forward as the countries with the highest growth in the number of those who believe that the influx of migrants to their countries has grown. In 2011 this indicator was 22 and 24%, respectively, according to the results of the last survey - 85 and about 90% respectively." He also mentioned that according to the study, 28% of respondents point to the positive consequences of migration from the point of view of the economy. Saudi Arabia (50%), Great Britain (47%) and New Zealand (47%) have the most positive perception 14.

(22) on this issue. On the other hand, in Serbia, Russia and Hungary, the view that migration has positive economic consequences is least supported: 8, 9 and 9% respectively. Turkey (78%), Russia (64%) and South Africa (58%) are the first in the list of countries whose residents are most inclined to believe that migration has made it harder to find work. In general, two out of five respondents (40%) believe that priority should be given to highly educated and qualified migrants. New Zealand (58%), Saudi Arabia (56%), Great Britain (55%) are the most ardent supporters of this view (Ünlü, 2017). Markaki and Longhi (2012) hold the position that the identity of the migrant groups can be formed using many characteristics. These characteristics may become race, religion, language, nationality, citizenship, etc. In these conditions it is necessary to understand what cause negative attitude towards migrants. This topic currently is widely discussed in Europe. Some findings show that high regional unemployment rate of immigrants and the percentage of migrants born outside the EU cause concerns in the population over the impact of immigration. Another interesting finding is that higher proportions of local people and migrants with low-level qualifications are associated with lower feelings of economic threat caused by immigration. At the same time researches observed that anti-immigration attitudes are significantly higher in regions where local people overestimate the level of immigration.. In-groups and Out-groups In-groups and out-groups are groups in relation to which the individual determines himself. The group in this context means group towards which the individual experiences a sense of identity and belonging; on the contrary, the individual does not feel such a feeling towards the out-group. Each individual selects a certain set of groups to which he belongs and defines them as "mine." It can be "my family", "my professional group", "my company", "my class". Such groups will be considered as in-groups, i.e. those to which the individual has the feeling of belonging and in which he is identified himself with other members in such a way that he regards the members of the group as "we." Other groups to which the individual does not belong - other families, other companies of friends, other professional groups, other religious groups etc. will be considering as out-groups so he will perceive them as "not we", "others" (Whitbourne, 2010). Sherif (1954) introduced the term "reference group". Reference group means a real or conditional social community which follow some standard, norms, values and assessments 15.

(23) which the individual perceives as reference ones, so he is able to control his behavior and keep self-esteem, in other words it is a group that individuals compare themselves to for the purpose of evaluating their behaviors. A boy playing a guitar or doing sports, focuses on the lifestyle and behavior of rock stars or sports idols. An employee in an organization, aiming at a career, focuses on the behavior of senior managers. Ambitious people which unexpectedly received a lot of money tend to imitate the representatives of the upper classes in dress and manner. Ahuja (2018) states that there are normative and comparative reference functions of the group. The normative function of the reference group is manifested in the fact that this group is the source of norms of behavior, social attitudes and value orientations of the individual. A migrant who comes to another country tries to master the norms and attitudes of local people as soon as possible in order not to be a "black sheep". The process can be complicated by excluding them from all possible groups by locals. The comparative function is manifested in the fact that the reference group acts as a standard by which the individual can evaluate himself and others. Undeveloped, primitive societies, people live in small groups, isolated from each other and representing clans of relatives. Family relationships in most cases determine the nature of the in-groups and out-groups in these societies. When two strangers meet, they first begin to look for kinship ties, and if they are relatives this fact connects them, they are both members of the group. If family ties are not found, then in societies of this type, people feel hostile to each other. In modern society, relations between its members are built on many types of connections besides relatives, but the feeling of belonging to the group and the search for its members among other people, remain very important for every person. When an individual enters an unknown stranger's environment, he first of all tries to find out whether among them there are those who came from his social class or someone who adheres to his political views and interests (Frolov, 2010). Stets and Burke (2000) note that there are many motives for joining groups. The theory of social identity emphasizes the need to increase self-esteem and reduce uncertainty. The norms and prototype of the group lead people in terms of how a person should behave, think and feel, so this directly affects their behavior. Initially, it was believed that the motive for selfesteem base on the intragroup favoritism and ethnocentrism, as well as hostility towards an out-group group. (Stets & Burke, 2000). 16.

(24) It is obvious that the sign of people belonging to the group is sharing certain feelings and opinions, for example, same goals in life. Members of the out-group can have many features and characteristics common to all groups of the society, they can share many common feelings and aspirations, but they always have some certain own features different from members of another group. People unconsciously and involuntarily notice these features, dividing other people into "us" and "others." In modern society, an individual belongs simultaneously to many groups, so a large number of group and out-group relationships can overlap. A senior course will consider a junior student as an individual belonging to an out-group, but at the same time a junior student, along with a senior student, can be members of the same sports team, where they are members of in-group (McLeod, 2008). The researchers note that in-group identifications, crossing in many directions, do not reduce the intensity of self-determination of differences, and the complexity of including the individual in the group makes painful the exceptions from the in-group. So, for example, a person who unexpectedly received a high status, has all the attributes to get higher status in society, but cannot do it, since he is considered an upstart; the teenager desperately hopes to participate in the school team, but others do not accept him; a worker who starts to work in a brigade cannot get accustomed to it and being bullied. Thus, exclusion from in-groups can be a very complicated and sometimes cruel process. For example, most primitive societies consider strangers to be part of the animal kingdom, many of them do not distinguish between the words "enemy" and "outsider", considering these concepts identical. According to this terrifying logic Nazis excluded Jews from human society. Rudolf Hoss, who led the concentration camp in Auschwitz where 700,000 Jews were killed, characterized the slaughter as "the removal of alien racial-biological bodies." In this case, in-group and out-group identifications led to fantastic cruelty and cynicism (Frolov, 2010). It is impossible to understand many cruel acts repeating in history without understanding of in-group and out-group relationships and its connection to people's identity. The distinction and separation of the in-group and out-group make it psychologically possible to commit cruel acts even by humane people. There is historical example of the great figure of the English Revolution, the English of the XVII century were usually tolerant and humane. Even in civil wars and the revolution, they remembered that their opponents were not different from themselves, and therefore they were gentle and generous in battle. Oliver Cromwell went ahead of his century in promoting this tolerance. But when Cromwell invaded Ireland, he completely changed his attitude towards the enemy. For him and his associates, the Irishman was 17.

(25) completely different from the Englishman. In the English army, as in English society there was an opinion that the Irish are not people but only remind people. This opinion was strengthened by official propaganda. And the British, in accordance with this statement, behaved extremely cruel towards the Irish (Trevor-Roper, 1961) . Skrebtsova (2007) points out that the past three centuries changed little the attitude of people towards those whom they consider other, outsiders, "not like us" - members of the outgroup. Many national conflicts occurring on the territory of the former USSR show that the conflicting parties consider their opponents as belonging to the "lower" nationality, secondclass people, which allows each side to show inhumanity towards them. The same can be said about social and class clashes, when one side considers the other "mass” and the opposite side - "bloodsuckers", "degenerated from idleness." (Skrebtsova, 2007) There is a certain mechanism for survival in formulating differences between groups. In the desire to feel safe, people connect with those whom they see the same as themselves, so that they can protect themselves from those who can harm. They keep distance with outsiders and continue a daily life feeling secure and protected. However, these fences may prevent people from contacting other people and thus undermine true security, so it becomes sort of intra-group trap. The in-group can include some inner in-groups as well as out-group may have different levels. At the same time the in-group can become the out-group eventually and vice versa. Summing up what has been said, it should be noted that the concepts of the in-group and out-group are important because the self-definition of each person to them has a significant effect on the behavior of individuals. We are not included to the same degree in our in-groups. For example, someone may have high loyalty towards group of friends, but at work be not respected and be not really included in in-group communications. There is no equal assessment of the out-group by the individual. So, for example, very religious person may not wish to have any contacts with representatives of another religions or atheists. Each one has its own scale for evaluating out-groups. There are ways to overcome the in-group-out-group bias, but it takes effort. The results, however, are vital to successful continued existence as well as for personal fulfillment (Whitbourne, 2010). There is a survey which took place by Levada analytical center (2017), it was conducted between December 1-5, 2017 throughout all of Russia, the survey showed high percentage of people feeling uncertainty because of many aspects. According to the survey 12% of people are expecting the economic crisis and 38% think it may happen. 16% of Russian people are. 18.

(26) sure that there will be explosive corruption scandals and the dismissals of various ministers in 2018 and 47% think it may happen. In general, very low percentage of people expressed their feel certainty in terms of possible problems in Russia. According to social identity theory, individuals are supposed to identify with groups stronger if they experience a sense of uncertainty, they are more likely to belittle other groups. Individuals who seek structure and clarity don't like situations that are uncertain, are more likely than other people to show outgroup derogation after the uncertainty experience (McGregor, Reeshma, & So-Jin, 2008). According to modern research (Evgenyeva & Selezneva, 2007), it is possible to build the following scheme of the process of stereotyping ideas about the "outgroup" (the image of the "other"): - in the process of developing ideas about the social world, a person needs to simplify and systematize the available information, which is carried out by means of categorization (based on the selected criteria - nation, gender, citizenship etc.); - on the basis of the information available, an idea is created about a certain category that has certain attributes common to all who belong to it; the effect of outgroup homogeneity reinforces the generalizing character of ideas about the “outgroup”; - these generalized ideas developed under the influence of group favoritism and therefore bearing evaluative character, - become a stable stereotype that determines the further perception of the corresponding group; - the stereotype governs the process of information processing, starting with its selective perception and even the search for data that reinforce the prevailing representations and ending with the formation of self-fulfilling hypotheses; all these actions are aimed at maintaining the belief that “we” are better than “them”.. Stereotypes According to Frolov (2010) out-groups are usually perceived by individuals in the form of stereotypes. A social stereotype is a shared image of another group or category of people. When we evaluate people as a group of people, we attribute to each of the individuals within 19.

(27) the group some certain features which, in our opinion, characterize the group as a whole. For example, there is an opinion that all Latin people are more passionate and temperamental than European people, all French people are frivolous, English people are closed and silent etc. A stereotype can be positive (kindness, courage, perseverance), negative (unprincipled, cowardly) and mixed (Germans are disciplined, but cold). The stereotype extends to all members of the corresponding out-group without considering any individual differences. Therefore, it is never completely true. Indeed, it is impossible to talk about the traits of inaccuracy or cruelty towards an entire nation or even a population of some city. But stereotypes are also never completely false, they always have to some extent correspond to the characteristics of the person from the stereotyped group, otherwise they would not be recognizable. The mechanism of the emergence of social stereotypes has not been fully investigated, it is still not clear why one of the features begins to attract the attention of representatives of other groups and why this becomes a universal phenomenon. But somehow stereotypes become a part of culture, part of moral norms and role setting. McLeod (2008) mentioned that social stereotypes are supported by selective perception (only often recurring incidents or cases that are noticed and remembered are chosen), selective interpretation (interpretations of stereotypes, for example, Jews are good entrepreneurs, rich people are greedy, etc.), selective identification (you look like a gypsy, you look like an aristocrat, etc.) and finally a selective exception (he is not like an Englishman, he is completely different from a teacher, etc.). Even exceptions and misinterpretation serve as base for the formation of stereotypes. Stereotypes constantly appear, change and disappear because they are necessary for members of a social group. Through stereotypes we receive concise information about the out-groups around us. Such information determines our attitude to other groups, allows us to navigate among a variety of out-groups and ultimately determine the line of conduct in communication with representatives of these out-groups. Lately Russian people have witnessed the formation of stereotypes in the mass consciousness associated with the notion of a migrant, mostly because of the spread of discourse in the mass media about the migration of people from other countries (primarily from the former USSR countries) to Russia. The public consciousness develops stereotypes both in relation to out-group - "they" and in-group - "us", but it is the image of "strangers" that turns out to be especially distorted, one-sided and biased. In general, they are perceived more schematically and are evaluated less favorably than members of their own group. Discussions about migrants can be found in different genres, such as an informational note, an analytical 20.

(28) article, electronic chat rooms and forums, etc. There are some common stereotypes about migrants which are regularly found in the relevant publications (Varganova, 2012). Based on the surveys and statistical data, there are certain stereotypes about migrants which can be distinguished. For example, people tend to think that migrants are mainly people from the Caucasus or Central Asia (they are the ones who cause the greatest dislike, and the stereotype described concerns them first, while the attitude towards migrants from Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova is quite tolerable). Migrants have an untidy appearance, are infected with dangerous diseases very often, have not enough or no education at all as well as no professional qualifications, they are used as low-skilled workers, do not respect the “Russian” rules of behavior, customs and culture, do not know Russian language well, agree to do any hard and dirty work that locals do not want to do, they agree to work for very low salary, get money illegally, and not have insurance and labor benefits. At the same time the consent of migrants for overexploitation is often presented as displacement Russians from the labor market and lowering their salaries. Russian people also suppose that migrants have cohesion, form ethnic criminal groups engaged in robberies, drug trafficking, arms smuggling and involved in terrorism, they create acute social problems, exacerbating the situation in Russian cities and villages and carry out the outflow of money to the CIS countries, thereby contributing to the growth of national economies and causing financial damage to Russia (Kamenskih, 2018). The consequences of migration are estimated by authors of publications at best as ambiguous, at worst - as unconditional harm for the interests of Russia and a serious threat to its security. The available evidence seems to suggest that the above characteristics are closely related to the components of racist ideology (Varganova, 2012). Van Dijk (2000) explained that racist discourse exaggerates differences in the individuals’ appearance or culture and "others" and constantly keep boundaries between that ones who are included in the concept of "we "and who is not (in this region, country, city) This person also constantly compare "their" norms and values with "ours" in a favorable light for himself, he worries only about "our" resources (territory, income, housing, jobs, culture, etc.). And further attention focuses on what "they" do not like "we" do, and how "our" interests are threatened by "strangers". Lakoff (1991) pointed out the fact that the opposition "we vs they" and the corresponding stereotypes of mass consciousness stipulate the use of various metaphors for characterizing migrants, on the one hand, and the “new” Russia, on the other hand. It is noteworthy that 21.

(29) migrants in the discourse of the Russian media regularly appear in the form of some kind of inanimate mass, for example: flow, inflow, outflow of migrants, a reservoir of migrants (CIS countries), migration explosion, workers' hands, labor, tools for displacing the indigenous population and even anthropological weapons in an undeclared demographic war. At the same time Russia is personified in media, compare the conceptual metaphor "The state is humans" and shown as a benefactor; it is compared with a donor, a feeding mother, a bird from an Arabian tale that feeds the chicks with its own meat, etc. The country show hospitality, does not abandon its brothers, turns a blind eye to unequal cross-border trade, delivers energy resources at undercharged tariffs, and so on. Thus, the inanimate concept (country) is personified, and people (migrants), on the contrary, are depersonalized. These mutually opposite metaphors are not accidental: the treatment of migrants as an inanimate mass contributes to the consolidation of a schematic and prejudiced image (stereotype), while the personification of Russia emphasizes its noble behavior towards strangers and truly human qualities. (Lakoff , 1991) Screbtsova (2007) noted that migration is seen mainly in the media as an inevitable process: the Russian economy needs additional workers from abroad, and the fact that they are ready for over-exploitation creates the interest of business in attracting them. Since this process seems inevitable, that fact that it may be useful and desirable for the country are receding into the background. Only ways to optimize migration policy are discussed, such as: establishing order in border control, migration quotas, social and cultural adaptation of national minorities, their integration into Russian society, preventing interethnic and inter-confessional conflicts etc. At the same time, some authors represent labor migration to Russia as a result of the evil will of Western politicians and show Russian state figures under their influence, which are imposing a path of development that is obviously destructive to the country. Unlike the previous point of view, this approach assumes an alternative. Migration is neither necessary nor inevitable; the country can live without it at all. These ideas are usually expressed very emotionally; the language of the relevant publications is characterized by a wide use of stylistically colored vocabulary and speech figures, including metaphors. For example: hordes of bazaar merchants; flocks of drug dealers; gangsters and pimps; criminals; arrogant and shameless ones who are striving for one - take Russian people's place, make the country similar to their own; they bring the death and destruction to Russia, turn cities into "hunting grounds", etc. And sometimes these ideas co-existing with the naive images of globalization described in the research of Skrebtsova (2007). Mostly "aliens" are shown as enemies (they occupy, drive 22.

(30) out, destroy the indigenous population, bring death and destruction to Russia). (Skrebtsova, 2007). The Social Identity Theory The theory of social identity is a theory that describes the direction of individual knowledge about belonging to a particular social group, which has an emotional and value significance for an individual and his belonging to a group (Turner & Giles, 1981). According to this theory, a person’s awareness of his place in society is based on classifying himself as a particular social group (Andreeva, Bogomolova, & Petrovskaya, 1984). The social identity theory also presupposes that belonging to certain groups can lead to strong identities obtained from these groups. (Nesje , 2009) Interpersonal and intergroup relations According to the theory of social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), a person’s social behavior ranges from participation only in interpersonal relations to participation only in intragroup relations. The first is determined by the personal characteristics of the participants, as well as the nature of the relationship between them. Intra-group relations are distinguished by the fact that a person entering into this type of relationship looks like a member of a social group, and not as a person. Of course, in real life, human behavior is determined by a combination of these two types. Nesje (2009) noted that people often belong to multiple groups, so they have several social identities. However, some social identities are stronger and more obvious than others. Positive social identity Ageev (1990) claimed that members of a social group strive to achieve, and then maintain a positive social identity of this group. Positive social identity is obtained as a result of a favorable evaluation of the group in comparison with relevant social groups. So, a student who perceives himself as a member of his class, in order to form a positive social identity, must realize that his class is better than other classes in some way (academic achievement, sporting achievements, friendly relations, etc.) Relevant groups in this case are different classes. Jarett (2017) proposed several strategies in order to get a positive social identity. All of them are about what an individual can do to improve in the reputation of his group, and if barriers to a group with a more positive social identity are not big, what an individual can do to move into this group. 23.

(31) Individual mobility Individual mobility means moving through the social ladder of one person. When barriers to a more "successful" group are small, the individual tends to distance himself from the group and pursue personal goals that may differ from group ones. Social creativity When barriers to getting out of the group seem insurmountable, team members try to achieve a positive social identity in ways such as changing comparison criteria with other groups or changing the comparison object itself. Social competition Applying this strategy, the participants of the group enter into direct competition with relevant social groups in the form of intragroup favoritism. This means that, unlike the strategy of social creativity, participants, giving preference to their group, do not change the comparison criteria. Collective narcissism The search for a positive social identity can lead to the so-called. collective narcissism. By analogy with individual narcissism, collective narcissism is understood as demonstrating exaggerated pride from belonging to a particular social group, be it a criminal group, a certain religion or a people. Just like individuals suffering from narcissistic disorder, collective narcissuses feel an internal uncertainty about their superiority, which often leads to compensating aggressive manifestations There is an opinion that collective narcissism influences political processes of different scale: from local to global.. Tajfel Turner's Theory of Social Identity Ageev (1983) mentioned the concept discussed in this research attributed to the field of psychology of intergroup relations. This problem has been successfully studied, and the sociopsychological views were represented and deservedly considered as classic. There was a criticism of the American school by European tradition in social psychology in the seventies. Antagonism was observed in the question of the "sociality" of social psychology. Europeans criticized their colleagues from America for the excessive "psychologism" of the problems under consideration. G. Tajfel was one of the supporters of the European trend in the study of 24.

(32) socio-psychological problems. The main "blow" was directed towards the concept of intergroup discrimination of Sheriff, whose sociological reductionism, and the resulting conception of the cognitive sphere of the subject as a passive result of external influences, became a starting point for criticizing Sheriff's theory and experimental research in terms of cognitive orientation. At the same time, Andreeva (1999) claimed that this area of problems remained insufficiently investigated for a long time. This paradox caused by certain "marginality" of this area, its inclusion in the sphere of other social sciences, so this is why the psychological aspects of this problem were considered outside the context of social psychology, but if there was an interest in this field, it "dissolved" in other areas of social psychology, or found an interpretation in the sections of personal psychology. During the development of social psychology in the 20s-30s, the attention of researchers was concentrated on the study of the psychology of small groups, and the entire research strategy was built on the basis of interest in what is happening within the social group, but not between them. Thus, the social context of the existence of a social group was not considered. However, the objective conditions for the existence of social groups: the complication of social reality, which caused the simultaneous inclusion of the group in various social contexts, dictated the objective necessity of considering the problems of intergroup relations, not excluding the social aspect of social psychology. And this change occurred in the early 50-th. To objectively describe the situation, it is necessary to consider Sheriff's researches in this field. In fact, the theoretical views of Tajfel were justified on the criticism of these researches. The experiment consisted of four stages. The first teenagers who came to the camp were offered some cleaning activities, during which spontaneously formed friendly groups were identified; in the second stage, the teenagers were divided in the way to destroy that formed groups and the relationship (one group was named "Eagles" and the other was "Rattlesnakes"). In this case, the ratio of one group to another was measured, hostility between groups was not noticed. At the third stage, the groups were given different activities on the conditions of competition, after that an increase in intergroup hostility was recorded. At the fourth stage, the groups were reunited and engaged in common activities, inter-group hostility decreased, but did not disappear at all. Despite the obvious assumptions in the conclusions, the "sociologization" of social psychology begins with Sheriff's research. He proposed a "group" approach to the study of intergroup relations. However, in the results of his research, only the 25.

(33) psychological aspect was lost (such as the cognitive and emotional aspects of intergroup relations), Tajfel points out this defect.. The Theory of Henry Tajfel The main criticism of Tajfel was directed against the methodological methods of carrying out experiments at that time, and then the interpretation of the data. In his programmatic article "Experiments in a vacuum" he postulates his positions as follows: agreeing with McGuire's opinion that experiments in social psychology have turned into laboratory ones, argues that the data obtained in this way cannot be projected onto society, since most experiments are carried out under dyadic conditions, and then projected onto other social groups without considering the qualitative specificity of the group (Andreeva, Bogomolova, & Petrovskaya, 1984). Thus, the results obtained through experimentation in the dyad flow into the sphere of interaction between the individual and the social group, and then slowly become the laws of intergroup processes. This is happening due to the fact that such variable as social change is not considered. It is the interaction between social change and the individual that should become the subject of social psychology. The program for the further development of social psychology proposed by Tajfel, according to the theorists of social psychology, sounds like: "... it must deal with the interaction of social change and choice, explore what aspects of social change are revealed in the individual's perception as an alternative to his behavior, what is the relationship between cognitive and motivational processes, than in the final analysis are the choices of one or another way of behavior are determined" Henry Tajfel, along with John Turner, formulate the main points of their cognitive schema, which includes the provisions discussed below. Justification of the theory of social identity Tajfel begins with the development of the theory of inter-group discrimination (Ageev, 1990). Andreeva (1999) mentioned that his theory of intergroup discrimination denied the results of Sheriff's experiments. In Tajfel's opinion, the incompatibility of goals may be a sufficient basis for an intergroup conflict, while a conflict of interest is not necessary (as was present in the results of the Sheriff's research). This postulate was proved by conducting various experiments the aim of which were: exclude from the experiment all the factors on the basis of which an intergroup conflict arises, except of the fact of group membership. As a result, there was a pronounced preference for members of their group, all other things were equal. Thus, inter-group discrimination arises, even when the personal interests of the 26.

(34) individual are not affected at all and are not related to the fact of favoring the group, there is no intergroup competition and there is no prior or actual hostility between the groups. Ageev (1990) noted that the only purpose of such discrimination is to establish differences between groups in favor of one's own, sometimes even when it contradicts the "utilitarian" interests of the group. It is the most striking proof of the universality and inevitability of intergroup discrimination. Ageev (1990) also pointed out that Tajfel discerns two forms of interaction: interpersonal and intergroup. These two forms represent the two poles of interaction, usually they are existing simultaneously in real interaction, but for the theoretical justification of the theory this distinction seems necessary. Interpersonal interaction is an interaction based primarily on personal characteristics. The flow of this process does not depend on the social belonging of a person. Intergroup interaction is determined, first of all, by the membership of an individual in a particular social group. In this type of interaction, personal characteristics do not play a determining role, it is determined by the group membership of the individual. Thus, these two types of interaction are added to the cognitive "I-concept." This system plays the role of a regulator of behavior under different conditions of interaction. Each of the subsystems of the "I-concept" refers to different characteristics of a person. The personal identity refers to selfdetermination in terms of physical, intellectual and moral personality traits. The second subsystem - social identity is determined by the person's belonging to different social categories: race, nationality, class, sex, etc. Nesje (2009) pointed out that social identity is that part of a person’s self-esteem that stems from his knowledge of his belonging to a social group (or groups) along with the value and emotional significance that give this membership. According to Ageev (1990), the theory of Tajfel's social identity, can be presented by following postulates: 1. Social identity consists of those aspects of the image of the "I", which come from the individual's perception of himself as a member of certain social groups. 2. Individuals seek to maintain or enhance their self-esteem, i.e. strive for a positive image of themselves. 3. Social groups (or categories) and membership in them are related to the positive or negative assessment that exists in society, and therefore social identity can be positive or negative. 27.

(35) 4. The evaluation of an individual's group by the individual is determined by the relationship with some other groups through the social comparison of value-based qualities and characteristics. Comparison which show the positive difference of its group from another one generates high prestige, negative one generates low. From these postulates there are such consequences are deduced as: individuals seek to achieve or maintain a positive social identity; positive social identity is based on favorable comparisons of the group and several relevant out-groups; group members tend to differentiate, separate their group from other groups. Moreover there are at least three classes of variables that influence intergroup differentiation in specific social situations: individuals should be aware of belonging to the group as one of the aspects of their personality, subjectively identify themselves with the relevant group; the social situation should further intergroup comparisons that enable the selection and evaluation of relevant qualities; in-groups do not compare themselves to each accessible out-group (the out-group should be perceived as relevant for comparison), he goal of differentiation is to preserve or achieve superiority over the out-group by some parameters, when social identity does not satisfy group members, they tend to either leave the group they belong to at the moment and join the group they evaluate more highly or make their present group positively different from others if possible. Sushkov (1993) mentioned that psychologically, a group can survive and develop only when it has a chance to achieve positive differences from other groups. In the case of a nonpreferential intergroup comparison, the members of the group are forced to seek a positive difference by redefining or adding elements in the comparison situations: 1. "by comparing the group with the out-group by the new dimension". 2. "By changing the values that the group adheres to, so a negative comparison becomes a positive one." 3. "A change in the out-group (or selection of an out-group), with which the in-group was initially compared ...". (p.118) It is important to understand why an individual prefers to receive positive self-esteem in a group way, when it is possible on interindividual level and if there are purely group motivations that lose meaning at the individual level and when they start to work. The principle of differentiation at the intergroup level implies the existence of specific outgroups that will support this differentiation. But it is quite common when a real group does not exist, and people united in the minds of the members of the ingroup do not feel their group affiliation. Is case how the ingroup will be formed and how the identification with that ingroup will be supported? In fact, by categorizing themselves in search of positive differences from other groups, subjects already. 28.