Testing the three hypotheses of intercultural relations in Russia and Latvia Nadezhda Lebedeva, Alexander Tatarko National Research University Higher School of Economics Irina Plotka Baltic Psychology and Management University College

Context of Intercultural Relations in Russia and latvia Russian Federation is one of the most multicultural societies in the world having more than 100 ethnic and cultural groups, but 81% are Russians (All-Russian Population Census, 2010),. Russian Federation is the world’s second-leading country in terms of the number of immigrants (International Migration Report, 2013). Migrant workers are especially in demand in the country’s larger cities, with Moscow being the most popular destination. Latvia became independent in Latvians %, Russians -26,2% (Statistical Yearbook of Latvia 2013). The official policy of Latvia in relation to ethnic minorities is defined as integration [Integrācijas politika Latvijā, 2014]. 276,797 non-citizens (12.7% of the total population) lived in Latvia in 2014 [Naturalizācija, 2014]. 99 percent of non-citizens are ethnic minorities, 66% of which are Russians. [Pilsonības un migrācijas lietu investment iedzīvotāju reģistrs, 2014].

The research hypotheses The multiculturalism hypothesis: the higher a person’s sense of security, the higher is a willingness to accept those who are culturally different. Specifically: The higher the perceived security, the higher are the support of multicultural ideology and ethnic tolerance (for both minority group and members of the larger society). The integration hypothesis: those who prefer the integration strategy have higher psychological and sociocultural adaptation. Specifically: The higher the preference for the acculturation strategy of integration among minority group members, the higher is their level of life satisfaction and better sociocultural adaptation. The higher the preference for multiculturalism among members of the larger society, the higher is their level of life satisfaction. The contact hypothesis: intercultural contact and sharing promote mutual acceptance (under certain conditions, especially that of equality). Specifically: The higher the intensity of friendly contacts with the larger society among minority’ members, the higher is their preference for the integration or assimilation strategies. The higher the intensity of friendly contacts with immigrants among members of the larger society, the higher are their preference of multiculturalism and melting pot acculturation expectations and the level of ethnic tolerance.

Method Participants The sample in Russia (Moscow)included 1029 adult respondents: 651 were Russian Muscovites and 378 were migrants from the North Caucasus and South Caucasus states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia). The sample in Latvia (Riga) included 692 adult respondents: 363 were Latvians and 336 were ethnic Russians. Measures The study used the MIRIPS questionnaire, and the scales were translated into Russian and Latvian and adapted for use in Russia (Lebedeva & Tatarko, 2009, 2013) and Latvia (Plotka). The scales used are: Perceived security scale, Multicultural Ideology, Ethnic Tolerance, Acculturation strategies, Acculturation expectations, Sociocultural adaptation, Life satisfaction, Intercultural (Ethnic) Contacts. Data processing: structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS version 20.

Model tested for minority

Model tested for majority

Results of SEM for all three hypothesis combined (migrants in Moscow) (χ 2 =683; p<.001; χ 2 /df = 1.8; CFI =.91; AGFI=.87; RMSEA =.05; PCLOSE =.84)

Results of SEM for all three hypothesis combined (Moscovites) (χ 2 =554; p<.001; χ 2 /df = 2.3; CFI =.91; AGFI=.91; RMSEA =.05; PCLOSE =.87)

Results of SEM for all three hypothesis combined (Russians in Riga) χ 2 =834,5; p<.001; χ 2 /df = 1.7; CFI =.90; AGFI=.84; RMSEA =.05; PCLOSE=.78

Results of structural equation modeling for integration hypothesis: (model for Russians in Riga) χ 2 =107; p<.001; χ 2 /df = 2.1; CFI =.93; AGFI=.91; RMSEA =.06

Results of SEM for all three hypothesis combined (Latvians in Riga) χ 2 =472,3; p<.001; χ 2 /df = 1.8; CFI =.87; AGFI=.88; RMSEA =.05; PCLOSE=.58

Conclusion The multiculturalism hypothesis: the perceived security promotes tolerance toward other cultural groups in three samples (migrants in Moscow, Russian Moscovites and Latvians) and both tolerance and support for multicultural ideology in Latvians. There is no significant relations in Latvian Russians. The integration hypothesis: the preference for integration among migrants in Moscow and Russians in Latvia (independent model) promotes their better sociocultural adaptation. The preference for multiculturalism has a significant impact on the life satisfaction of Muscovites, but has no any impact in Latvians. Contact hypothesis: intercultural contacts promote mutual acceptance: preference for integration and assimilation strategies among migrants in Moscow and Russian minority in Riga, preference for multiculturalism and melting pot expectation in Russian Muscovites and ethnic tolerance among Latvians in Riga. Thus, all three hypotheses have received partial support in Moscow, but multiculturalism hypothesis has not been confirmed with Russians in Latvia and integration hypothesis was not supported with Latvians.

Insights from the combined models Perceived security and contacts are not related to each other in Moscow, but have negative significant relations in Riga. This means that to have friendly intercultural contact in Moscow a person need not feel secure. But in Riga intercultural contacts make Russians and Latvians to feel unsecure or vice versa: low sense of security impedes intercultural contacts from both sides. Tolerance and support for multicultural ideology are significantly related to each other in all four samples. This represents a composite positive orientation to accepting cultural "others". A preference for integration is positively related to multicultural ideology, while the opposite relationship exists for assimilation in both groups in Moscow and in Latvians in Riga. This pattern shows the different nature of these two acculturation strategies. But we have positive and significant relationship between assimilation and multicultural ideology among Russians in Latvia. The multiculturalism expectation significantly links with a higher level of life satisfaction among Muscovites; but not among Latvians in Riga.

Intercultural contacts are related to migrants’ preference for integration in Moscow, which in turn predicts their better sociocultural adaptation. Among Russians in Latvia we have the same pattern, but integration doesn’t predict their better sociocultural adaptation. For Muscovites, intercultural contact was related to their preference for multiculturalism, but not to their preference for the melting pot. For Latvians in Riga intercultural contacts don’t relate to their acculturation expectations. The intercultural contacts of Latvians in Riga predict their tolerance and life satisfaction, but these contacts require sense of secure. There are some unexpected and controversial results. First, there is a positive and significant relationship of multicultural ideology with integration in both groups in Russia and in Latvians, and with assimilation in Russians in Latvia. Second, among Russians and Latvians in Riga there is significant negative relationship between intercultural contact and perceived security. Both findings require additional analysis of the sociopolitical and historical context in Latvia in order to understand the psychological outcomes of mutual acculturation of minority and majority groups.

Some parallel to other research In Berry’s (1990, 1997) terms, the Estonian formulation of integration policy only incorporates the participation dimension, and the political terminology of integration is much closer to the acculturative strategy of assimilation. “The ethnically connoted nation-state model equates integration with forced acculturation—and as the majority of Estonian Russians do not wish to assimilate, integration for them means something to avoid”(p. 15). Therefore, the term integration itself has a negative meaning among ethnic Russians (Kruusvall et al., 2009). The participation in Estonian culture predicted more positive ethnic attitudes; however, Russian cultural maintenance and perceived group devaluation were associated with both negative ethnic attitudes and lower life satisfaction (Kus-Harward, Ward, 2015).

Thanks for your attention!

Means comparison in Russia Name of the scale MigrantsMoscovitest-test scores MSDM Perceived security *** Multicultural ideology *** Ethnic tolerance Life satisfaction * Ethnic contacts *** Sociocultural adaptation

Means comparison in Latvia Name of the scaleLatviansRussianst M M Perceived security3,102,469,25*** Multicultural ideology 3,363,52-2,76** Ethnic tolerance3,483,73-3,73*** Life satisfaction3,183,23-0,77 Ethnic contacts3,633,96-4,63*** Sociocultural adaptation 3,85

Russia Name of the scaleMigrantsMoscovitest MM Integration/ Multiculturalism *** Assimilation/ Melting pot *** Separation/Segregation *** Marginalization/Exclusion **

Latvia Name of the scaleRussiansLatvianst MM Integration/ Multiculturalism *** Assimilation/ Melting pot *** Separation/Segregation *** Marginalization/Exclusion ***