This article was downloaded by: [Rutgers University]

On: 11 May 2013, At: 21:40

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T
3JH, UK

Ethnic and Racial Studies

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rers20

Prejudice in the former Soviet

Union
a

Joseph Hraba , Carolyn S. Dunham , Sergey

c

Tumanov & Louk Hagendoorn

Professor of Sociology, Iowa State University of

Science and Technology, 107 East Hall, Ames, IA,
500111070, USA
b

Doctoral candidate in Sociology, Iowa State

University
c

Director of the Center for Sociological Studies,

Moscow State University
d

Professor of Social Sciences, University of Utrecht

Published online: 13 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Joseph Hraba , Carolyn S. Dunham , Sergey Tumanov & Louk
Hagendoorn (1997): Prejudice in the former Soviet Union, Ethnic and Racial Studies,
20:3, 613-627
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1997.9993978

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or

damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Research note
Prejudice in the former Soviet Union
Joseph Hraba, Carolyn S. Dunham, Sergey Tumanov and Louk
Hagendoorn

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

Abstract
Research in the United States and Europe has focused on the prejudice of
majority groups towards minority groups, the implication somehow being
that majority groups were more prejudiced than minority groups. In the
former Soviet Union, ethnic environments were more complex; the same
ethnic group could be a majority in one region but a minority in others.
Using a sample of 1,459 first- and fourth-year university students from
eight regions of the former USSR, this study focuses on Russian, Tatar and
Ukrainian respondents (n = 821) to test the hypothesis that the status of an
ethnic group (majority/minority) or in-group bias explains members'
prejudice. According to in-group bias, all ethnic groups are equally
prejudiced, minority and majority alike, whereas group status posits that
groups in a majority position are more prejudiced. Findings show that
group status has greater impact on prejudice than does in-group bias. This
applies, however, only to Russians. Interpretations of the findings rest on
Soviet history and the rise of nationalism during the breakup of the Soviet
Union.
Keywords: Prejudice; Soviet Union; Russians; Tatars and Ukrainians.
Introduction
The former Soviet Union was a nation of over 276 million people who
made up nearly 200 distinct ethnic groups. Since its dissolution in December 1991, this socialist state with an official assimilationist ideology
became the setting for ethnic conflict and some former republics have
seceded along ethnic lines. Ethnic conflict and secession are seemingly
succeeding any pan-Soviet assimilation.
This article examines prejudice in the USSR at the time of its breakup,
1991-1992. The Soviet setting provides a unique opportunity to examine
whether group membership per se (in-group bias) or group status as a
Ethnic and Racial Studies Volume 20 Number 3 July 1997
Routledge 1997 0141-9870

614 Joseph Hraba et al.

majority or a minority explains members' prejudice. The same ethnic

group could be a majority in one ethnic environment of the Soviet Union
but a minority in others. Virtually no research was done on ethnic attitudes in the USSR (Karklins 1986), be it on that of majority or minority
groups, and comparing majority/minority prejudice is a neglected
research topic in other parts of the world as well (Hraba, Brinkman,
Gray-Ray 1996). This article addresses both these needs.

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

In-group bias
In minimal-group experiments, the random assignment of subjects to
artificial, arbitrary and impermanent in- and out-groups was sufficient to
result in in-group bias towards out-groups (Tajfel et al. 1971;Tajfel and
Turner 1979,1986;Tajfel 1981;Turner 1982). The implication is that prejudice towards targets is due to membership in an in-group per se, even a
minimal one, and that all in-groups, majority and minority alike, are
equally prejudiced. Social identity theory assumes that all people want
to achieve and maintain a positive self-concept and therefore prefer to
view their in-groups positively compared to out-groups (Tajfel and
Turner 1979,1986; Tajfel 1981; Turner 1982). According to the in-group
bias hypothesis, Russians, Ukrainians and Tatars in this study will be
equally prejudiced towards each other.
Group status
According to Blumer (1958), a majority group's prejudice towards
minority groups is motivated by protecting its status advantage as well as
its proprietary claim to certain privileges. 'The dominant group is not
concerned with the subordinate group as such but it is deeply concerned
with its position vis--vis the subordinate group' (Blumer 1958, p. 4). The
implication is that majority groups are more prejudiced than minority
groups. Mullen, Brown and Smith (1992) concluded that research both
supports and rejects this proposition. Majority status is positively associated with prejudice in experimental groups, but it is negatively associated
(only a non-significant trend) with prejudice in research on real groups.
The minority is more prejudiced in the latter case, contrary to Blumer's
(1958) argument. The former Soviet Union is a good setting to test
further the group-status hypothesis for real groups, since one ethnic
group could be a majority in one ethnic environment but a minority in
another.
Karklins (1986) defined different regions in the former Soviet Union
as ethnic environments. During the Soviet era, ethnic Russians dispersed
throughout the Soviet Union to manage the government and economies
of the non-Russian republics, and non-Russian groups also moved to
Russia, but in smaller numbers. While Russians were the majority in

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

Prejudice in the former Soviet Union 615

Russia, a titular non-Russian group was a numerical majority of the
population in eight of the other Soviet Republics. In this study, majority
and minority status is defined by a group's relative size in an ethnic
environment, with Russians the majority group in Moscow and Gorki
(Russia SSR) and Ukrainians and Tatars minority groups. Ukrainians in
Harkov (Ukraine SSR) and Tatars in Kazan (Tatar ASR) are majority
groups at those sites, respectively, with Russians a minority group
(Furtado and Hechter 1992; Laitin et al. 1992; Batalden and Batalden
1993). According to the group-status hypothesis, Russians should be
more prejudiced in Moscow and Gorki and less so in Harkov and Kazan
once target groups are held constant. Tatars and Ukrainians should be
more prejudiced in Kazan and Harkov, respectively, and less so at the
other sites in which they are a minority. The test of the group-status
hypothesis is done by controlling for ethnic-group membership and
target of prejudice, allowing group status as majority or minority to vary
by ethnic environment.
Types of prejudice

There are thought to be four types of prejudice in the United States and
Western Europe: classical prejudice, ethnocentrism, symbolic/cultural
prejudice, and aversive prejudice (Sears and Kinder 1971; McConahay
and Hough 1976; Pettigrew 1979; Barker 1981; Bobo 1983; Hagendoorn
and Hraba 1987,1989; Sears 1988; Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn 1993).
Classical prejudice (also called biological prejudice) is based on the
notion that out-groups are genetically inferior to one's in-group and
therefore should be segregated and denied civil rights. Research in the
United States and Europe indicates that classical prejudice has been supplanted, however, by symbolic prejudice, a newer, more indirect and
subtle form of prejudice (Sears and Kinder 1971; McConahay and Hough
1976; Pettigrew 1979; Barker 1981). This newer prejudice is based on perceived cultural rather than biological differences between in- and outgroups, implying that advances of out-groups would be a threat to the
in-group's culture and habits.
The ethnocentric person judges the worth of out-group cultures in
terms of in-group cultural standards and, since other cultures are different, they are believed to be inferior. Ethnocentrism is based on in-group
preference and out-group derogation, and is considered by scholars to be
a universal human characteristic (Brown 1986). Aversive prejudice is
avoiding contact with out-group members, motivated by uneasiness or
discomfort about that contact without explicitly denying ethnic equality
(Bogardus 1925/1959; Hagendoorn and Hraba 1987; Hagendoorn 1991).
This type of prejudice is measured by social distance towards targets in
contact domains (Bogardus 1958,1967,1968; Crull & Bruton 1979,1985;
Owen, Eisner and McFaul, 1981; Hagendoorn and Hraba 1987;

616 Joseph Hraba et al.

Hagendoorn and Hraba 1989; Hraba, Hagendoorn and Hagendoorn
1989; Hagendoorn and Kleinpenning 1991).
Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993) found that ethnic Dutch students
distinguished between these four types of prejudice and held them to be
cumulative stages, with aversive the least and classical the most extreme
type. Our first task is to ascertain whether Russian, Tatar and Ukrainian
students made any distinction between these types of prejudice, and our
second is to test the in-group bias and group-status hypotheses regarding
prejudice in different ethnic environments in the former USSR.
Data and measures
Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

The sample
The Public Opinion Research Center of the Department of Sociology at
Moscow State University conducted this survey from late autumn 1991
to March 1992. The questionnaire was printed in Russian and included
prejudice terms used in The Netherlands and the United States. Respondents were 1,459 first- and fourth-year university students in eight regions
of the former USSR: Barnaul, Altaian ASSR; Kazan, Tatar ASSR;
Novopolotsk, Belorussian SSR; Moscow, RSFSR; Gorki, RSFSR; UlanUde, Buryat ASSR; Ufa, Bashkir ASSR, and Harkov, Ukrainian SSR. For
prejudice items, respondents were assigned from four to six target groups
based on their region's ethnic mix, with Russians assigned as a target
group to all respondents. Our analysis is limited to Russians (n = 452),
Tatars (n = 173) and Ukrainians (n = 196), representing 31 per cent, 12
per cent and 13.4 per cent, respectively, of the total sample, in Moscow,
Gorki, Harkov and Kazan. These groups at these sites had sufficient N to
enable analysis when holding target groups constant.
Measures of prejudice
Prejudice is calculated from respondent scores on fifteen items adapted
from Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993). Factor analysis will be used
to test whether these items from Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993)
form the same pattern (aversive, biological and symbolic prejudice and
ethnocentrism) for Russian, Tatar and Ukrainian respondents. Variables
loading on individual factors at .3 or more will be reported along with
their commonalities (the part of each variable's variation related to the
common factors). All items are coded so that higher values mean more
prejudice.
In-group bias
Respondents' in-group membership (Russian, Tatar and Ukrainian) is
their self-reported father's nationality, consistent with Karklins (1986).

Prejudice in the former Soviet Union 617

Mean prejudice scores will be calculated for Russians, Tatars and
Ukrainians with mixed targets and with each other as targets. T-tests will
be used to determine significant differences between means.

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

Group status
Status is determined by whether a group was a numerical majority or
minority of the population at a specific site. The 1989 All-Union Census
indicates the population of the Russian Republic was 82.8 per cent ethnic
Russians, 3 per cent Ukrainians and 3 per cent Tatars; the Republic of
Ukraine included 73.6 per cent Ukrainians and 21.1 per cent Russians;
and in the Tatar ASSR, Tatars were 48.5 per cent and Russians were 43.3
per cent of the population (Batalden and Batalden 1993). In Moscow and
Gorki, both located in the former Russian Republic, ethnic Russians held
the majority position, and Ukrainians and Tatars were minority groups.
In Kazan in the former Tatar ASSR, Tatars were the majority group, and
Russians and Ukrainians were minority groups. In Harkov, Ukraine,
Ukrainians were the majority group and Russians and Tatars were minority groups. T-tests will be used to test for mean differences within groups
by ethnic environments.
Results
Types of prejudice
Factor analysis of the prejudice terms showed that seven of the fifteen
variables loaded on two factors for the three respondent groups (see
Table 1). The three social distance items formed an aversive prejudice
factor and four other items formed an ethnocentrism factor. Eight variables were dropped from the analysis because they correlated negatively,
or because they did not load in the factor analysis at .3 or higher. Only
two of the four types of prejudice found in the Dutch study (Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn 1993) were found for Russians, Tatars and Ukrainians, and the ethnocentrism factor combines two ethnocentric items and
two classical prejudice items from the Dutch study. Alphas for the aversive prejudice factor were for Russians (.84), Tatars (.85), and Ukrainians (.81). For ethnocentrism, the alpha for Tatars was .84, for Ukrainians
.82, and .66 for Russians.
Aversive prejudice
In-group bias: If in-group bias predicts prejudice, then each group (Russians, Tatars and Ukrainians) would be equally prejudiced. Aversive
prejudice values ranged from 1 to 9, with a higher score indicating more
social distance. Prejudice scores against mixed target groups at all eight

618 Joseph Hraba et al.

Table 1. Factor loadings for prejudice factors, Russians, Tatars and Ukrainians

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

Russians:
Item:
Targets as co-workers
Targets as neighbours
Targets as marriage partners
Other groups don't have a
right to live their own way
Other ethnic groups are
less intelligent
Must prevent other groups
in one's territory
Other groups are genetically
different

Factors:
Aversive
prejudice
.96133
.82825
.63454

Ethnocentrism
-.0.3461
.07405
.00372

Communality
.69175
.92539
.40943

-.03960

.49098

.24673

-.01866

.70005

.49118

-.02093

.57881

.33762

.15782

.57799

.36115

Aversive
prejudice
.95915
.88538
.61296

Ethnocentrism
-.02307
-.00714
.04757

Communality
.92178
.79871
.38653

.01181

.90187

.82420

-.05919

.82820

.72711

-.02948

.77032

.63691

-.04451

.66046

.51355

Aversive
prejudice
.93378
.91078
.55410

Ethnocentrism
.05119
.04510
.09010

Communality
.87691
.83355
.35119

.07835

.89559

.81615

.08794

.82326

.72233

.03902

.76796

.62249

.06810

.66342

.53861

Tatars
Item:
Targets as co-workers
Targets as neighbours
Targets as marriage partners
Other groups don't have a
right to live their own way
Other ethnic groups are
less intelligent
Must prevent other groups
in one's territory
Other groups are genetically
different
Ukrainians:
Item:
Targets as co-workers
Targets as neighbours
Targets as marriage partners
Other groups don't have a
right to live their own way
Other ethnic groups are
less intelligent
Must prevent other groups
in one's territory
Other groups are genetically
different

sites were first calculated (see Table 2). Tatars had a prejudice score of
6.5, Russians had a prejudice score of 4.4 and Ukrainians had a score of
3.1. T-tests for differences between group means showed that Tatars were
significantly more prejudiced than both Russians and Ukrainians, and
Russians were significantly more prejudiced than Ukrainians.

Prejudice in the former Soviet Union 619

Table 2. Mean aversive prejudice scores of Russians, Tatars and Ukrainians, with
non-specific targets
Tatars3
Russians'3
Ukrainians

mean = 6.52
mean =4.44
mean = 3.13

s = 4.220
s = 3.241
s = 2.477

n = 173
n = 450
n = 196
N = 819

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

Tatars were significantly more prejudiced than Russians (t = -6.58, p.>.000) and Ukrainians (t = 9.53, p.>000)
b
Russians were significantly more prejudiced than Ukranians (t = 5.03, p>.000)

Next, mean prejudice scores for the domains of marriage, work and
neighbours were compared across respondent groups. It was expected
that Tatars, who were significantly more prejudiced than either the Russians or Ukrainians, would be more prejudiced than Russians and
Ukrainians in the domain of marriage, given their Muslim religion and
culture, but perhaps not in the other domains (work and neighbours). As
expected,Tatars were significantly more prejudiced in the domain of marriage than Russians (t = -3.85, p > .000) and Ukrainians (t = 6.76,
p. > .000). However, Tatars were also significantly more prejudiced than
either Russians or Ukrainians in the domains of work (Russians, t =
-7.26, p > .000; Ukrainians t = 8.72, p > .000) and neighbours (Russians,
Table 3. Aversive prejudice scores of Russians, Ukrainians, and Tatars with each
other as target groups"
Target group

Ukrainians

Russians
mean = 1.84
n = 33
s = 1.261

Tatars
mean = 4.6641e
n = 129
s = 1.919
Tatars
mean = 4.7273d
n = 33
s = 2.394

Tatars

Russians
mean = 3.49
n = 136
s = 2.033

Ukrainians
mean = 4.2034
n = 136
s = 2.147

In-group
Russians

Ukrainians
mean = 3.09b
n = 129
s = 2.082

These comparisons were made with paired t-tests

Russians were more prejudiced against Ukrainians than Ukrainians were against Russians (t = 4.29, pxOOO).
c
Russians were more prejudiced against Tatars than Tatars were against Russians (t = 4.60,
pxOOO)
d
There was no significant difference between Tatars' prejudice against Ukrainians and
Ukrainians' prejudice against Tatars.
b

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

620 Joseph Hraba et al.

t = -8.18, p > .000; Ukrainians, t = 9.18, p > .000).

The third step was to test for differences in mean prejudice scores of
these same respondent groups by holding their target groups constant,
that is, with each group having each other as targets (see Table 3). This
step removed the variation in mean scores that may have been due to the
variation in targets for the respondent groups. Paired t-tests show that
Russians were more prejudiced against Tatars than Tatars were against
Russians (t = 4.60), p > .000), and Russians were more prejudiced against
Ukrainians than Ukrainians were against Russians (t = 4.29,
p > .000). However, there was no significant difference between Tatars'
prejudice against Ukrainians and Ukrainians' prejudice against Tatars.
The in-group bias hypothesis is not supported with non-specific targets
and when controlling for target groups.
Group status: The group-status hypothesis is tested for Russian, Tatar
and Ukrainian respondents in three ethnic environments controlling for
Table 4. Aversive prejudice scores of Russians, Ukrainians, and Tatars by group
status with each other as target groups
Group status
In-group
Majority
Russians (prejudice against Ukrainians)3
in Russia
mean = 3.05
n = 118
s = 1.888
Russians (prejudice against Tatars)b
in Russia
mean = 5.13
n = 60
s = 2.234
Tatars (prejudice against Russians)0
in Kazan
mean = 3.53
n = 45
s = 2.039
Ukrainians (prejudice against Russians)d
in Ukraine
mean = 2.26
n = 56
s = 1.590
a

Minority
in Ukraine
mean = 2.29
n = 64
s = 1.729
in Kazan
mean = 4.15
n = 34
s = 1.977
in Russia
mean = 3.54
n = 51
s = 1.849
in Russia
mean = 2.59
n = 59
s = 1.697

Russians were significantly more prejudiced in Russia than in Harkov (t = 2.66, p>.008)
Russians were significantly more prejudiced in Russia than in Kazan (t = 2.13, p>.036)
c
Tatars were more prejudiced in Russia than in Kazan, but the difference was not significant (t = -.01,p>.995)
d
Ukrainians were more prejudiced in Russia than in Harkov, but the difference was not
significant (t = -1.08,p>.283)
b

Prejudice in the former Soviet Union 621

Table 5. Mean ethnocentrism scores of Russians, Tatars and Ukrainians, with nonspecific targets
Russians"
Ukrainians
Tatars'3

mean = 2.3575
mean = 2.2003
mean = 2.1809

s = .709
s = .695
s = .679

n = 451
n = 196
n = 170
N = 817

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

" Russians were significantly more prejudiced than both Tatars (t = 2.86, p>.005) and
Ukrainians (t = 2.63, p>.009).
b
Tatars were not significantly more prejudiced than Ukrainians.

targets with aversive prejudice. We expected, for example, Russian

respondents in Russia to be more prejudiced against Ukrainians than
Russian respondents living in the Ukraine, and Russians in Moscow and
Gorki to be more prejudiced towards Tartars than are Russians in Kazan
(see Table 4).
Russian respondents in Russia were significantly more prejudiced
towards Ukrainians than were those in Harkov (t = 2.66, p > .008), and

Table 6. Ethnocenrism scores of Russians, Ukrainians, and Tatars by group status

with non-specific targets
Group status
In-group
Russians8

Majority
in Russia
mean = 2.4855
n = 121
s = .781

Minority
in Ukraine
mean = 2.1667
n = 63
s = .611

Russians'3

in Russia
mean = 2.4855
n = 121
s = .781

in Kazan
mean = 2.3309
n = 34
s = .730

Tatars0

in Kazan
mean = 2.1778
n = 45
s = .700

in Russia
mean = 2.1000
n = 50
s = .680

Ukrainians'1

in Ukraine
mean = 2.3596
n = 57
s = .079

in Russia
mean = 2.2292
n = 60
s = .808

Russians were more significantly ethnocentric in Russia than in Harkov (t = 3.04,p>.003)

Russians were not significantly more ethnocentric in Russia than in Kazan (t = 1.07,
p>.287)
c
Tatars were not significantly more ethnocentric in Kazan than in Russia (t = .55, p>.585)
d
Ukrainians were not significantly more ethnocentric in Harkov than in Russia (t = 1.00,
p>.321)
b

622 Joseph Eraba et al.

Russian respondents in Russia were significantly more prejudiced
towards Tartars than those in Kazan (t = 2.13, p > .036). When Russians
were a majority they were more prejudiced than they were as a minority. As for Tatar and Ukrainian respondents, their aversive prejudice was
not affected by group status with targets controlled.

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

Ethnocentrism
In-group bias: Ethnocentrism scores ranged from 1 to 5, with a higher
score meaning more ethnocentrism. Scores for the three groups against
mixed target groups at all eight sites were calculated (see Table 5). Russians had a mean score of 2.36, Ukrainians 2.20 and Tatars 2.18. T-tests
for differences between group means showed that Russians were significantly more ethnocentric than both Tatars and Ukrainians.
Group status: Russians were significantly more ethnocentric when they
were the majority in Russia than they were as a minority in Harkov.
There were no significant differences between Russian ethnocentrism in
Russia and Kazan, and Tatars' and Ukrainians' ethnocentrism did not significantly vary by group status (see Table 6). Data were not available to
test for differences in mean ethnocentrism scores of these respondent
groups by holding target groups constant, that is, with each group having
each other as targets. Respondents were asked to respond generally to
'other groups' with ethnocentrism items.
Discussion
It was hypothesized that group status has greater impact on prejudice
than does group membership per se, and the ethnic environments of the
old Soviet Union provided a unique test of these competing hypotheses.
Factor analysis identified two types of prejudice for Russian, Tatar and
Ukrainian respondents, aversive prejudice (social distance items) and
ethnocentrism (combination of classical prejudice and ethnocentrism
items). Although inconsistent with Dutch results, these scales are consistent with definitions of prejudice as feelings of superiority and subordination, proprietary claims on citizenship rights (inclusion/exclusion),
as well as simple avoidance of out-groups (Sumner 1906; Sears and
Kinder 1971; McConahay and Hough 1976; Pettigrew 1979; Barker 1981;
Bobo 1983; Hagendoorn and Hraba 1987,1989; Sears 1988; Crocker and
Luhtanen 1990; Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn 1993).
Hagendoorn, Drogendijk, Tumanov and Hraba (1995) suggested that
different and fewer types of prejudice in the former Soviet Union could
be due to at least two factors: (1) a difference in the way in which these
items measured prejudice in the former Soviet Union compared to elsewhere; (2) there were not the same types of prejudice in the former Soviet
Union as in Europe and the United States. No symbolic prejudice was

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

Prejudice in the former Soviet Union 623

found in the Soviet Union, nor did we find there a concern with the state
backing minority rights through affirmative action, school busing, etc., a
necessary antecedent in the United States to symbolic prejudice. Instead,
respondents expressed social distance towards out-groups, aversive
prejudice, and combined ethnocentrism with biological prejudice into a
second orientation towards out-groups. This second prejudice possibly
justified their social distance. It is only the newer or symbolic prejudice
that we did not find in the old Soviet Union, and this is the only inconsistency between these findings and those in the United States and
Western Europe.
Russians were more ethnocentric towards mixed targets than both
Tatars and Ukrainians, and expressed more aversive prejudice than
Ukrainians towards mixed targets. Russians were also more aversively
prejudiced towards Tatars and Ukrainians than were Tatars and Ukrainians towards them. These results do not support the in-group bias hypothesis that the three groups would be equally prejudiced. Nor do these
findings support the conclusion drawn by Mullen, Brown, and Smith
(1992) that in-group bias would be stronger among real minority groups.
Instead, the majority was more prejudiced.
Furthermore, Russian respondents in Russia expressed more aversive
prejudice towards Tatars and Ukrainians than did Russian respondents
in Harkov (Ukraine) and Kazan towards the same, matched targets. This
is the strongest test for the group-status hypothesis, since targets are also
controlled. Russians in Russia were also more ethnocentric towards
mixed targets than those at Harkov. This further supports the groupstatus hypothesis. However, the prejudice (aversive and ethnocentrism)
of Tatar and Ukrainian respondents did not vary by ethnic environment.
Neither group was more prejudiced at home than in another environment. Thus, support for the group-status hypothesis is limited to Russians.
One interpretation of these findings is that Tatar and Ukrainian
respondents in Kazan and Harkov respectively, felt no more like a
majority group than did Tatars and Ukrainians in other ethnic environments. If we change the meaning of majority/minority from relative size
to relative power, we become aware that non-Russian groups in the
Soviet Union might have had little reason to see themselves as a majority
even in their titular republics. Local politics outside of Russia were often
marked by competition between the titular group and Russian immigrants who had the all-union authorities, that is, Moscow, to support them.
Some nationalities had no national territorial formations at all, and were
deprived of what little power and status formations offered; among these
groups were the Crimean Tatars whose ASSR was abolished during
World War II (Bremmer 1993; Zaslavsky 1993). Even in the Ukraine,
famines were set off in the 1930s due to directives from Moscow. This is
hardly a picture of titular nationalities having majority power at home.
The Soviet Center in Moscow sought to assimilate titular nationalities

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

624 Joseph Hraba et al.

into a Soviet model, through extensive Russian migration, Soviet indoctrination in schools and youth groups, the co-optation of religious groups,
and the development of local economies that were dependent on the
Soviet Center (Bremmer 1993). In non-Slavic regions, the Soviet Center
worked to create the idea that these diverse nations had no culture prior
to the Soviet period. While Soviet nationality policies imposed a formal
Soviet identity on all its peoples, the Soviet state developed administrative mechanisms that controlled the composition and activities of local
administrations, preventing them from acting as unified ethnic entities
capable of independence from the Center (Zaslavsky 1993). For these
reasons, non-Russian groups may not have felt like majority groups even
in their home territories.
Soviet citizens never came to feel that a Soviet nation existed and that
even among Russians the Soviet state was perceived to be the natural
extension of the Russian nation. Dunlop (1983) noted that while the
Russian people had no privileges and did not live noticeably better than
did the people in the titular republics, their status came from the 'advantages' they enjoyed as 'the surest ally of Communism'. They were encouraged by the Soviet regime to take pride in this and in the fact that they
belonged to a 'great power', a symbolic status which other groups within
Soviet boundaries did not enjoy to the same extent.
Another interpretation of Russians being more prejudiced at Russian
sites has to do with the breakup of the Soviet Union rather than with the
Soviet history of Russian centrality. By 1991, when it was clear that the
Soviet Union would fragment, Russians in Russia began resurrecting a
Russian identity to replace a Soviet one, an ethnic revivalism that lagged
perhaps two or three years behind that of non-Russian groups. Not only
had Russians voluntarily adopted a Soviet identity more than nonRussian groups, but they were also later in replacing it with a nationalist
one. Russians still felt that they had a home territory, Russian sites at the
time of this study, while conceding their former dominant position at nonRussian sites. They were now a threatened majority, however, defending
with prejudice their status at least at Moscow and Gorki. Russian
respondents at non-Russian sites did not have this option and, thus, were
less prejudiced. Tatars and Ukrainians at their home sites had less need
for such a defensive prejudice and, thus, were no more prejudiced in
Kazan and Harkov respectively, than those at sites away from home.
Furthermore, the rise in their prejudice might have passed, having started
earlier than the resurgence of Russian nationalism and moving towards
a different expression in more independence from Russians with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
We imposed a quasi-experimental design on these survey data by controlling ethnic-group membership of respondents and the targets of their
prejudice, letting majority/minority status as relative size vary across
ethnic environments. However, ethnic environments can vary in other

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

Prejudice in the former Soviet Union 625

ways as well (Karklins 1986; Harris 1993). To illustrate, Harris (1993)
stated that language shifts towards Russian indicated the extent to which
Russification had taken hold in a particular ethnic environment. Factors
relating to language shifts include urbanization of an ethnic group, its age
and gender composition, Slavic linguistic affinity of its language, its
religion and its frequency of mixed marriages with Russians. If we assume
that greater Russification means less prejudice of an in-group towards at
least Russian targets, then we can explain the Tatars' being more prejudiced towards Russians that were the Ukrainians. Compared to Ukrainians in Harkov, Tatars in Kazan were more dissimilar to Russians on a
number of these conditions, particularly religion, lack of language affinity and infrequency of mixed marriages with Russians. It appears we must
at least specify, if not control, other conditions defining ethnic environments to determine who is more prejudiced, majority or minority groups.
Acknowledgements
An earlier draft of this article was presented at the 1994 Meetings of the
American Sociological Association, Los Angeles, August 1994. The
authors wish to thank Gang Lee, Frederick Lorenz, and Hub Linssen for
contributions to the data management and analysis.
References
BARKER, M. 1981 The New Racism, London: Junction Books
BATALDEN, S. K. and BATALDEN, S. L. 1993 The Newly Independent States of Eurasia:
Handbook of Former Soviet Republics, Phoenix, AZ: Oryx
BLUMER, HERBERT 1958 'Race prejudice as a sense of group position', Pacific Sociological Review, vol. 1, Spring, pp. 3-7
BOGARDUS, EMORY S. 1925/1959 Social Distance, Yellow Springs, OH: The Antioch Press
1967 A Forty-Year Racial Distance Study, Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern
California Press
1968 'Comparing racial distance in Ethiopia, South Africa and the United States', Sociology and Social Research, vol. 52, pp. 149-56
BOB, LAWRENCE 1983 'Whites opposition to busing: symbolic racism or realistic group
conflict?', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 45, pp. 1196-210
BREMMER, I. 1993 'Reassessing Soviet nationalities theory', in I. Bremmer and R. Taras
(eds), Nation and Politics in the Soviet Successor States, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
BROWN, R. 1986 Social Psychology: The Second Edition, New York, NY: Free Press
CROCKER, JENNIFER and LUHTANEN, RIIA 1990 'Collective self-esteem and
ingroup bias', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 60-67
CRULL, SUSAN R. and BRUTON, BRENT T. 1979 'Bogardus social distance in the
1970s', Sociology and Social Research, vol. 63, pp. 771-83
1985 'Possible decline in tolerance toward minorities: social distance on a midwest
campus', Sociology and Social Research, vol. 70, pp. 57-62
DUNLOP, JOHN 1993 'Russia: confronting a loss of empire', in I. Bremmer and R. Taras
(eds), Nation and Politics in the Soviet Successor States, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

626 Joseph Hraba et al.

FURTADO, JR, C. F. and HECHTER, M. 1992 'The emergence of nationalist politics in
the USSR: a comparison of Estonia and the Ukraine', in A. J. Motyl (ed.), Thinking Theoretically about Soviet Nationalities, New York: Columbia University Press
HAGENDOORN, LOUK 1991 'Ethnic categorization and outgroup exclusion', unpublished paper, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
HAGENDOORN, LOUK, et al. 1995 'Perceived ethnic hierarchies in the former Soviet
Union', unpublished paper, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
HAGENDOORN, LOUK and HRABA, JOSEPH 1989 'Foreign, different, deviant, seclusive and working class: anchors to an ethnic hierarchy in The Netherlands', Ethnic and
Racial Studies, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 441-68
HAGENDOORN, LOUK and HRABA, JOSEPH 1987 'Social distance towards Holland's
minorities: discrimination against and among ethnic outgroups', Ethnic and Racial Studies,
vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 120-33
HAGENDOORN, LOUK and KLEINPENNING, GERARD 1991 'The contribution of
domain-specific stereotypes to ethnic social distance', British Journal of Social Psychology,
vol. 30, pp. 63-78
HARRIS, CHAUNCY D. 1993 'A geographic analysis of non-Russian minorities in Russia
and its ethnic homelands', Post-Soviet Geography, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 543-97
HRABA, JOSEPH, HAGENDOORN, LOUK and HAGENDOORN, ROELAND 1989
'The ethnic hierarchy in The Netherlands: social distance and social representation', British
Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 28, pp. 57-69
HRABA, JOSEPH, BRINKMAN, RICHARD and GRAY-RAY PHYLLIS 1996 'A comparison of black and white prejudice', Sociological Spectrum, vol. 16, pp. 129-57
KARKLINS, R. 1986 Ethnic Relations in the USSR: The Perspective front Below, Boston,
MA: Allen & Unwin
KLEINPENNING, GERARD and HAGENDOORN, LOUK 1993 'Forms of racism and
the cumulative dimension of ethnic attitudes', Social Psychology Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 1,
pp. 24-36
LAITIN, D. D., PETERSEN, R. and SLOCUM, J. W. 1992 'Language and the state: Russia
and the Soviet Union in comparative perspective', in A. J. Motyl (ed.), Thinking Theoretically About Soviet Nationalities, New York: Columbia University Press
MCCONAHAY, J. B. and HOUGH, JR, J. C. 1976 'Symbolic racism', Journal of Social
Issues, vol. 32, pp. 23-45
MULLEN, B., BROWN, R. and SMITH, C 1992 'In-group bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: an integration', European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 22, pp. 103-22
OWEN, C. A., EISNER, H. C. and MCFAUL, T. R. 1981 'A half-century of social distance
research: national replication of the Bogardus studies', Sociology and Social Research, vol.
66, pp. 80-98
PETTIGREW, THOMAS 1979 'Racial change and social policy', Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 441, pp. 114-31
SEARS, DAVID O. 1988 'Symbolic racism', in P. A. Katz and D. A. Taylor (eds), Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy, New York: Plenum
SEARS, DAVID and KINDER, D. 1971 'Racial tensions and voting in Los Angeles', in W.
Z. Hirsch (ed.), Los Angeles: Viability and Prospects for Metropolitan Leadership, New
York: Praeger, pp. 51-38
SNIDERMAN, PAUL et al. 1991 'The new racism', American Journal of Political Science,
vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 423-47
SUMNER, WILLIAM 1906 Folkways, Boston, MA: Ginn
TAJFEL, HENRI, et al. 1971 'Social categorization and intergroup behavior', European
Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 149-78
1981 Human Groups and Social Categories, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
TAJFEL, HENRI and TURNER, JONATHAN C. 1979 'An integrative theory of social
conflict', in W. Austin and S. Worchel (eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations,
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33-47

Prejudice in the former Soviet Union 627

Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 21:40 11 May 2013

1986 'The social identity theory of intergroup behavior', in S. Worchel and W. G. Austin
(eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2nd edn, Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7-24
TURNER, JONATHAN C. 1982 'Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group', in
Tajfel, H. (ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
ZASLAVSKY, V. 1993 'Success and collapse: traditional Soviet nationality policy', in I.
Bremmer and R. Taras (eds), Nation and Politics in the Soviet Successor States, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press

JOSEPH HRABA is Professor of Sociology at Iowa State University.

CAROLYN S. DUNHAM is a doctoral candidate in Sociology at Iowa
State University.
SERGEY TUMANOV is Director of the Center for Sociological Studies,
Moscow State University.
LOUK HAGENDOORN is Professor of Social Sciences at the University of Utrecht.
ADDRESS: Department of Sociology, Iowa State University of Science
and Technology, 107 East Hall, Ames, IA 50011-1070, USA.