The effects of outgroup size, contact, and threat on social distance by Oscar Mora

! " ! #

$ % & '( & ) ) & * ! + + , ) - ) , & & . ) /01/

" # " $

! " # $ % & ' ( & )

*+ % &

$ $ +*,-. %

/ ( ) % '

0 / 1-*2 # $ % & ' ( & )

The effects of Outgroup Size, Contact and Threat on Social Distance. The study of four Autonomous Republics of the Russian Federation.

Abstract The size of the outgroup is considered to be a crucial element to understand intergroup relations. In this paper we examine the relations between the size of the outgroup at different levels with other elements important to predict intergroup relations, namely intergroup contact and threat. We find that perceived outgroup size at lower levels (neighborhood and city) is more related to intergroup contact while perceived outgroup size at higher levels (republic) is more related to feelings of (symbolic) threat. Furthermore, the findings among Russian and titular groups in 4 autonomous republics of the Russian Federation indicate that in culturally heterogeneous contexts, both threat and contact have a stronger effect on prejudice compared to culturally homogeneous contexts.

Acknowledgments I thank Dr. Edwin Poppe and Prof. Dr. Maykel Verkuyten from the Migration, Ethnic Relations and Multiculturalism at Utrecht University for their supervision in the writing of this manuscript.

Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................. 5 Theories .................................................................................................. 7 ............................................................................. 7 ..................................................................................... 8 ............................................................................................. 9 .................................................................................................. 11 The Russian Federation ........................................................................ 11 ................................................................................................ 12 Participants............................................................................................ 12 Methods .............................................................................................. ..13 Data analysis ......................................................................................... 14 ................................................................................................... 15 Descriptives .......................................................................................... 15 Measurement Model ............................................................................. 16 Structural Model ................................................................................... 17 Fitting the Model for Russian and Titular Groups ............................... 21 ............................................................................................ 28 ............................................................................................... 34 .............................................................................................. 37 ............................................................................................ 38

The effects of Outgroup Size, Contact and Threat on Social Distance: The study of four Autonomous Republics of the Russian Federation. 1

Introduction An important element to explain intergroup relations in a multi-ethnic setting is the numerical size of the groups. Researchers have been interested for a long time on how contextual factors, like the numerical size of groups, affect intergroup attitudes and intergroup relations (Blalock, 1967; Liebkind et al., 2004; Quillian, 1995; Semyonov, 2004). However, the evidence of the effect relative outgroup size has on intergroup relations is mixed and often contradictory (Oliver and Wong, 2003). It remains unclear whether the mixed findings relate to specific intergroup contexts or to the ways past research has measured outgroup size in relation to intergroup attitudes (De Wit, 2004; Oliver and Mendelberg, 2000; Stein et al., 2000).

The aim of our research is to examine the effect of relative outgroup size on social distance in four republics of the Russian Federation. Social distance is considered to be a measure of prejudice reflecting avoidance of outgroup members (Allport, 1954; Poppe and Hagendoorn, 2004). Social distance can be measured by asking people how far they are willing to accept outgroup members in different aspects of their life. Poppe and Hagendoorn (2004) find that social distance from outgroups in private relations (i.e. family) is always higher than social distance in public relations. Moreover, Kalmijn and van Tubergen (2006) find that items measuring intimate relations are especially important to examine intergroup relations (see also 5

Dixon and Rosenbaum, 2004).

In this study we include both contextual and individual measures to explain social distance. Contextual measures are accounted for by including the actual outgroup size. We also distinguish the effects of perceived and actual group size on social distance, which have rarely been jointly explored in the past (Coenders et al., 2004; Semyonov, 2004). Next to perceived group size, individual level measures include both intergroup contact and threat; we examine their role as mediators between group size and social distance. Liebkind et al. (2004) found that outgroup size was related to intergroup attitudes and this relation was mediated by intergroup contact. There is extensive evidence that contact improves intergroup attitudes (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2000). Additionally, studies concerned with group threat indicate that a large outgroup will increase negative intergroup attitudes as a large outgroup poses a bigger threat (Blumer, 1958; Quillian, 1995; Taylor, 1998). Bobo (2003) suggests that analyzing group size in contexts beyond the BlackÂą White relations in the United States is a necessary step to advance our understanding of intergroup relations. Our research will address the relations between Titulars (i.e. the main indigenous population of each republic) and ethnic Russians in four autonomous republics of the Russian Federation: Karelia, Komi, Bashkortostan and Tatarstan. Hence, we take the perspective of both majorities and minorities into account. Liebkind (2004) found that there is an interaction between group size and groups status on intergroup attitudes. Therefore, we include both the majority and minority attitudes in our study and we also account for cultural differences between these groups. The specific questions that this research addresses are: Is there an effect of outgroup size on intergroup contact and group threat in these autonomous republics of the Russian Federation? Is there an effect of relative outgroup size on intergroup attitudes that goes through contact and 6

threat? Are there different effects for measures of perceived outgroups size at different levels, such as country, city and neighborhood? Are these effects different for majority and minority groups and for groups who are culturally similar or distant?

Theories Contact hypothesis Allport (1954) laid the framework to understand the effect of contact on intergroup attitudes. Contact theory predicts that increased contact among members of different ethnic groups is likely to decrease prejudice between these groups. In his formulation, Allport (1954) specified that four conditions would be necessary to have a positive effect of intergroup contact on intergroup relations: equal group status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation and support from the authorities. Since its first formulation, extensive empirical evidence has supported the claim that intergroup contact can reduce prejudice (for a review see Tropp and Pettigrew, 2006). Pettigrew (1998) finds that close relations with outgroup members, in particular friendships have the largest potential to reduce feelings of prejudice about the outgroup. Tropp and Pettigrew (2005b) mention several processes in close relationships that will facilitate a reduction of prejudice. It is assumed that having friends from the outgroup will imply acquiring NQRZOHGJH DERXW WKH RXWJURXSVÂś ZD\ RI OLIH WKLV FRJQLWLYH DQG DIIHFWLYH FORVHQHVV will spill over and improve the evaluation of (other members of) the outgroup as a whole. Finally, Pettigrew (1998) found evidence of a positive effect of contact (i.e. IULHQGVKLS RQ LQWHUJURXS UHODWLRQV HYHQ ZKHQ VRPH RI $OOSRUWÂśV FRQGLWLRQV DUH QRW fully met. Regardless, most research on contact has highlighted the very specific conditions proposed by Allport (Dixon et al., 2005); the question remains whether 7

these conditions are truly found in daily situations. A relevant specification is established by Tropp and Pettigrew (2005a) who found that the negative effect of contact on prejudice is different for members of majority and minority groups. They found that contact is more important to reduce prejudice for majority groups than for minority group members. Considering these findings, we examine the relations between contact and social distance among both majority and minority group members.

The contact hypothesis is closely related to outgroup size since a large outgroup increases the opportunities for contact with a member of the outgroup (Stein et al., 2000). For instance, Liebkind et al. (2004) found intergroup contact to be a mediator between group size and intergroup attitudes. Oliver and Wong (2003) examined different measurements of relative outgroup size and their effects on intergroup relations. It was found that in the United States, a large outgroup in the neighborhood will reduce prejudice, whereas at the district level a large outgroup is associated with higher intergroup hostility. Still, research is needed to asses if the relation between intergroup contact, outgroup size and intergroup attitudes differs in contexts apart from Black-White relations in the United States (Dixon and Rosenbaum, 2004).

Threat theory Perceived threat is a central concept in understanding intergroup relations (Blumer, 1958; Quillian, 1995; Hewstone et al., 2002). For Blumer (1958) prejudice among the dominant group is the consequence of a threat to their dominant position in society and threat is reinforced by a large outgroup. Also, Blalock (1967) suggests that the presence of a large minority is associated with perceived threat and 8

intergroup conflict. With an increment in the size of the outgroup, members of the majority group will see their economic, political and social advantages jeopardized. Increasing proportions of the outgroup also intensify the competition for resources. Bobo (1998) distinguishes between competition and perceived threat in explaining prejudice. Perceived threat is conceived as a direct determinant of prejudice and it is preceded by competition. Quillian (1995) argues that both economic conditions and the relative size of the outgroup trigger feelings of group threat. Some authors (Riek et al., 2006) propose that different types of threat should be considered simultaneously to explain intergroup attitudes. Sniderman and Hagendoorn (2007) differentiate between economic and cultural threat and their relation to negative intergroup attitudes toward minority groups in the Netherlands. They find that cultural threat is more important than economic threat to explain exclusionary attitudes in the Netherlands. In contrast, Integrated Threat theory (Stephan et al., 2000) considers these types of threat, along with stereotypes and intergroup anxiety to be complementary. To this date, despite the evidence that larger outgroup size is related to threat, most research has focused on intergroup attitudes of the majority groups (Quillian, 1995; Taylor, 1998) and not on minority groups; questions remain whether these associations also hold for minorities.

Hypotheses Considering these theoretical approaches, we formulate the following hypotheses. Various studies (e.g. Allport, 1954; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2000) have found that contact with outgroup members reduces prejudice. Thus, we expect that contact with the outgroup2 will have a negative relation to social distance (H1). Following Hagendoorn and Sniderman (2007), we include 2 measures of perceived threat. We expect that those individuals who feel more symbolic threat will maintain more social distance from the outgroup (H2a). Correspondingly we expect that those 9

individuals who feel more realistic/economic threat will also maintain more social distance towards the outgroup (H2b).

Oliver and Wong (2003) find that, in neighborhoods, a large outgroup size is related to lower levels of prejudice. We expect that outgroup size at the neighborhood will be positively related to intergroup contact (H3a) and through contact reduce social distance (H3b). Similarly, since many social interactions KDSSHQ RQ ORFDO OHYHOV EXW EH\RQG WKH VFRSH RI RQHVÂś RZQ QHLJKERUKRRG ZH expect that the outgroup size at the city level will be positively related to contact (H4a) and through contact will reduce social distance (H4b). Quillian (1995) tested group threat theory across several Western European countries and finds that a larger outgroup at the level of the state is related to increased (perceived) threat. He FRQVLGHUV VWDWHV WR EH ÂłLPSRUWDQW FXOWXUDO SROLWLFDO DQG HFRQRPLF XQLWVÂ´ 4XLOOLDQ 1995: 593). Following Quillian (1995) we expect that outgroup size at the republic level will increase perceived threat (H5a) and social distance as a consequence of threat (H5b).

Moreover, Semyonov (2004) finds that objective outgroup size does not have an effect on threat or prejudice, while, perceived size is found to be highly related with perceived threat and negative intergroup attitudes. Based on this model we explore whether items measuring perceived outgroup size are more related to threat, contact and social distance compared to measures of objective outgroup size (H6).

Previous research has found that differences between Titulars and Russians are important to explain intergroup relations in the Russian Federation (Hagendoorn et al., 2001). Liebkind (2004) found that the high-status majority and the low status 10

minority held the most positive intergroup attitudes. We investigate differences between numerical majority and minority groups, and republics where groups are culturally similar and culturally distant.

Context The Russian Federation The dissolution of the Soviet Union and its consequences for intergroup relations have been the subject of much academic query (Brubaker, 1996; Hale, 2000; Hagendoorn et al., 2001; Laitin, 1998; Poppe and Hagendoorn, 2001). The complex institutional arrangements designed to accommodate numerous ethnic groups in the Soviet period (Brubaker, 1996) did not prevent some ethnic groups from making claims for greater rights and privileges in the period after the collapse of the Soviet Union (Treisman, 1999). The complexity of the region in terms of ethnic heterogeneity allows researchers to compare groups within a single federation but still discerning between ethno-religious and cultural differences. +DOH KDV PHQWLRQHG WKDW WKH 5XVVLDQ )HGHUDWLRQ LV DQ ÂłH[Fellent natural ODERUDWRU\Â´ WR WHVW WKHRULHV RQ LQWHUJURXS UHODWLRQV In this study we focus on social distance among the titular and Russian groups in four autonomous republics within the Russian Federation. In two of the republics, Komi and Karelia, the titular groups are predominantly of Orthodox religion, therefore culturally similar to the Russian group in this respect. In the other two republics, Bashkortostan and Tatarstan, titular groups are primarily Muslim. Religion is important to shape our worldview and cultural practices and these intergroup contexts allow us to examine whether the effects of outgroups size on social distance varies in culturally (i.e. religiously) homogeneous and 11

heterogeneous republics.

A brief description of each republic is in order. Komi is located in the western part of the Russian Federation. Ethnic Russians make up 59 percent (Russian Census, 2002) of the republic's one million inhabitants, while the ethnic Komi constitute only 25 percent. The remaining population is composed of several smaller groups. The second autonomous republic, Karelia, shares a border with Finland and most of the territory and population even belonged to Finland before the Winter war in the 1940s. During the Soviet period, many Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians migrated to Karelia. As a consequence, ethnic Karelis constitute less than 10 percent of the population and less than 50 percent of the population speaks the titular Karelian language. The third republic, Bashkortostan, is located in the VRXWKHUQ 8UDO SODLQV (WKQLF 5XVVLDQV PDNH XS SHUFHQW RI WKH FRXQWULHVÂś IRXU million inhabitants. Bashkirs constitute a little less than 30 percent of the population while a large group of Muslim Tatars also live in the republic. Finally, Tatarstan is located adjacent to Bashkortostan and has a population of approximately 3.7 million inhabitants. Tatars make up 51 percent of the population, while ethnic Russians constitute approximately 40 percent. Gorenburg (1999) mentions that Tatars see themselves as a part of Russian Federation but they maintain certain cultural distance from Russians.

Methods Participants For the current study we use data from the INTAS III survey collected in the Russian Federation. The survey is composed of 1557 Titulars and 1560 Russians who live within four autonomous republics (approximately 400 members of each 12

group were surveyed; group membership was assessed by self-identification questions). Cities with a population of Russians larger than 10 percent were chosen within each republic (19 cities were selected in total) and survey points in the cities were selected by placing a spiral on the city-plan to divide the location in equal parts. On the survey points, houses and apartments were selected randomly. Within the households, the person whose birthday was closest to the date of the interview was selected and a face to face interview took place. Non-response rate (absence and refusals) was 33.6 percent. The mean age of respondents was 45 years (S.D. = 16); for brevity other descriptive statistics are shown in the appendix.

Measures For the current study we use social distance as a dependent variable. Allport (1954) conceptualizes avoidance as a manifestation of prejudice in society, where no direct harm is intended but harm is done through isolation. Social distance is measured with one item. Respondents answered on a 5-point Likert scale if it would be acceptable to have an outgroup member as a spouse. Higher scores indicate more social distance towards the outgroup. 3 5HDOLVWLF WKUHDW LV PHDVXUHG E\ WZR LWHPV ³,W LV PRUH GLIILFXOW IRU SHRSOH OLNH PH WR JHW D JRRG MRE´ DQG ³,¶P DIUDLG WKDW WKH HFRQRPLFDO SURVSHFWV RI WKH UHSXEOLF ZLOO GHWHULRUDWH´ &URQEDFK¶V DOpha for the two items is 0.712. Similar to Sniderman and Hagendoorn (2007), we distinguish between two types of perceived threat. This decision is supported because cultural/ symbolic threat did not load on the same latent construct as the two items of reaOLVWLF WKUHDW &URQEDFK¶V DOSKD GURSV WR 6\PEROLF WKUHDW LV PHDVXUHG ZLWK WKH TXHVWLRQ ³WRGD\ WKH WKUHDW WR WKH 5XVVLDQ WLWXODU FXOWXUH LV JURZLQJ´ 5HVSRQGHQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR DQVZHU RQ D -point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree for all three items. 13

The quality of contact should be considered (Pettigrew, 2005); we do so by including the following items. In the first item, respondents mentioned the number of reliable colleagues at work who are from the outgroup. The second item mHDVXUHV WKH QXPEHU RI RXWJURXS IULHQGV HDFK UHVSRQGHQW KDV &URQEDFKÂśV DOSKD for the two items is 0.75. 4

Outgroup size is measured employing four items. The first one concerns the objective percentage of both Russians and Titulars in the city of the respondent. Additionally, the questionnaire included three items measuring perceived outgroup size. Respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of outgroup members that lived in their neighborhood, city and their republic of residence.

Data analysis We applied structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with AMOS 7, using maximum likelihood estimation to test our predictions. Missing values were imputed by conditional means estimation assuming multivariate normality. A two-step procedure was followed in the analysis. The first step consisted of fitting a measurement model; this step evaluates the goodness-of-fit of the observed variables in the latent constructs. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted for each latent construct and satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices were obtained. Subsequently, we tested for measurement invariance of the latent constructs among Russian and titular groups living in 4 republics of the Russian Federation; this was necessary to evaluate whether the latent constructs are measuring the same across all groups. In the second step, we fit several structural models and assess which one best describes the data. Finally, we fit the chosen model independently for each group and evaluate if the relationship between the 14

variables varies across contexts.

In addition to theoretical reasoning, several goodness-of-fit indices are considered to determine if the models should be accepted or rejected. We include in our analysis some of the most widely accepted fit indices and evaluate them with conventional thresholds (Kline, 1998). Some rules of thumb apply when evaluating the goodness-of-ILW LQGLFHV JHQHUDOO\ LW LV UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW WKH Č¤Ă° GI UDWLR LV both the GFI and the CFI should be > .9 and RMSEA indices should be < .05 (Arbuckle and Wothke, 1999).

Results Descriptives Table 1 shows the mean scores on social distance by Russian and titular groups in the four autonomous republics of the Russian Federation. ANOVA test was performed and we found that there was a significant effect of ethnic group across republics on social distance, F(7, 3109) =30.993, p<.001. Social distance among Russian and titular groups living in culturally similar republics to the Russians (Komi and Karelia) is smaller compared to Russian and titular groups living in culturally heterogeneous republics (i.e. where the titular groups are predominantly Muslim). At the same time, social distance for Russians in Komi and Karelia is higher than for titular groups in the same republics, while the opposite is found in Tatarstan. Russians and Titulars do not differ in social distance in Bashkortostan.

Measurement model We start by including the items into the theoretically appropriate latent constructs. All the factor loadings were statistically significant (p<0.01) and after examination of modification indices no systematic problems were identified. We continue by including all latent constructs into one integrated model, again all the goodness-offit indices were evaluated and were found to be acceptable (see the unconstrained model in Table 2). Thus, the latent constructs appropriately describe the relations between the items. Given that we are interested in the effects of threat and contact on mutual social distance for both Russian and titular groups, we proceeded by splitting the file amongst ethnic groups in the four republics of residence. This provides eight groups for the analysis. Measurement invariance was assessed by fitting the latent constructs for the eight groups independently and then including equality constraints in the item loadings between the groups. The goodness-of-fit of these models are presented in Table 2.

As displayed in Table 2, both models have an adequate goodness-of-fit but special attention should be given to the fully constrained model. The fully constrained model does not have a significantly worse fit than the unconstrained model. We conclude that the latent constructs measure the same across groups and it is possible to go forward with the analysis of the structural models.

Structural Model Initially, we fit a baseline model where social distance is a function of symbolic and realistic threat as well as intergroup contact; a similar model has been tested previously by Dixon and Rosenbaum (2004) where contact and group threat were used to explain intergroup attitudes. In addition, research using longitudinal data by Schlueter et al. (2006) found that threat causally precedes intergroup attitudes. Liebkind et al. (2004; Powers and Ellison, 1995) found that contact is a mediator between group size and intergroup attitudes. Therefore, we believe that our baseline model is theoretically sound and in line with previous findings. In addition to the baseline model, three other models were fitted. Model 2 includes a path from objective outgroup size in the city to social distance; this path goes through both items measuring intergroup contact and group threat. Most empirical research concerned with the effect of relative outgroup size on intergroup attitudes have 17

concentrated on different versions of this model (Quillian, 1995 and 1996; Scheepers et al., 2002). Next, in model 3, we include paths from three measures of perceived size (neighborhood, city and republic) to social distance again mediated through threat and contact. Model 4 is based on the previous model but it contains an additional path from objective size in the city to perceived outgroup size at the city, Semyonov (2004) tested a similar model that included one item of perceived outgroup size at the regional level that mediated the path from objective size to exclusionary attitudes.

Table 3 shows the goodness-of-fit indices for all the models that were considered.5 We see that for Model 1, the baseline model which only includes the paths from contact and (symbolic and realistic) threat to social distance, all fit measures are adequate throughout all indices. From this point on, all models that were tested include some measure of outgroup size. In Model 2, we introduce a path that runs from objective outgroup size to social distance going through threat (symbolic and UHDOLVWLF DQG LQWHUJURXS FRQWDFW :H REVHUYH WKDW Č¤Ă° GI UDWLR LQFUHDVHV IURP to 6.651) while all other indices also show a worse fit. Model 3, which includes paths from three measures of perceived outgroup size (neighborhood, city and republic) to social distance going through threat and contact, also shows a 18

detriment on the goodness-of-fit compared to the baseline model, but it provides a better fit when compared to the model that only includes objective size, this model describes best the relations between the variables. Finally, Model 4, which includes a path from objective outgroup size at the city to perceived outgroup size at the city also has a worse fit than Model 3. Even though Model 4 indicates an improvement compared to the model with only objective size (Model 2), goodness-of-fit indices are not within the accepted range to accept this model as adequately describing the data. Model 3 is the only one, besides the baseline model, that remains within FRQYHQWLRQDO ILW WKUHVKROGV ZLWK D Č¤Ă° GI RI )URP WKLV FRPSDULVRQ ZH conclude that the third model with perceived outgroup size best describes the relationship between the variables, considering its fit and the information it provides. Therefore, we continue describing the coefficients for this model and subsequently comparing it across republics and ethnic groups 6.

Before introducing the description of the coefficients for Model 3, we briefly GHVFULEH WKH FRHIILFLHQWV RI 0RGHO WKH EDVHOLQH PRGHO ZKLFK GRHVQÂśW LQFOXGH VL]H measures7. In Model 1, two of our expectations are confirmed, first the path from 19

symbolic threat to VRFLDO GLVWDQFH LV SRVLWLYH DQG VLJQLILFDQW Č&#x2022; V H while at the same time (H2a) we do not find a significant effect of the path from realistic threat on social distance; this gives validation to the decision to include these two threats separately. In addition, the path from contact to social distance is QHJDWLYH DQG VLJQLILFDQW Č&#x2022; -.187 s.e.=0.031) which confirms that contact with the outgroup reduces social distance (H1).

In Table 4, we present the coefficients for Model 3 (which includes 3 measures of perceived outgroup size). We see that the path from symbolic threat to social GLVWDQFH LV SRVLWLYH DQG VLJQLILFDQW Č&#x2022; :KHQ FRPSDUHG WR 0RGHO VHH Table A3 in the appendix) the path from symbolic threat to social distance does not change with the inclusion of size measures. In model 3, the path from intergroup 20

contact to social distance not only remains negative and significant but also LQFUHDVHV ZLWK WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI SHUFHLYHG VL]H PHDVXUHV IURP Č&#x2022; - WR Č&#x2022; -.296). Again, we find that the path from realistic threat to social distance does not reach statistical significance.

Next, we disentangle the effects of perceived size at the neighborhood, city and republic level on intergroup contact, threat and social distance. Perceived outgroup size at all three levels has a positive and significant effect on intergroup contact. As expected, the effects of perceived outgroup size in the city and republic on contact is less strong compared to the effect of perceived outgroup size at the neighborhood level. The perception of a large outgroup size at the republic level has a positive effect on realistic and symbolic threat, while at the same time there is no effect of perceived size at the neighborhood and city level on the two measures of threat. Our expectations are confirmed by these results; even though we find that the perception of a large outgroup is related to contact on all levels, WKH HIIHFWV DW QHLJKERUKRRG Č&#x2022; DUH VWURQJHU WKDQ WKH HIIHFW RI RXWJURXS VL]H DW the level of the cLW\ Č&#x2022; DQG WKH UHSXEOLF Č&#x2022; %RWK UHDOLVWLF DQG V\PEROLF threat are only affected by the perception of a large outgroup size at the republic OHYHO DV SUHYLRXVO\ VWDWHG + D ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH GLUHFW HIIHFW Č&#x2022; RI SHUFHLYHG outgroup size in the neighborhood to social distance remains when including contact and threat as mediators but the overall effect is still negative due to the strength of the relation between outgroup size and social distance through contact. We postpone a more detailed discussion of this result until we fit the model for different groups to assess if it is a group-specific finding.

Fitting the model for Russian and Titular groups It seems plausible that the effects of previously discussed variables might be 21

different for different groups given the pluralistic composition of the Russian Federation. The effects of perceived outgroup size on social distance and our mediating variables could vary according to differences in culture or religion, possibly this is the case for Russians living in republics where the titular group is predominantly Muslim (Bashkortostan and Tatarstan). Furthermore, we could expect different effects of perceived outgroup size on social distance (and mediating variables) for groups who are a numerical minority in their own autonomous republic, like the case of Titulars living in Komi and Karelia. We take into account these possible sources of difference and test if our model holds up in all these situations. To do this, Model 3 is independently fitted for Russians and Titulars living in four different republics: Bashkortostan, Tatarstan, Komi and Karelia (Goodness-of-fit indices for each ethnic group are presented in the appendix). Following the independent fitting, we include some equality constraints to assess whether the path coefficients (the relationship between the variables) are different for all these groups. Several partially constrained and one fully constraint model are compared. Constraints are incorporated on what we consider to be possible sources of differentiation amongst groups. The first partially constrained model assumes that Russians and Titulars are different from each other, but at the same time, all Russians are similar across all republics (likewise with titular groups). In this model we assume that group membership matters most when considering intergroup relations and similar groups will behave in the same way irrespective of their place of residence.

In the second model, cultural differences (defined by religious differences) are considered to be important in understanding intergroup relations. In this model we expect to find groups living in culturally homogeneous (in terms of religion) republics to be alike (i.e. we expect that the path coefficients for Russians and 22

Titulars in republics where both groups are predominantly orthodox are similar due to their religious correspondence). At the same time, we expect Russians to be different than Titulars groups living in culturally heterogeneous republics (Russian who are Orthodox vs. Titulars who are Muslim). In other words, in this model we suppose that the cohabitation of culturally similar groups matters most to explain the effects of outgroup size, contact and threat on social distance.

The third partially constrained model assumes that only Russians living in culturally homogeneous republics are alike (correspondingly the same is expected for Titulars). For instance, we expect that Russians living in Komi to be similar (on how their mutual social distance is affected by intergroup contact and threat) to Russians living in Karelia. In both republics, Russians are culturally similar to the titular populations in terms of religion. At the same time, in this model, we do not expect Russians living in Komi and Karelia to be similar to Russians living in Bashkortostan and Tatarstan where titular groups are culturally distant (Gorenburg, 2005). In addition, we do not expect Russians living in Komi or Karelia to be similar to any of the titular groups. Therefore, in this partially constrained model, we recognize that both majority and minority status and cultural differences are important to explain the relationship between the variables.

The final model has equality constraints for all the groups on all paths. Hence, if the last model has the best fit compared to the other partially constrained models, the same conditions hold across all republics and ethnic groups. Model comparisons are done using maximum likelihood statistics since all models are nested. The goodness-of-fit indices for these models are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 shows that the fit for the unconstrained model (Model 1) is adequate across all indices. The indices show that Model 2 has a significantly worse fit than the unconstrained model. Model 3, also has a significantly worse fit than the unconstrained model. Although this model remains within the conventional fit range, it has the worst fit of all the partially constrained models. Model 4 distinguishes between Russians and Titulars living in culturally homogeneous or culturally heterogeneous republics. Although the model comparison shows that 0RGHO KDV D ZRUVH ILW WKDQ WKH XQFRQVWUDLQHG PRGHO ZH FDQ VHH WKDW WKH Č¤Ă° GI RI this model has a better goodness-of-fit when compared to the unconstrained model (2.708 compared to 2.776). We also find that the RMSEA index, a measure of the relative fit, is better for Model 4 than for all other models. The fully constrained model is assessed and it is found that this model has the worst fit when compared to all other models. With some caution due to the results of the model comparison, we conclude that the relation between outgroup size and social distance is best described by Model 4. The relationship between threat, intergroup contact and social distance varies both according to ethnic group and to cultural similarity. 24

Consequently, we will focus on the coefficients of this model to describe the relations between size, contact, threat and social distance for Russian and titular groups in culturally homogeneous and heterogeneous republics in the Russian Federation.

Firstly, we describe the effects on social distance. Table 6 shows that intergroup contact only reduces social distance in culturally heterogeneous republics and not in culturally homogeneous republics for both Russian and titular groups. Symbolic threat is related to more social distance for all groups, but it is twice as strong in FXOWXUDOO\ KHWHURJHQHRXV UHSXEOLFV Č&#x2022; DQG Č&#x2022; YHUVXV Č&#x2022; DQG Č&#x2022; in homogeneous republics). Again, the paths from realistic threat to social distance were not significant across any of the groups. Only for Russians living in culturally homogeneous republics, there is a direct effect of perceived outgroup size at the QHLJKERUKRRG OHYHO RQ VRFLDO GLVWDQFH Č&#x2022; $GGLWLRQDOO\ IRU WKLV VDPH JURXS we find a direct effect of perceived outgroups size at the republic level on social GLVWDQFH Č&#x2022; -.081). Following, we describe the effects of the three measures of perceived outgroup size on contact. Among Russians living in heterogeneous and homogeneous republics, the larger the perceived outgroup size in their neighborhood, the more contacts they have with Titulars. For Titulars living in culturally heterogeneous and homogeneous republics, it is the perceived size at the city level that is positively related to intergroup contact. Even though Russians and Titulars perceive differently how outgroup size (neighborhood vs. city) relates to intergroup contact; the effects for both groups are in the expected direction. Interactions and LQWHUJURXS UHODWLRQV KDSSHQ EH\RQG WKH VFRSH RI RQHÂśV QHLJKERUKRRG DQG LW LV HDV\ to expect that individuals relate with outgroup members in job environments and leisure time activities at the city level. Therefore, it is not surprising that the perception of the outgroup size at the city and neighborhood level is related to intergroup contact. Lastly, perceived outgroup size at the republic is not significantly related to intergroup contact for any group.

Next, we discuss the effects of perceived size on threat. We find that perceived outgroup size at the republic level reinforces symbolic threat for Titulars living in heterogeneous republics and, to a lesser degree, for Titulars living in homogeneous republics. For Russians, no path from perceived outgroup size on either symbolic or realistic threat reached statistical significance despite what we had found in the overall model (Model 3 in Table 4). It becomes evident that only Titulars fear the size of Russians that reside in the titular autonomous republics in particular in culturally heterogeneous republics. This suggests that cultural and religious differences also play a part in explaining intergroup relations for these republics. Again, no path from perceived outgroup size on realistic threat reached statistical significance levels. It is apparent that in these republics of the Russian Federation social distance is not associated with realistic threats.

To sum up, our results suggest that the model that best describes the effect of outgroups size on threat, contact and social distance is the one which includes measures of perceived outgroup size at different levels. Concerning the effects of contact on social distance, we find that contact reduces social distance, especially for groups that live in culturally heterogeneous republics. We also find that the effect of contact on social distance increases with the inclusion of perceived size at all levels, but with a larger effect of perceived size on the neighborhood level. As predicted, we see that symbolic threat is only positively related to the perception of outgroup size at the republic level and that it has a positive effect on social distance for all groups, the effect being larger for groups living in heterogeneous republics. Finally, even though the predicted effect of perceived outgroup size at the republic level on realistic threat is found, we do not find that realistic threat is related to social distance in these republics of the Russian Federation.

Discussion In this study, we examined factors that affect intergroup relations in the Russian Federation. We focused on how the size of the outgroup affects Russians and WLWXODU JURXSVÂś PXWXDO VRFLDO GLVWDQFH 6RFLDO Gistance is important in evaluating intergroup relations since it reveals the levels of acceptance of an outgroup member as part of intimate social circles.

By including measures of perceived outgroup size at different levels, we disentangled the effects of such factors on intergroup contact and threat. In turn, we also addressed how intergroup contact and threat relate to social distance. Specifically, we expected that the perceived outgroup size at the neighborhood and city levels would have a positive effect on intergroup contact (the measurement address also the quality of contact) due to the likelihood to have face to face encounters, whereas, outgroup size at the republic level should not relate to intergroup contact but to realistic or symbolic threat, as has been found before in cross-national studies; the republic is an important unit (Quillian, 1995) and people feel it is vulnerable to the presence of foreign groups.

We find support for several of our hypotheses in the autonomous republics of Komi, Karelia, Bashkortostan and Tatarstan of the Russian Federation. It was found that intergroup contact reduces social distance towards members of the outgroup. Other studies (e.g. Dixon and Rosenbaum, 2004) found that contact has a larger potential to reduce prejudice for groups that are less distant, but in these republics of the Russian Federation the results are different; contact has a bigger potential to reduce negative intergroup attitudes among groups who are more distant (in terms of religion), than among groups who are more similar. Tropp and Pettigrew (2005b) previously found that there is a cognitive aspect to intergroup 28

contact that will permit members of distinct groups to reduce their negative intergroup attitudes if they get acquainted with the outgroup. Acquiring knowledge about the outgroup through contact is a process that is conceivable only for groups that have little information about each other (e.g. heterogeneous republics). A second possible explanation is that Titulars in Komi and Karelia (Republics where both groups are predominantly Orthodox) need to emphasize the differences between themselves and Russians, who constitute a clear numerical majority in these republics, to maintain the boundaries of their group. The need to establish a positive distinctiveness from similar groups has been discussed by Brewer (1999) who mentions that the motivations for maintenance of ingroup boundaries are especially important in multi-ethnic settings. Subsequently, Tropp and Pettigrew (2005a) also find that contact has a stronger effect on prejudice for majority group members than for minority group members. Again, our results do not concur; we find that contact has a negative effect on social distance for both majority and minority group members (both numerical and in terms of status), but this effect is only found in culturally heterogeneous republics.

Furthermore, the results indicated that symbolic threat leads to more social distance as predicted by group threat theory; however, we find that the effect is stronger for groups living in heterogeneous republics. This is an important finding; it specifies that symbolic (i.e. cultural) threat is more important to explain negative intergroup attitudes in culturally heterogeneous than in culturally homogeneous republics. Semyonov (2004) finds that the effect of threat on prejudice is stronger for vulnerable populations. Possibly, ethno-religious differences and competition between the Russians and titular groups living in Bashkortostan and Tatarstan makes these populations more vulnerable.

Contrary to theoretical expectations, we did not find any effects of realistic threat on social distance. Several elements could explain these findings. Perhaps, positive economic conditions in these four republics account for the non-existing relation between economic threat and social distance. It is also important to consider that these autonomous republics are embedded within the Russian Federation and the economic future of these groups is still linked to that of the super-ordinate category, the Russian Federation, where Russian groups are clearly a majority. Furthermore, this finding could also be due to the specific measure of social distance (spouse) or to the fact that the items that measure economic threat in our study mostly account for individual threats. 3UHYLRXV UHVHDUFK IRFXVHG RQ KRZ PDMRULW\ JURXSV¶ SHUFHSWLRQV DUH DIIHFWHG E\ WKH outgroup size. Most of these studies deal with outgroups that are both a subordinate group and also a numerical minority; studies in American cities mostly focus on the way Whites perceive African-Americans and Hispanics (Quillian, 1996; Dixon and Rosenbaum, 2004); while studies in Europe mostly focus on the perception national majorities have of immigrant groups (Semyonov, 2004; Quillian, 1995; Scheepers, 2002). In this research, not only do we include cases where the titular groups are a numerical majority (Titulars in Tatarstan) but also when they constitute a numerical minority (Titulars in Bashkortostan, Karelia and Komi). Moreover, we also include LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH ³VXERUGLQDWH´ JURXSV (Russians) and their attitudes towards the main (titular) populations. We tested the effects of measures of perceived outgroup size at three different levels on intergroup contact, threat and social distance and most of the results are in line with our expectations. The results indicate that perception of size of the outgroup at lower levels (neighborhoods and cities) is related to intergroup contact. The fact that for Russians (in both culturally homogeneous and culturally heterogeneous 30

republics) the perception of the outgroup size at the neighborhood is related to intergroup contact while for Titulars (living in culturally homogeneous and culturally heterogeneous republics) the perception of the outgroup size at the city level is more related to intergroup contact suggests that there is a segregation pattern. Massey and Denton (1988) find that outgroup size might not always have an effect on intergroup contact; they find that for African Americans in the United States, segregation can be an important element to explain differences in how outgroup size and intergroup contact relate. Future research should include more elements, such as the objective outgroup size at neighborhood levels and ethnic density measures for social organizations, to get more insight into the relation between outgroup size and contact.

The perception of outgroup size at the national level is related to (symbolic) threat; the effect is especially strong for titular groups who feel that their rights and privileges could be endangered by the presence of Russians. Our results indicate that for titular groups, regardless of their majority or minority position, the presence of numerous others in their national territory fuels feelings of threat. Furthermore, the results also show that there is still a positive direct effect of outgroup size at the neighborhood level on social distance and a negative direct effect of outgroup size at the republic level on social distance which do not go through either contact or threat for the Russians living in culturally homogeneous republics. These effects of perceived outgroup size on social distance for Russians in culturally homogeneous republics, might be explained by the specific contexts in which they take place. Russians are a clear numerical majority in both Komi and Karelia (culturally homogeneous republics) where the titular culture and language is considered to be vulnerable. Ideologically, Russians living in these republics might have a sense of solidarity to the titular culture in theory; therefore, they feel 31

that a numerous outgroup at the level of republic is important to preserve the titular culture and therefore it is negatively related to social distance.

We describe some of the limitations of our study. We recognize that including separate measures for objective size at the neighborhood and republic levels could have provided a more comprehensive model, but these data were not available at the neighborhood level and we had only a very small amount of cases at the UHSXEOLF OHYHO 0RUH GHWDLOHG LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH DFWXDO JURXSÂśV FRPSRVLWLRQ QRW only in neighborhoods but also in labor markets and leisurely situations could provide important information on the way individuals relate to outgroup members and KRZ LQWHUJURXS DWWLWXGHV DUH VKDSHG 0RUHRYHU LW LV QRW WKDW ZH GRQÂśW ILQG DQ effect of actual outgroup size on intergroup contact, threat, and social distance but that our model does not have an adequate fit to describe their relation accurately. Despite these limitations, our results are in line with Semyonov (2004), that actual size of the outgroup is not significantly related to threat, while perceived size is strongly related to threat and negative intergroup attitudes. Finally, measuring social distance with more than one item could have yielded more robust results. Re-testing the models for other measures of prejudice and stereotypes could also corroborate the validity of these results. Even though we cannot tell whether the relations between the variables in the analysis indicate causality, the decisions about model selection are theoretically informed.

We conclude with some suggestions for future research. First, the different effects of perceived outgroup size at neighborhood, city and republic on contact and threat hint to the fact that other studies should specify the level of analysis in which they are interested in or use several measures at the same time. Future research should continue to explore the effects of outgroup size on different levels, especially if 32

detailed measures of objective size are available. This improvement in measurement might provide information to test whether different measures of perceived size mediate the effect of objective outgroup size on intergroup attitudes. In the same line, it is important to include other measures of social distance. Although approval of an outgroup members in intimate circles, like we employ in this research, is important to reveal levels of acceptance, other measures that include more informal ties, like accepting them as neighbors or classmates (of their children) should also be considered. Additionally, other studies have focused on countries where there has been a recent increase of minority group, e.g. immigrants that arrive to western countries. But the groups living in these republics of the Russian Federation have not suffered important demographic transformations for many years. Future research should consider different scenarios where the size of outgroups, intergroup contact and measures of threat might have different specific meanings and different importance for intergroup relations.

Appendix

Endnotes 1 I would like to thank INTAS (International Association for the Promotion of the Co-operation with Scientists from the New-Independent States of the Former Soviet Union) for supporting the survey (grant: 03-51-4997). 2 When we mention the concept of outgroup for Titular groups, we refer to Russians living in their own republic; When the outgroup is mentioned for Russian groups we refer to titular groups living in the same republic. 3 A second item measuring social distance was available. This item measured Âł+RZ DFFHSWDEOH XQDFFHSWDEOH LV LW IRU \RX WR KDYH D ^5XVVLDQ 7LWXODU` SHUVRQ DV D QHLJKERXU RI \RX KRXVHKROG"Â´ 7KH WZR LWHPV \LHOGHG RQH IDFWRU EXW WKHLU correlation is rather low (r=0.504 p<.001); However, by including this item in the analysis we could not get a positive definite estimation of the correlation matrix and therefore the interpretation in SEM was inaccurate. For this reason, we continue including only the best remaining measure of social distance, that which includes the importance of intimate relations. 4 To account for a skewed distribution in the items, we use the natural logarithm of contact in the analyses. 5 These models are not nested therefore we cannot include a test comparing their goodness-of-fit. Evaluations of these models are done at face value and caution is warranted. 6 Figures representing other models that were fitted can be found in the appendix. 7 See Table A3 in the appendix.

References Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge/ Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Arbuckle, J. & Wothke, W. (1999). $PRV XVHUÂśV JXLGH. Chicago, IL: Small Waters Corporation. Blalock, H. M. (1967). Towards a theory of minority-group relations. New York: Wiley. Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3-7. %RER / :KLWHÂśV RSSRVLWLRQ WR EXVLQJ 6\PEROLF UDFLVP RU UHDOLVWLF JURXS conflict? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45(6), 1196-1220. Bobo, L. (1988) Attitudes towards the black political movement: Trends meaning, and effects on racial policy preferences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, (4), 287302. Bobo, L. (1999) Prejudice as group position: Micro-foundations of a sociological approach to racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 455-472. Bobo, L., Cybelle Fox. (2003). Race, racism and discrimination: Bridging problems, methods and theory in social psychological research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, (4), 319-332. Bourhis, R. A., MoĂŻse, L. C., Perrault, S. and SenĂŠcal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32(6), 369-386. Brewer, M. (1999). The Psychology of prejudice: ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429-444. Brewer, M. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict. In R. D. Ashmore, L. Jussim and D. Wilder (Eds.) Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict and Conflict Resolution. 38

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, R., Maras, P., Messer, B., Vivian, J., and Hewstone, M. (2001). Life on the ocean wave: Testing some intergroup hypotheses in a naturalistic setting. Group Process and Intergroup Relations, 4 (2), 81-97. Brubaker, R. (1996). Nationalism reframed: nationhood and the national question in the new Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coenders. M., M. Gijsberts., L. Hagendoorn., P. Scheepers. (2004). Introduction. In Gijsberts, M., L. Hagendoorn., P. Scheepers. Eds, Nationalism and Exclusion of Migrants: Cross National Comparisons, Great Britain. Ashgate Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., and Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(7), 697±711. Dixson, J. and M. Rosenbaum (2004). Nice to know you? Testing contact, cultural, and group threat theories of anti-black and anti-hispanic stereotypes. Social Science Quarterly, 85(2), 257-280. Gorenburg, D. (1999). Regional separatism in Russia: Ethnic mobilization or power grab? Europe-Asia Studies, 51(2), 245-274. Gorenburg, D. (2005)."Tatars as meso-nation" in Emerging meso-areas in the former socialist countries: Histories revived or improvised?, edited by Kimitaka Matsuzato, Hokkaido. Slavic Research Center, 83-89. Kalmijn, M. and van Tubergen, F. (2006). Ethnic intermarriage in the Netherlands: confirmations and refutations of accepted insights. European Journal of Population/ Revue Européenne de Démographie, 22(4), 1572-9885. Kline, R. B. (1998) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. NY: Guilford Press. Hagendoorn, L. and Kleinpenning, G. (1991). The contribution of domain-specific stereotypes to ethnic social distance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 6378 39

Hagendoorn, L., Linssen, H. and Tumanov, S. (2001). Inter-group relations in states of the former Soviet Union: The perception of Russians. London: Psychology Press. Hagendoorn, L. & Poppe, E. (2006). Codebook INTAS III. Utrecht University: ERCOMER Hale, H. (2000). The parade of sovereignties: Testing theories of secession in the Soviet setting. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 31-56. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M. and Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review Psychology, 53, 575±604. Laitin, D. (1998). Identity in formation, The Russian-speaking populations in the near abroad. New York: Cornell University Press Liebkind, K., Nyström, S., Honkanummi, E., and Lange, A. (2004). Group size, group status and dimensions of contact as predictions of intergroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(2), 145±159. Massey, D. and Denton, N. (1988). The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces, 67(2), 281-315. Miller, D., Smith, E., and Mackie, D. (2004). Effects of intergroup contact and political predispositions on prejudice: Role of intergroup emotions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7(3), 221-237. Minescu, A., Hagendoorn, L., and Poppe, E. (2007). Types of identification and intergroup differentiation in the Russian Federation. Journal of Social Issues, (In press). Oliver, E. J. and Wong J. (2003). Intergroup prejudice in multiethnic settings. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 567-582. Oliver, P. E. and Marwell, G. (1988). The paradox of group size in collective action: A theory of the critical mass. ii. American Sociological Review, 53, 1-8. Oliver, J. E. and Mandelberg, T. (2000). Reconsidering the environmental determinants of white racial attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 574-589. 40

Poppe, E. and Hagendoorn, L. (2001). Types of identification among Russians in the 'Near Abroad', Europe-Asia Studies, 53, 57-71. Poppe, E. and Hagendoorn, L. (2004) Social distance of Russian minorities from titular population in former Soviet Republics In Gijsberts, M., L. Hagendoorn., P. Scheepers., eds., Nationalism and Exclusion of Migrants: Cross National Comparisons. Great Britain. Ashgate. Pettigrew, T. F. (1960). Social distance attitudes on South African students. Social Forces, 38(3), 246-253. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review Psychology, 49, 65-85. Pettigrew, T. & Tropp, L. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice: Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Eds). Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination. The Claremont symposium on applied social psychology, 93-114. Powers, D.A. and Ellison, C.G. (1995). Interracial contact and black racial attitudes: The contact hypothesis and selectivity bias. Social forces, 74(1), 205235. Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586Âą611. Quillian, L. (1996). Group threat and regional change in attitudes toward AfricanAmericans. The American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 816-860. Riek, B. M., Mania, E.W., Gartner, S.L., (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (4), 336-353. Sagiv, L., and Schwartz, S. (1998). Determinants of readiness for out-group social contact: Dominance relations and minority group motivations. International Journal of Psychology, 3(5), 313-324. Scheepers, P., Gijsberts, M., and Coenders, M. (2002). Ethnic exclusionism in European countries. Public opposition to civil rights for legal migrants as a 41

response to perceived ethnic threat. European Sociological Review, 18 (1), 17-34. Schlueter, E., Wagner, U. & Schmidt, P. (2007). Disentangling the causal relations of group threat and outgroup derogation: cross-national evidence from German and Russian panel surveys. In press. Semyonov, M., Raijman, R., Tov, A. Y., and Schmidt, P. (2004). Population size, perceived threat, and exclusion: A multiple-indicators analysis of attitudes toward foreigners in Germany. Social Science Research 33(4), 681-701. Sniderman, P. and Hagendoorn, L. (2007) When ways of life collide. Princeton: N.J.: Princeton University Press. Stein, R., Post, S., and Rinden, A. (2000). Reconciling context and contact effects on racial attitudes. Political Research Quarterly, 53(2), 285-303. Stephan, W. G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations. In C. Hendrick Eds, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. 9, 13-33. Stephan, W., Ybarra, O., Martinez, C., Schwarzwald, J. and Tur-Kaspa, M. (1998). Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel: Integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 559-576. Stephan, W.G., Diaz-Loving, R., Durand, A. (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 31(2), 240-259. Taylor, M.C. (1998). How White attitudes vary with the racial composition of local populations: Numbers count. American Sociological Review, 63, 512-535. Treisman (1999). After the deluge: Regional crises and political consolidation in Russia. University of Michigan Press. Tropp, L., and Pettigrew, T. F. (2005a). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. American Psychological Society, 16(12), 951-957. Tropp, L., and Pettigrew, T. F. (2005b). Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(8), 1145-1158. 42

Tropp, L., and Pettigrew, T.F. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. Wit, de G. (2004). The effect of ethnic numerical composition on prejudice. Utrecht University: MSc Thesis.