Is There a Shared History? The Role of Contextual Factors in the Psychology of Inter-Ethnic Relations in Estonia

<p>Due to socio-political changes in Estonia in early 1990s, Russians and Estonians exchanged their social status – the previous superior position of minority Russians' was reversed after the restoration of independence in Estonia, while the status of native Estonians changed from underprivileged to privileged. These historical developments have not only affected the adaptation of Russian-speaking minorities, but also impacted on interethnic relations. This thesis investigates the adaptation difficulties of Estonian Russians and the unsettled inter-group relations in Estonia. The first chapter explains the unique features of the Estonian context that underpins the current inter-group situation. Previous research shows that inter-ethnic tensions have not been reconciled in Estonia, and Russian-speaking minorities are deprived in socio-economic areas compared to native Estonians. Relevant psychological theories are discussed in chapter two as a conceptual framework for investigating inter-ethnic relations in Estonia, laying the foundation for further research. In chapter 3, Study 1 introduces a qualitative exploration of both ethnic majority and minority perspectives on adaptation of Russian-speaking minorities and inter-ethnic situation in Estonia, revealing several incompatibilities in perceptions of Estonians and Russians. Different histories were shown to be important for Estonians and Russians. The legitimacy of status relations was claimed by Estonians, but rejected by Russians. Relative deprivation and intergroup comparisons were important sources of dissatisfaction and negative inter-ethnic relations for Russians, while Estonians generally disputed the deprivation of Russians. Estonians perceived threat to the existence of their nationhood, which was absent in Russians' perceptions. In chapter 4, Study 2 examined the impact of contextual intergroup variables on Russians' psychological adaptation and outgroup attitudes. In the final regression model, perceived deprivation relative to Estonians, status non-legitimizing beliefs and temporal comparisons remained significant predictors of low psychological adaptation of Russians and further mediated the effects of identity and history on psychological adaptation. Strong Estonian identity, weak Russian identity and status non-legitimizing beliefs functioned as significant predictors of positive ethnic attitudes. Assimilated Russian participants exhibited the best psychological adaptation and most positive ethnic attitudes, while the poorest adaptation was shown by individuals preferring integration. In chapter 5, Study 3 examined the majority perspective on intercultural relations in Estonia by investigating Estonians' inter-ethnic attitudes and support for affirmative action. Political and economic threat and status legitimizing beliefs played a significant role in mediating the effects of identity and history on ethnic attitudes. Support for affirmative action was predicted by lower perceptions of economic threat, perceived status non-legitimizing beliefs, and importance of Russian history. Estonians preferring Russians' integration or separation showed the most positive ethnic attitudes and the strongest support for affirmative action. Estonians perceiving Russians to be assimilated or integrated had more positive ethnic attitudes and were more supportive of affirmative action in comparison to those perceiving Russians as separated or marginalized. The final chapter consolidates the contextual factors, relevant psychological theories and key findings of this research. It emphasizes the importance of the socio-political and historical context in shaping the results and makes recommendations for future research and considers ways for improvement of ethnic relations in Estonia.</p>

Is There a Shared History? The Role of Contextual Factors in the Psychology of Inter-Ethnic Relations in Estonia

<p>Due to socio-political changes in Estonia in early 1990s, Russians and Estonians exchanged their social status – the previous superior position of minority Russians' was reversed after the restoration of independence in Estonia, while the status of native Estonians changed from underprivileged to privileged. These historical developments have not only affected the adaptation of Russian-speaking minorities, but also impacted on interethnic relations. This thesis investigates the adaptation difficulties of Estonian Russians and the unsettled inter-group relations in Estonia. The first chapter explains the unique features of the Estonian context that underpins the current inter-group situation. Previous research shows that inter-ethnic tensions have not been reconciled in Estonia, and Russian-speaking minorities are deprived in socio-economic areas compared to native Estonians. Relevant psychological theories are discussed in chapter two as a conceptual framework for investigating inter-ethnic relations in Estonia, laying the foundation for further research. In chapter 3, Study 1 introduces a qualitative exploration of both ethnic majority and minority perspectives on adaptation of Russian-speaking minorities and inter-ethnic situation in Estonia, revealing several incompatibilities in perceptions of Estonians and Russians. Different histories were shown to be important for Estonians and Russians. The legitimacy of status relations was claimed by Estonians, but rejected by Russians. Relative deprivation and intergroup comparisons were important sources of dissatisfaction and negative inter-ethnic relations for Russians, while Estonians generally disputed the deprivation of Russians. Estonians perceived threat to the existence of their nationhood, which was absent in Russians' perceptions. In chapter 4, Study 2 examined the impact of contextual intergroup variables on Russians' psychological adaptation and outgroup attitudes. In the final regression model, perceived deprivation relative to Estonians, status non-legitimizing beliefs and temporal comparisons remained significant predictors of low psychological adaptation of Russians and further mediated the effects of identity and history on psychological adaptation. Strong Estonian identity, weak Russian identity and status non-legitimizing beliefs functioned as significant predictors of positive ethnic attitudes. Assimilated Russian participants exhibited the best psychological adaptation and most positive ethnic attitudes, while the poorest adaptation was shown by individuals preferring integration. In chapter 5, Study 3 examined the majority perspective on intercultural relations in Estonia by investigating Estonians' inter-ethnic attitudes and support for affirmative action. Political and economic threat and status legitimizing beliefs played a significant role in mediating the effects of identity and history on ethnic attitudes. Support for affirmative action was predicted by lower perceptions of economic threat, perceived status non-legitimizing beliefs, and importance of Russian history. Estonians preferring Russians' integration or separation showed the most positive ethnic attitudes and the strongest support for affirmative action. Estonians perceiving Russians to be assimilated or integrated had more positive ethnic attitudes and were more supportive of affirmative action in comparison to those perceiving Russians as separated or marginalized. The final chapter consolidates the contextual factors, relevant psychological theories and key findings of this research. It emphasizes the importance of the socio-political and historical context in shaping the results and makes recommendations for future research and considers ways for improvement of ethnic relations in Estonia.</p>

Conflicting Motivations: Understanding How Low-Status Group Members Respond to Ingroup Discrimination Claimants

Previous research has found that among low-status individuals, both group identification (GID) and status-legitimizing beliefs (SLBs) motivate varying responses to ingroup discrimination claimants. SLBs are traditionally thought to motivate decreased support for low-status claimants, while GID is thought to motivate increased liking and support of ingroup members. The current research examines these conflicting influences on ingroup claimants among women (Studies 1a and 1b) and Latino/as (Studies 2 and 3). We find that when SLBs are strongly endorsed (Studies 1a, 1b, and 2) or primed (Study 3), GID does not predict liking or support for a claimant. Only when SLB endorsement is low and identity safety cues are absent does GID predict liking and support for a claimant. Our results suggest that when motivations conflict, SLBs seem to more strongly predict reactions to ingroup claimants.

Do Status-Legitimizing Beliefs Moderate Effects of Racial Progress on Perceptions of Anti-White Bias? A Replication of Wilkins and Kaiser (2014)

In three studies, Wilkins and Kaiser found that both chronic and experimental salience of racial progress in the United States increased the perceptions of anti-White bias only among people high in status-legitimizing beliefs (SLBs). We conducted four preregistered high-powered replications of this research. Studies 1, 2, and 3a were close replications of studies 1–3, respectively. Study 3b was a close replication that included an additional experimental condition. Contrary to the original findings, none of the four expected interaction effects tested were statistically significant in the predicted direction, and only one of the four survived a “small telescopes” analysis. We provide additional tests addressing whether changing social contexts explain our failures to replicate, with mixed conclusions. Whereas it is possible that changing social contexts may have eliminated a once true effect, it is also possible that the original results were false positives.

Replication of Wilkins & Kaiser (2014)

In three studies, Wilkins and Kaiser (2014) found that both chronic and experimental salience of racial progress increased perceptions of anti-White bias only among people high in status-legitimizing beliefs (SLBs). We conducted four preregistered high-powered replications of this research. Studies 1, 2, and 3a were close replications of Studies 1 – 3, respectively. Study 3b was a close replication that included an additional experimental condition. Contrary to the original findings, none of the four expected interaction effects tested were statistically significant in the predicted direction, and only one of the four survived a “small telescopes” analysis. We provide additional tests addressing whether changing social contexts explain our failures to replicate, with mixed conclusions.