Navigating National Acceptance: Key Antecedents of Social Markers of Acceptance of Immigrants in Russia

Full Text

Introduction In today’s globalized world, migration is an integral element of social dynamics. However, mass migration does not always lead to positive consequences. This is especially true when it becomes uncontrollable. In this regard, societies independently determine the best approaches for interacting with immigrants. The concept of social markers of acceptance proposed by Leong (2014) allows us not only to identify the acculturation expectations preferred by the host population, but also to define the specific criteria needed for immigrants to fully participate in the larger society. Social markers of acceptance are a set of criteria formed on the basis of compliance with social norms, language skills, professional competencies, and demographic characteristics important to a particular society. These markers go beyond the formal definition of citizenship, defining the psychological distinction between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders.’ They allow us to assess the inclusiveness of the host society-the fewer and less significant the number of such criteria, the easier it is for newcomers to become part of it (Leong et al., 2020). In a previous study, we examined in detail the content of social markers of acceptance in the Russian context (see Grigoryev et al., 2023). Our results indicated that Russians distinguish four types of marker content: ethnic, civic, socioeconomic, and sociocultural. Ethnic and civic markers align with the concepts of ethnic/ascribed and civic/achieved types of citizenship/national identity, respectively (Komisarof & Leong, 2020). An ethnic marker, similar to ethnic identity, emphasizes the importance of sharing common ancestors, culture, and language that unite individuals into ethnic groups. Conversely, a civic marker focuses on the rights, responsibilities, and values shared by country residents, regardless of their ethnicity. The socioeconomic marker reflects the level of economic adaptation and success in the new social environment, encompassing education, professional status, and income. The sociocultural marker indicates the degree of adaptation of immigrants to the cultural norms and customs of the host society (Grigoryev et al., 2023). These results largely overlap with those obtained by another team of researchers who explored extensive data from 100 interviews and 40 focus groups across five regions in Russia (see Ivanova et al., 2024). In this work, we intend to delve even further into this topic by focusing on analyzing the predictors of the markers we have identified. This approach is relatively new, and the factors that form social markers of acceptance remain insufficiently studied. Most research suggests that these markers largely depend on the dynamics of perceived threats, as discussed in intergroup threat theory (Komisarof et al., 2020). According to this theory, individuals tend to be more prejudiced against an outgroup when they perceive its members as posing tangible (e.g., over resources) or symbolic (e.g., conflicting values) threats (Piontkowski et al., 2002). However, we believe that the prevalent use of intergroup threat theory to explain intergroup relations in general, and social markers of acceptance in particular, perpetuates a fixation on this approach within prejudice research (Grigoryev, 2020). This theory offers a very incomplete picture of the reasons behind the formation of attitudes towards immigrants (Walsh & Tartakovsky, 2021). Furthermore, the perception of threat is itself a derivative of the process of social comparison, suggesting that the basis of intergroup threats is relative deprivation. Relative deprivation refers to the perception that one’s own group is worse off compared to others (Smith et al., 2012). This sense of comparative disadvantage distinguishes relative deprivation from other theories that focus on social justice or discrimination, which do not emphasize an explicit comparison. Relative deprivation encompasses both cognitive manifestations, such as judgments of injustice and feelings of self-worth, and affective manifestations, including frustration, dissatisfaction, and disappointment (Meuleman et al., 2020). The feeling of relative deprivation can intensify due to a worsening economic climate, falling income levels, and rising unemployment. In interactions between host populations and immigrants, group relative deprivation often leads to increased prejudice against outgroups and fosters political activism based on such sentiments (Smith et al., 2018). Therefore, perceived threat can only be considered a derivative of the experience of relative deprivation. This arises from comparing the social and economic positions of one’s own group with those of other groups, which can incite feelings of injustice and resentment. Consequently, this leads to the belief within the host society that immigrants are the source of its problems and pose a threat to the position of its members. In addition, ownership threat, which involves the fear of losing control and decision-making rights over property, is often overlooked in the context of immigration (Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2017). This fear and the associated sense of re- lative deprivation are closely aligned with the concept of territorial ownership. Ownership implies control and the right to exclude others from using or claiming property. Loss of control occurs when individuals lose their stewardship over their ‘territory.’ This type of threat is proposed to represent a category that is empirically and conceptually distinct from tangible and symbolic threats, which are commonly examined in intergroup relations (Mahfud et al., 2016). Collective ownership involves a sense of possession over certain objects, which may result in the denial of access to outgroups. Such exclusion or denial is not considered unfair or discriminatory but is seen as a right confirming collective ownership (Zenker, 2011). The potential and actual actions of ‘outsiders’ who invade property without owner approval create a sense of lack of control, fear of loss, and deprivation. These sentiments foster rhetoric about loss of sovereignty and the erosion of the “master in one’s own home” status, which justifies the exclusion of outgroups. Negative attitudes toward outgroups are especially likely when there is gradual usurpation of property or unauthorized entry into territory (Bobo, 1999). Importantly, these types of threat can provoke feelings that occur independently of identification with the ingroup. Directly related to the concept of territorial possession is the autochthony belief. Adherents of this belief hold that pioneer settlers are the rightful owners of a land by virtue of being its first inhabitants. Additionally, the status of being first settlers confers specific rights not available to subsequent arrivals (Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2015). It is important to emphasize that, unlike the ethnic concept of national identity, which is based on a shared origin transcending geographical boundaries, the autochthony belief prioritizes territorial location and the ensuing rights, including protection against ‘aliens’ (Zenker, 2011). Although ethnic majority groups often claim autochthony, the basis for exclusion differs: ethnic exclusion stems from essentialist views of group identity, while autochthonous exclusion is centered on property rights (Hasbún López et al., 2019). Thus, the autochthony belief is closely related to the concept of ownership, stemming from the feeling that historically based rights to land and resources may be threatened by the arrival of migrants, which causes fear of loss of control (Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2017). Autochthony not only emphasizes territorial location and the rights deriving from it but also provides a moral and legal rationale for protecting these rights. Autochthony beliefs may underpin perceptions of ownership threats when indigenous people view the arrival of migrants as a potential challenge to their historically established rights. Although this belief is often linked to high levels of prejudice against immigrant groups, and strategies of segregation and exclusion, this correlation is not always consistent (Zenker, 2011). Another important question to consider is what leads to feelings of relative deprivation and beliefs in autochthony. These phenomena may be rooted in both individual differences and the social context. More specifically, factors such as deprovincialization-a personal disposition towards open-mindedness-and perceived diversity norms, which reflect social influence, play crucial roles in shaping the importance of particular acceptance markers. Deprovincialization represents a person’s tendency toward a less ethnocentric and more inclusive worldview. This disposition reflects the ability to avoid judging the norms and values of the outgroup through the lens of the superiority of one's culture (Pettigrew, 2011). People with high levels of deprovincialization are characterized by cognitive and emotional flexibility and greater openness to experience, which promotes a broader view of the world beyond their immediate cultural or social group (Kalin & Berry, 1980; Velthuis et al., 2004). However, deprovincialization should not be confused with a lack of national identity or a decreased sense of belonging to one’s own cultural group. Rather, it represents an open-minded, more diverse and comprehensive understanding of one’s own culture, going beyond narrow ethnocentric views (Lucarini et al., 2023). At the same time, in contrast to cultural relativism, deprovincialization is grounded in deontological ethics, which advocates universally applicable moral standards. This alignment also corresponds with the ideology of cosmopolitanism (Velthuis et al., 2004). Although individuals high in deprovincialization tend to be more tolerant of cultural differences, they may not necessarily endorse practices that conflict with broadly accepted moral principles, such as gender inequality or questionable animal treatment (Verkuyten et al., 2022). In other words, deprovincialization encourages a critical evaluation of all cultural practices (Verkuyten et al., 2020). Given its direct relationship to intergroup dynamics, we hypothesize that deprovincialization may be a crucial individual-level factor in shaping the importance of different domains of social markers of acceptance. However, despite individual characteristics, people generally act in accordance with the norms of their communities. These norms inevitably influence social behavior, serving as guidelines for what is considered normal, ethical, or fair. Strategies for intergroup interaction are also shaped by social norms and are no exception to this influence (Ward et al., 2020). Individual attitudes toward outgroups may differ from what the social norm dictates (Guimond et al., 2013). At the same time, most psychological research tends to underestimate the impact of the everyday environment on the individual, even though perceived norms, supported by one’s immediate surroundings, can significantly influence behavior (Gallyamova & Grigoryev, 2022). Therefore, we propose to examine the role of perceived diversity norms, which reflect the degree to which individuals believe their environment supports a multicultural ideology and broader inclusion (Ng Tseung-Wong et al., 2022). Indeed, according to the justification-suppression model of prejudice, outgroup bias is not expressed directly, but instead undergoes normative filtering that either prevents or facilitates its expression (Crandall et al., 2002). Under inclusive norms, an individual is motivated to eliminate prejudices through a well-known process of mental control-namely suppression, which is activated to prevent inappropriate thoughts from entering the mind (Kotova, 2024). Furthermore, when there is a constant conflict between perceived norms and personal attitudes, indi- viduals tend to internalize group beliefs to satisfy relational motives. In other words, if a person’s environment values diverse societies, they are more likely to support such values themselves (Echterhoff et al., 2013). Accordingly, it is important not only to consider deprovincialization, but also to evaluate the role of the immediate environment, as personal attitudes are largely shaped by interactions within an ingroup. The purpose of this study was to examine factors that woven into the dynamics of change and formation of social markers of acceptance. On the one hand, deprovincialization reflects an individual’s tolerant understanding of what is necessary to become a member of a particular society. On the other hand, perceived diversity norms can assess how the everyday environment influences demands placed on immigrants, as individual beliefs inevitably undergo normative filtering, which contributes to either more tolerant or more exclusionary attitudes towards outgroups (Crandall et al., 2002). However, even in an inclusive society, some groups or individuals facing life challenges may begin to view immigrants as the source of their troubles. In other words, the experience of relative deprivation, even within a generally tolerant community, may perpetuate more stringent demands on immigrants. Furthermore, the autochthony belief, which reflects people’s confidence in their privileged status in a certain territory, implies a more exclusionary attitude towards immigrants but does not necessarily contradict personal and group open-mindedness. This holds true as long as the dominant group perceives that minorities acknowledge their lesser status, allowing those with a strong autochthony belief to avoid harboring negative feelings towards them (Zenker, 2011). Consequently, we explore the role of both the autochthony belief and relative deprivation as mediators in the relationship between deprovincialization, perceived diversity norms, and social markers of acceptance. Through this, we aim to assess the more complex dynamics involved in the direct and indirect ways that demands are formed on immigrants. Method Participants. We used secondary data (see Grigoryev et al., 2023), including responses from 1009 people aged 18 to 78 years (M = 37.2; SD = 11.6; 42% male). 54% of respondents had obtained higher education; 71% resided in large cities (over 100,000 residents) and megalopolises (over 1 million residents). Most of the respondents came from the Central Federal District (35%). Measures. Dependent Variables. Social markers of acceptance. In our study, we utilized already established values of the importance of various criteria used to consider someone a Russian. These criteria were assessed from 1 = absolutely not important to 7 = absolutely important, covering each type of social marker of acceptance (6 items per marker) as outlined by Grigoryev et al. (2023). These include civic (e.g., “Know and respect Russian laws and regulations”; М = 3.21; SD = 1.49; α = 0.87), ethnic (e.g., “Gives up foreign cultural norms or behavior”; М = 5.68; SD = 1.20; α = 0.86), socioeconomic (e.g., “Strive for self-development and learning new skills for a successful career”; М = 4.84; SD = 1.38; α = 0.86), and sociocultural (e.g., “Participate in public life in Russia”; М = 3.88; SD = 1.44; α = 0.87). Independent Variables. We then calculated values for the new measures we developed for all independent variables. Details on the instructions and clause wording for these measures are provided in the Appendix. We developed the items for the independent variables based on well-established conceptual definitions of the corresponding constructs in the literature (see Ng Tseung-Wong et al., 2022; Pettigrew, 2011; Smith et al., 2012; Zenker, 2011). In the initial phase, we focused on ensuring that the items aligned closely with these definitions. To enhance the relevance and clarity of the items, we were primarily guided by face validity, ensuring that the items appeared to accurately reflect the constructs as understood by both experts and potential respondents. Deprovincialization. The measure used 9 items with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree (M = 5.28; SD = 1.14; α = 0.91). Perceived Diversity Norms. The measure used 9 items as participants evaluated how accurately the statements describe the people around them, and a 6-point Likert scale from 1 = not at all accurate to 6 = absolutely accurate (M = 4.52; SD = 1.05; α = 0.93). Autochthony belief. The measure used 5 items with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree (M = 5.15; SD = 1.29; α = 0.86). Relative Deprivation. The measure used 10 items with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree (M = 3.59; SD = 1.53; α = 0.95). Data Processing. As part of the preliminary analysis, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the factor structure of the new measures. All four measures were tested simultaneously within a single measurement model to ensure coherence. We employed a standard cutoff approach, as recommended by Kline (2010), to assess the global fit of the measurement model. The Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient, a measure of internal consistency, was utilized to test the reliability of these methods. Additionally, a general linear model was applied to analyze both direct and indirect effects on the social markers of acceptance. Results Preliminary Analysis. Factor loadings in the estimated model that included four factors (deprovincialization, perceived diversity norms, autochthony belief, relative deprivation) were statistically significant, ranging between 0.53 and 0.88 with a mean of 0.78. Moreover, only three loadings were less than 0.70. Global model fit values are consistent with the gold standard: χ2(df) = 1402.95 (489), p < 0.001, CFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA [90% CI] = 0.04 [0.04-0.05]. At the same time, Cronbach’s α coefficients for all scales were not lower than 0.86 and ranged from 0.86 to 0.95. Main Analysis. A general linear model was constructed to test the direct relationships between the selected factors and various social markers of acceptance. This model also facilitated the examination of the indirect effects of deprovincialization and perceived diversity norms on markers of acceptance via autochthony belief and relative deprivation. Results showed that civic and sociocultural markers of acceptance were positively predicted by perceived diversity norms, autochthony belief, and relative deprivation (Figures 1, 4). Along with these, all variables, including deprovincialization, positively predicted the socioeconomic marker (Figure 3). However, only autochthony belief and relative deprivation were positive predictors of the ethnic marker of acceptance, and deprovincialization, in turn, negatively predicted this marker (Figure 2). Furthermore, deprovincialization was positively correlated with perceived norms of diversity, and autochthony belief with relative deprivation. Also, autochthony belief was positively predicted by deprovincialization, while deprovincialization and perceived norms of diversity were negative predictors of relative deprivation. Regarding indirect paths, negative associations were found between perceived diversity norms and four types of markers of acceptance via relative deprivation. A negative relationship was also found between deprovincialization and all markers of acceptance via relative deprivation. At the same time, autochthony belief also likely acted as a mediator for positive relationships between deprovincialization and all markers of acceptance (Figures 1-4). Figure 1. Direct and indirect effects for civic marker (N = 1009) Note. The figure shows only statistically significant relationships with p < 0.05 Figure 2. Direct and indirect effects for ethnic marker (N = 1009) Note. The figure shows only statistically significant relationships with p < 0.05 Figure 3. Direct and indirect effects for socioeconomic marker (N = 1009) Note. The figure shows only statistically significant relationships with p < 0.05 Figure 4. Direct and indirect effects for sociocultural marker (N = 1009) Note. The figure shows only statistically significant relationships with p < 0.05 Discussion In this work, we aimed to study the predictors of social markers of acceptance. Our findings enrich our understanding of how these markers are formed, providing new perspectives and in-depth analysis of this issue. Whereas most previous research has focused solely on social identity and perceived threat, our study highlights the significant roles of personality disposition and social influence. It is important to note that deprovincialization and perceived diversity norms are quite strongly and positively related to each other. This relationship aligns well with group norm theory, which posits that our personal attitudes are largely based on the social norms of the group we identify with (Crandall et al., 2002), and may also be influenced by an assortativity effect. However, despite their interdependence and some overlapping effects, these variables also exhibit distinct relationships. This complexity underscores the need for further studies on both individual factors and the role of social influence in various intergroup phenomena (Gallyamova & Grigoriev, 2022). Social markers of acceptance that define the civic, socioeconomic, and sociocultural expectations of immigrants were positively predicted by perceived diversity norms. These norms reflect how much a person’s local environment is perceived as inclusive. Such norms likely support an integration strategy for newcomers, which involves not only maintaining the native identity of immigrants, but also their active inclusion in the larger society (Grigoryev & Berry, 2021). Moreover, if a group supports diversity, it is likely to foster positive and more frequent intergroup contact, according to Pettigrew (2009). In environments that support such diversity, the importance of these markers is not merely a protective measure, but a necessary condition for maintaining positive intergroup contact. This is achieved through compliance with local norms, a certain level of education, and the intercultural competence of the immigrants themselves. Indeed, for example, second-generation immigrants whose parents originated from more tolerant cultures were much more integrated into society than those from less tolerant cultures (Berggren et al., 2023). At the same time, deprovincialization negatively predicted the ethnic marker of acceptance and positively predicted the socioeconomic marker. This suggests that individuals who are less prejudiced, and therefore more open to outgroup members, are likely to oppose the stringent ethnic demands on immigrants that are based on shared ethnocultural origins (Lucarini et al., 2021). Furthermore, deprovincialization contributes to a more equitable perception of immigrants. The socioeconomic marker of acceptance, which reflects objective requirements related largely to the potential contributions of immigrants to society, aligns with this more inclusive outlook (Komisarof et al., 2020). In the case of autochthony belief and relative deprivation, both showed positive associations with all social markers of acceptance and were also positively associated with each other. Negative predictors of relative deprivation included deprovincialization and perceived diversity norms. As mentioned earlier, support for inclusion and a more open-minded worldview are often linked to positive past experiences. In other words, personal contact with outgroup members generally increases tolerance towards their distinctive characteristics. Furthermore, this reduction in prejudice extends not only to the group with whom friendships are formed, but also towards all other dissimilar groups (Lucarini et al., 2023). Consequently, it is logical that both deprovincialization and perceived norms would mitigate negative social comparisons. Conversely, experiencing a worsening of their situation, such as a decrease in income levels and an increase in unemployment, is associated with exclusionary strategies (Smith et al., 2018). Relative deprivation was most strongly predicted by the ethnic marker of acceptance, likely because when their situation deteriorates, people tend to impose the most unattainable demands on the outgroup to avoid increasing competition for already scarce resources and benefits (Komisarof & Leong, 2020). The strongest predictor of the civic marker, which requires compliance with the laws of the host society and respect for its institutions, was autochthony belief. This finding aligns logically with the nature of the civic marker. However, in contrast, a study in the Netherlands found that autochthony belief was strongly negatively associated with deprovincialization (Martinovic & Verkuyten, 2013). In our study, we observed a positive relationship between these two variables, which may be attributed to the Russian context. Russia, as a federal state with national republics such as Chechnya, Tatarstan, and Bashkortostan, each having its own distinct culture, presents a unique case. In this multi-ethnic and multicultural setting, the general norm is that the rules are established by those residing in the territory, regardless of their ethnic or religious affiliation. For instance, in the Caucasian republics, it is customary for tourists to avoid wearing revealing clothing. Our research also revealed identical indirect paths between deprovincialization, perceived diversity norms, and all markers of acceptance, mediated by beliefs in autochthony and relative deprivation. Interestingly, perceived diversity norms were negatively associated with all markers via relative deprivation. Specifically, perceived norms are only related to the ethnic marker via relative deprivation. These results are understandable, as perceived diversity norms tend to reduce the sense of relative deprivation that largely determines the formation of boundaries with the outgroup, thereby decreasing the importance of acceptance markers (Meuleman et al., 2020). Furthermore, deprovincialization was also found to negatively relate to markers of acceptance via relative deprivation. This suggests that personal open-mindedness additionally reduces feelings of relative deprivation (Lucarini et al., 2023), which in turn leads to reduced demands placed on the outgroup. At the same time, deprovincialization was associated with the civic and sociocultural markers not directly, but only via relative deprivation and autochthony belief. It is important to note that the connections between deprovincialization and all social markers of acceptance, mediated by autochthony belief, were positive. This may suggest that genuine acceptance of immigrants extends beyond mere openness to diversity (deprovincialization) and necessitates addressing economic and social inequalities (relative deprivation) as well as respecting host cultures (autochthony belief). The critical role of relative deprivation underscores the importance of addressing economic and social disparities to prevent exclusion or perceived threats, regardless of societal openness. Additionally, the positive impact of deprovincialization, enhanced by a respect for autochthony, demonstrates how immigrants’ respect for the traditions and history of the host country contributes to creating a more inclusive context for them (see Grigoryev et al., 2023). Limitations. Our study provides a new perspective on the dynamics of the formation of social markers of acceptance. However, because our data are cross-sectional rather than experimental or longitudinal, we cannot establish causal effects, even though mediation models typically assume such relationships. Additionally, these relationships may be affected by unaccounted confounders. For example, intergroup contact is known to influence both personal open-mindedness and multicultural norms (Berry et al., 2022). Future research should test whether these relationships hold in experimental and longitudinal studies. Also, in Russia’s various ethnic republics, different mechanisms might influence the requirements for immigrants. Therefore, future studies should conduct comparative analyses that consider the ethnic, religious, and regional specifics of Russians to further elucidate these aspects. Conclusions Deprovincialization and perceived diversity norms are significant predictors of social markers of acceptance via both direct and indirect pathways. These findings underscore the importance of individual factors and social influences in shaping social acceptance. Additionally, the autochthony belief and relative deprivation also significantly contribute to the importance of all markers, providing a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics at play. Generally, true social acceptance involves more than merely openness and a positive attitude towards cultural diversity by the host society; it requires forms of inclusion that address group hierarchy and inequality in ways that are acceptable to the host community (Grigoryev & Berry, 2021). Furthermore, this study introduced new measures to assess the considered predictors, enhancing our tools for analyzing intercultural relations. Thus, our research not only offers a fresh perspective on the study of intercultural relations but also provides new measures for their assessment.

About the authors

Dmitry Sergeevich Grigoryev

HSE University

Author for correspondence.
Email: dgrigoryev@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4511-7942
SPIN-code: 1807-9739
Scopus Author ID: 57191706675
ResearcherId: K-3338-2015

PhD, Research Fellow, Center for Sociocultural Research

20 Myasnitskaya St, 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation

Albina Alikovna Gallyamova

HSE University

Email: aagallyamova@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8775-7289
SPIN-code: 6639-2529
Scopus Author ID: 58182813400
ResearcherId: GLV-6876-2022

Research Intern, Center for Sociocultural Research

20 Myasnitskaya St, 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation

Elizaveta Shamilevna Komyaginskaya

HSE University

Email: ekomyaginskaya@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8841-1722
SPIN-code: 4854-0374
ResearcherId: HII-5216-2022

Research Intern, Center for Sociocultural Research

20 Myasnitskaya St, 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation

References

Supplementary files