Page 170 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH
P. 170

Unit 8: Race and Ethnicity


            ethnic subgroups was straightforward, since the dominant subgroup shared the same category  Notes
            label as the nation (e.g., Czech and Czech Republic, Russian and Russia). Accordingly, all
            respondents who indicated another ethnic origin were classified as members of  Subordinate
            minorities. Participants who refused to answer the ethnicity question or who indicated mixed, other
            or unspecified origins were left unclassified.
            In the Anglo-Saxon countries, majority groups themselves are former immigrant groups. In the
            U.S. sample, we distinguished European immigrants (Dominant majority group) from African,
            Caribbean, Arab, Asian and Hispanic Americans who were categorized as Subordinate minorities.
            In Canada, European immigrants (mostly but not exclusively from British descent) were classified
            as the majority group, with the exception of the French Canadians who were assigned the
            subordinate minority status, togather with a small number of more recent immigrants.
            We first assessed mean differences of national and ethnic identification between majority and
            minority groups for each national context separately (Table 8.1). Results reveal that in four out of
            eleven countries, majorities had higher levels of national identification than did minorities. The
            largest difference was observed in Canada where the Anglophones were clearly more identified
            with the nation than the Francophones. In all the remaining cases, the difference was not significant.
            Thus, the prediction of a higher levels of superordinate identification for majorities is partially
            confirmed when one looks at the countries separately. The overall effect clearly supports this
            general conjecture : majorities (M = 3.28) tend to have higher levels of national identification than
            minorities (M = 3.00).
                                               Table 8.1
             Mean Levels of National Identification and Ethnic Identification as a Function of National
                                                Status
                             National identification         Ethnic identification
  2
  η
                                    Minorities
                                         Difference
                               Majorities                           F  η 2  Majorities                              F
                                                                         Difference
                                                                   Minorities

            Canada          3.24  2.70  .54  101.39***  .084  2.48  3.09  -.61  110.48***  .097
            Slovak Republic  3.33  2.90  .43  49.05***  .036  3.51  3.55  -.03   <1  .000

            West Germany    3.01  2.61  .39  12.04**  .012  3.11  2.75  .36   9.54**  .009
            Latvia          3.34  3.17  .17    5.07*  .007  -     -
            Great Britain   2.87  2.69  .18    1.47  .002   -     -

            Bulgaria        3.64  3.56  .08    1.41  .001  3.83  3.87  -.03      <1  .001

            Russia          3.21  3.18  .03      <1  .000  2.89  2.54  .35   13.42***  .011
            U.S.            3.15  3.13  .02      <1  .000  3.06  3.43  -.37  16.94***  .020
            Czech Republic  3.40  3.38  .02      <1  .000  3.59  2.66  .94  120.56***  .129

            New Zealand     3.54  3.54  .00      <1  .000  3.16  3.30  -.14      <1  .001
            Slovenia        3.42  3.43  .00      <1  .000  3.60  2.44  1.17  89.47***  .087

            Total           3.28  3.00  .28  149.99***  .014  3.28  3.20  .08  7.99**  .001




                                               LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY                                    165
   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175