Intergroup acceptance and perception of Israeli and Russian immigrant students

Pergamon

In!. J. Inrercultural Rel. Vol. 20. No. 314, pp. 427-440, 1996 Copyright @ 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0147-1767/96 $15.00 + 0.00

SO147-1767(%)00027-2

INTERGROUP ACCEPTANCE AND PERCEPTION OF ISRAELI AND RUSSIAN IMMIGRANT STUDENTS JOSEPH

SCHWARZ WALD, PERI and SHARON FISHER Bar-Ilan

University,

KEDEM

Israel

ABSTRACT. The study assessed intergroup acceptance and perception of native Israeli and Russian immigrant students. Fifth- (n = 1,438) and eighth- (n = 851) grade Israeli and Russian students from integrated classes completed a battery of questionnaires, including social acceptance, self-esteem, and an intergroup perception scale which assessed the traits ascribed to the typical Israeli and the typical Russian. A symmetrical pattern of intergroup relations was obtained with each group reporting a higher social acceptance for ingroup- than for outgroup members. In addition, higher self-esteem Israelis revealed a greater outgroup acceptance, whereus higher self-esteem Russians revealed a greater ingroup acceptance. Pertaining to intergroup perception, students of both origins ascribed higher sociability to the typical Israeli than to the typical Russian and better manners to the typical Russian than to the typical Israeli. Members of each group attributed higher scholastic ability to the typical figure ?f their ingroup vs. their outgroup. Present findings were compared with research addressing immigrants from Middle-Eastern and Western origins. These were discussed in the framework of Taylor and McKirnan’s (1984) jve-stage model qf intergroup relations. Copyright ~0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd.

The massive waves of immigration that have reached Israel since its establishment have offered a living laboratory for assessing growth and development in patterns of intergroup relations. Past research in this regard has focused on the encounter between Middle-Easternand Western Jews, and has detailed the slow evolution from asymmetricalto more symmetrical patterns of acceptance and perception. More recent immigration has offered a new focal point for contrast and comparison, namely the encounter between Soviet bloc immigrants and native Israelis. The present study attempts to assess the nature of how differences Requests for reprints should be sesnt to Joseph Schwarzwald, Department Bar-Ilan University, 52900 Ramat-Gan, Israel. The study was supported by the Ministry of Education and Sports.

427

of Psychology,

428

J. Schwarzwald

et al.

surrounding the absorption of the Soviet groups have influenced the patterns of acceptance and rejection. Major social and historical differences can be delineated between the two encounters. At the foundation of the state, the Israeli population constituted roughly 650,000. In its first decade, this society absorbed approximately 485,000 Middle-Eastern and 321,000 Western immigrants (Bentwich, 1960; Schwarzwald & Amir, 1984). The basically modern culture patterns of the absorbing society made adjustment in the new country more difficult for Middle-Eastern than for Western immigrants. Many of the Middle-Easterners were less educated than the Westerners. They had little or no formal schooling and relatively few had technological training congruent with the needs of a modern economy (Adler, 1984). As a consequence, many Middle-Easterners regressed to the bottom of the social ladder. Their economic and social development was further hindered by a paternalistic government policy which settled a large portion of the Middle Easterners in developing areas located far from the major urban hubs. Finally, there are indications that, during absorption, the official agencies intentionally or unintentionally discriminated against Middle-Easterners (Inbar & Adler, 1977; Smooha, 1978). Feelings of powerlessness and insignificance often developed as a result of the devaluation of the Middle-Eastern culture throughout the absorption process, and were further abetted by shortages in housing, employment, and education. These conditions were not conducive for successful integration. In fact, the interethnic encounter was occasionally accompanied by hostility, and thereby interfered with the development of Middle-Easterners’ initiatives and independent activity. One repetitive outcome of these conditions was a pattern of asymmetry in acceptance and rejection between Western- and Middle-Eastern Jews (Peres, 1971; Schwarzwald & Yinon, 1977). Westerners tended to evaluate people from their own ethnic group more positively and MiddleEasterners more negatively. By contrast, Middle-Easterners tended to reflect the attitude of the dominant group, evaluating people from their own ethnic category less positively than Westerners. Empirical evidence for this asymmetrical relationship has appeared in studies with subjects from elementary school age through adulthood (i.e., Shuval, 1956; Rim, 1968). It would seem that these asymmetrical relations arising between Western and Middle-Easterners characterize the third stage in Taylor and McKirnan’s (1984; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1987) five-stage model of intergroup relations. In this model, the relations of the first stage are entirely based on ascribed characteristics, such as race or sex, with little or no flexibility or mobility. In the second stage, individualistic achievement displaces rigid ascribed characteristics as the base for relations. In stage three, high status members of the disadvantaged group are afforded

Intergroup Acceptance

429

the opportunity of moving into advantaged circles, either by cutting off ties with their disadvantaged roots or by seeking favor while maintaining a recognizable presence as a disadvantaged group member. In stage four, members of disadvantaged groups attempt to elevate the group rather than individual status by organized collective efforts delegitimizing group distinction and devaluation. In the fifth and final stage, a relative parity is attained between groups in the distribution of status and social resources. The relative social mobility afforded Middle-Eastern immigrants is a prime factor in classifying their relations with Westerners within the third stage of this model. Upon immigration, economic and cultural differences were considered to be temporary: Middle-Easterners were even expected to “Westernize” and resocialize themselves in the mold of the advantaged group (Swirsky, 1981). Indeed, a significant number of Middle-Easterners accepted the concept that they could and should become Westernized. One by-product was a process of self-rejection and self-hatred of their Middle-Eastern origins (Shuval, 1966). Individual Middle-Easterners, especially the more educated ones, “passed” into the advantaged group. Some even changed their names in order to disguise their origin (Stahl, 1976). In the last two decades, relations between Middle-Eastern and Western Jews have apparently progressed toward the fourth stage of Taylor and McKirnan’s model. Middle-Easterners have shown a sensitivity to social inequality and exerted group pressure for more genuine socioeconomic integration and educational equality. Demands have been put forward for greater representation in educational curricula, as well as in political power hierarchies (Stahl, 1976; Schwarzwald & Amir, 1984). Concurrent with the transition to stage four, there have been growing indications of a new-found symmetry in acceptance and rejection between Middle-Easterners and Westerners (Schwarzwald, Amir, & Crain, 1992). This balance has arisen primarily from an increase in self-acceptance by Middle-Easterners rather than as an outcome of heightened mutual acceptance. Nonetheless, this balance has not crossed all areas: asymmetry still remains prominent when evaluations focus on such characteristics as intellectual-achievement ability. With regard to the recent influx of Russian Jews, it is our contention that the conditions surrounding their absorption are such as to facilitate initial relations at a more advanced stage than that faced by their earlier Middle-Eastern counterparts. First, the relative numerical weight of their entrance is less burdensome. Though Russian immigrants number approximately half a million, they make up less than one-tenth of the absorbing society. The earlier immigrant wave actually outnumbered those of the nascent absorbing society. Second, improved national finances have better protected the new immigrants from conditions of

430

J. Schwarzwald

et al.

deprivation and poverty. Indeed, the new immigrants have been provided with financial support as well as language training in order to facilitate adaptation. Third, government policy has reflected the lessons of earlier resentments. Government actions have been less paternalistic, giving the Russians more responsibility and freedom of choice. One outcome of this freedom has been that most Russian immigrants have settled in the more dynamic and mobile urban hubs. Finally, Russian immigrants have arrived with significant educational resources, far exceeding those of earlier waves of Middle-Eastern immigration. In fact, the average educational level of the Russian immigrant is higher than that obtained in Israeli society as a whole (Noam, 1994). Compared to the Middle-Easterners, current Russian immigrants are more familiar with the educational and cultural ethos of mainstream Israeli society and thus have faced less need for a resocialization process. This does not mean that the Russians do not face distinct cultural differences. Rather, their adjustment does not involve modernization and “Westernization” on top of cultural assimilation. Employment appears to be a crucial point of dislocation that the Russian immigrants encounter. Although the employment rates among seasoned immigrants who have been in the country for 2 yr or more are similar to that of the general Jewish population in Israel, many hold temporary positions for which they are overqualified yet undertrained (Naveh, Noam, & Benita, 1994). Nonetheless, compared to the rather barren job market that faced the Middle-Eastern immigrants, even these employment problems seem less desperate. The aim of the present study was to examine whether these differences surrounding the absorption process would be reflected in relations of acceptance and rejection between Israeli and Russian students in the schools. As noted, we assume that, already at the commencement of absorption, Russian immigrants enjoy relations reflecting the fourth stage of Taylor and McKirnan’s model. Hence, we hypothesize that Israeli and Russian students would reveal symmetry in accepting ingroup and outgroup members and in perceiving their traits. Two added dimensions addressed in this study were self-esteem and age. Previous research has indicated that self-esteem tends to moderate intergroup acceptance (Hoffman & Schwarzwald, 1992). High self-esteem students tend to make more marked discriminations between ingroup and outgroup members than do low self-esteem individuals. Similarly, social relations have been shown to alter markedly with age (Hartup, 1983), with older children and adolescents making greater distinctions based on ethnic and social grouping than younger children. As such, these two variables were thought to have a potential relevance to the intensity and form of ingroup and outgroup acceptance in a school-age population.

Intergroup Acceptance

431

METHOD Subjects The study sample comprised 1,438 fifth-grade- and 851 eighth-grade students, drawn from schools, across the country which absorbed Russian immigrants. Nearly half of the Israeli educational system functions as a two-tiered system (8 yr elementary school, 4 yr high school), whereas the remainder functions as in a three-tiered system (6 yr elementary school, 3 yr junior high, 3 yr senior high). As such, all fifth-graders came from 27 elementary schools, whereas the eighth-graders came from either 14 elementary or eight junior high schools. In each school, two classes of each grade were randomly selected. The study consisted of 53 fifth-grade and 40-eighth grade classes, with an average number of 24.6 students per class. The number of Russian students ranged from three to 13 per class, with an average of 5.9. Measures (I) Social Acceptance. A shortened version of the Interpersonal Relationship Assessment Technique (IRAT), developed by Schwarzwald and Cohen (1982) was employed. The scale assesses social acceptance at increasing degrees of intimacy on a unidimensional scale. Students were asked to indicate whether they would or would not agree to engage in each of five activities, listed in random order, for each target classmate printed on the scale. The Scalogram analysis (Guttman, 1950), performed on IRAT data separately for fifth- and eighth-grade Israelis and Russians of both sexes, is given in Table 1. It can be seen that the IRAT items form a unidimensional, monotonically rising scale with high coefficients of reproducibility.’ Based upon these outcomes, a single index, comprising the sum of responses given for each classmate, was calculated, such that the higher the index, the greater the acceptance.

(2) Self-Esteem Scale. The scale includes 24 statements such as “This boy/girl knows a lot” or “This is a smart boy/girl” or “This boy/girl has many friends in class”. The subjects were asked to indicate, for each item, the degree to which they resemble the boy/girl described in the statement. Responses ranged from 1 (“I don’t resemble him/her at all”) to 4 ‘As these values might be an artificial outcome of repeated responses a second scalogram analysis was performed employing a random responses. With this method, the number of target classmates rated was reduced to one or two at most. The outcomes of these analyses complete sample with regard to item positioning and reproducibility.

from the same subjects, sample of 10% of the by a single respondent resembled those of the

432

J. Schwarzwald et al, TABLE 1

Percentage of Posltlve Responses to IRAT Items and Scalogram Analysls Outcomes for Fifth- and Elghth-Grade lsraells and Russians Fifth-grade Item content in monotonic order (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Lend a book or pencil in class Sit next to in class Stay with during recess Prepare homework after school Be best friend

Coefficient of reproducibility

Eighth-grade

Israelis

Russians

Israelis

Russians

52 30 24 23 20

37 21 18 16 15

64 43 30 29 21

32 20 12 11 10

.96

.96

.96

.97

Note: Decimal points have been omitted from percentages.

(“I resemble him/her a lot”). As the internal consistency of the scale was high (Cronbach (u = .90), an average score was calculated across all items, such that higher scores indicated greater self-esteem. Groups were divided into high and low self-esteemers using separate median splits for boys and girls. (3) Intergroup Perception Scale. This measure assesses the perception of the “typical Russian” and the “typical Israeli”. Subjects were asked to describe these two “types” using a list of 13 five-point bipolar scales (such as quiet-noisy and kind-cruel). Traits were chosen on the basis of a preliminary study, in which students from the same schools were asked to list the most typical traits of the Russians and the Israelis. This list included those traits which were most frequently listed. Principle component analysis of subjects’ responses to the intergroup perception scale yielded a three-dimensional solution. The first factor, labeled “Manners”, explained 31.6% of the variance ((w= .SO), and included six traits whose positive poles were: quiet, gentle, modest, obedient, courteous and kind. The second factor, labeled “Sociability”, explained 18.4% of the variance ((Y= .74), and included five traits with positive poles of popular, friendly, helpful, open and trusting. The third factor, labeled “Scholastic Ability” explained 6.5% of the variance (o = .59) and consisted of two traits-smart and diligent. Based on the factor analysis outcomes, six indices were calculated for each respondent: manners, sociability and scholastic ability ascribed to the typical Israeli and to the typical Russian. These indices represent the average responses across the traits in the factor; higher scores indicate more positive ascriptions.

Intergroup Acceptance

433

Procedure The study was conducted according to the ethical procedures required by the Israeli Ministry of Education and Sports. Students were given a booklet which included all questionnaires, and were asked to complete it in one session, in their classroom. Russian students were given the choice to answer either a Hebrew or a Russian version of the booklet. Anonymity was assured, and the students were promised that no one, except the researchers, would have access to the data. RESULTS Cross-Gender Acceptance As ample research has indicated a pronounced same-sex preference at these ages (e.g., Bjerstedt, 1952; Schwarzwald, Laor, & Hoffman, 1986; Fershtman, & Chen, 1993), we initially analyzed the data according to same- and cross-sex acceptance, to check for study robustness. For this, two mean acceptance scores were calculated for each respondent, comprising their IRAT scores for male and female classmates. These data were subjected to a two-way ANOVA, in which respondent’s gender was entered as a between-subject variable, and each target’s gender as a within-subject variable. As expected, the interaction of respondent gender x target gender was significant, F( 1,2444) = 2989.62, p < .OOl. Boys reported greater acceptance for boys (M = 2.08, SD = 0.66) than for girls (M = 1.48, SD = 0.55); and girls reported a greater acceptance for girls (M = 2.43, SD = 0.69) than for boys (M = 1.55, SD = 0.62). Hence, the responses of boys and girls were analyzed separately, and only in relation to same-sex targets. Intergroup Social Acceptance In order to assess intergroup relations, two scores were calculated for each respondent: social acceptance toward members of one’s own group (ingroup, covaried with outgroup), and that toward members of the other group (outgroup, covaried with ingroup). The analyses included each respondent’s origin (Israeli/Russian) and self-esteem level (low/high) as between-subject variables, with target (ingroup/outgroup) as a withinsubject variable. Adjusted means and SDS for these analyses are presented in Table 2. The analysis for boys yielded significant results for each respondent’s self-esteem F(1,1054) = 12.88, p < .OOl, target F(1,1054) = 485.52, p < .OOl, grade x target F(1,1054) = 9.07, p < .003, and for group x self-esteem x target F(l,lO54) = 12.50, p < .OOl. The results will be

434

J. Schwarzwald

et al.

TABLE 2 Adjusted Means and SDS of IRAT Scores for Boys and Glrls, Broken by Respondent’s Origin and Self-Esteem, and by Target Group Respondent origin Israeli

Russian

Boys Outgroup

Girls Outgroup

Respondent self-esteem

lngroup

Low

2.42

1.71

2.69

2.00

High

C.85) 2.50

t.64) 1.89

C.92) 2.81

(.68) 2.11

C.96)

(.57)

C.97)

lngroup

C.64)

Low

2.26

1.63

2.81

1.95

High

~72) 2.67

C.79) 1.73

C.82) 3.16

C.82) 2.01

t.87)

t.85)

C.84)

C.86) Note: Higher scores indicate a greater acceptance.

interpreted in terms of the grade x target interaction and the triple order interaction of origin x self - esteem x target. The grade x target interaction reflected the fifth-graders’ tendency to indicate a greater acceptance for ingroup classmates (M = 2.50, SD = .95) than did eighth-graders (M = 2.40, SD = .79), whereas, for outgroup targets, eighth-graders indicated a greater acceptance (M = 1.82, SD = .63) than fifth-graders (M = 1.74, SD = .68). The means for the triple-order interaction (see Table 2) showed that Israeli and Russian boys exhibited a pronounced ingroup preference, reporting a greater social acceptance toward classmates of their own category than for outgroup classmates. Simple main-effects indicated that the triple-order interaction resulted from the fact that, among the Israelis, low- and high self-esteemers indicated a similar acceptance for ingroup members, yet, for outgroup members, high self-esteemers indicated a greater acceptance than low self-esteemers. Among the Russians, high self-esteemers indicated a greater acceptance for the ingroup than low selfesteemers, yet for outgroup, both groups reported a similar acceptance. The analysis for the girls yielded significant results for self-esteem, F(1,1233) = 13.83, p < .OOl, target, F(1,1233) = 806.25, p < .OOl, group x target, F(1,1233) = 37.57, p < ,001, self-esteem x target, F(1,1233) = 7.26, p < .007, grade x target, F(1,1233) = 16.79,~ < .OOl, and for group x self - esteem x target, F( 1,1233) = 5.37,~ < .002. Here, too, as in the analysis with boys, the results will be explained in terms of the interaction between grade and target, and in terms of the triple-order interaction of group, self-esteem and target. For girls, as in the case for boys, the interaction between grade and target resulted from the greater acceptance reported by fifth-graders

Intergroup Acceptance

435

toward ingroup classmates (M = 2.85, SD = 0.96), than did their eighthgrade counterparts (M = 2.75, SD = 0.88). By contrast, the eighthgraders reported a greater social acceptance (M = 2.15, SD = 0.64) toward outgroup classmates, than fifth-graders (M = 1.97, SD = 0.74). Regarding the triple-order interaction (see Table 2) all girls indicated a greater acceptance for the ingroup- (M = 2.74) than for the outgroup (M = 2.08) classmates. Moreover, high self-esteemers of both groups indicated a greater ingroup preference than low self-esteemers, yet the difference was only significant for the Russians. As for the outgroup, high self-esteemers indicated a greater acceptance than low self-esteemers, but this tendency did not become significant for either the Israelis or the Russians.

Interethnic

Perception

To assess interethnic perception, initially, the sociability, manners, and scholastic ability indices were subjected to a five-way MANOVA in which gender, grade (fifth/eighth), respondent’s origin (Israeli/Russian), and self-esteem (low/high) were included as between-subject variables, whereas target group (ingroup/outgroup) as a within-subject variable. Since gender and self-esteem were not significant as main effects and did not significantly interact with other variables, they were dropped from further analyses. Using Wilks’ criteria, the three-way MANOVA yielded significant resultsforgradeF(3,3157) =62.23, p < .OOl,originF(3,3157) =229.31, p < .OOl, target F(3,3157) = 486.93, p < .OOl, and for the interactions of grade x origin F(3,3157) = 6.07, p < .Ol, grade x target F(3,3157) = 14.73, p < .OOl, origin x target F(3,3157) = 482.79, p < .OOl, and grade x origin x target F(3,3157) = 75.89, p < .OOl. These results will be interpreted in terms of the higher interaction. Follow-up univariate analyses indicated that the triple order interaction was significant for each of the three dimensions individually [F( 1,3 157) = 95.90, p < .OOl for manners; F( 1,3157) = 34.28, p < ,001 for sociability; F( 1,3157) = 62.39, p < .OOl for scholastic ability]. As can be readily seen in Table 3, ingroup-outgroup perception was contingent on the dimensions measured. Pertaining to the manners dimension, almost all students perceived good manners to be more typical of Russians (M = 3.38) than of Israelis (M = 2.92). Only fifth-graders did not notably discriminate between the groups. Regarding sociability, both Israeli and Russian students tended to rate the typical Israeli as more sociable than the typical Russian (M = 3.80 vs. 3.05). This trend to Israeli ingroup and Russian outgroup preference was stronger among eighth-graders than among fifth-graders.

436

J. Schwarzwald

et al.

TABLE 3 Means of Intergroup Perceptions by Grade, Respondent’s Origin and Target Group Dimension Grade

Origin

Target

Fifth

Israelis

lngroup Outgroup Difference

3.42 3.25 .17

4.08 2.95 1.13**

3.89 3.14 .75**

Russians

lngroup Outgroup Difference

3.61 2.97 .64**

3.47 3.59 -.12

3.67 3.41 .26**

Israelis

lngroup Outgroup Difference

2.93 3.27 - 7.34**

4.06 2.59 1.4**

3.55 3.10 .45**

Russians

lngroup Outgroup Difference

3.41 2.38 1.03**

3.19 3.45 - .74**

3.60 2.89 .71**

Eighth

Manners

Sociability

Scholastic

Note: Higher means indicate more positive evaluations. **p < ,001 (simple main effects for ingroup-outgroup comparisons).

With regard to scholastic ability, students, regardless of origin or grade, rated the ingroup higher than the outgroup; yet, among the Israelis, this tendency was more marked for fifth- than for eighth-graders, whereas for Russians, it was more pronounced among eighth-graders than among fifth-graders. DISCUSSION Although a symmetrical pattern for intergroup acceptance and perception was expected, the findings indicated that the pattern obtained was actually content-contingent. Symmetry appeared in the general pattern of intergroup acceptance: both the Israeli and Russian students expressed a preference for classmates of their own group and were more reserved toward classmates of the other group. Yet, the pattern for trait perceptions was more complex: symmetry arose in the case of scholastic ability, and asymmetry arose for sociability and manners. Israeli, as well as Russian students perceived their own group as having a greater scholastic ability than students of the other category. Regarding sociability and manners, all students perceived sociability to be more typical of Israelis than of Russians and manners to be more typical of Russians than of Israelis. These results regarding Israelis and recent Russian immigrants differ from the consistent asymmetry which has characterized the relations

Intergroup Acceptance

437

toward past waves of immigrants from Middle-Eastern origins (Schwarzwald & Yinon, 1977; Schwarzwald & Amir, 1984). It is our contention that the more symmetrical pattern of intergroup relations with Russian immigrants reflects their relatively high social status and cultural similarity to the absorbing society; a standing which has placed them in a more advanced stage of evolving relations with the native Israeli population. These differences are seen most clearly with regard to the issue of educational evaluations. Past research indicates that Middle-Eastern immigrants had a relatively limited educational attainment and tended to give preferential evaluations of the outgroup over the ingroup. By contrast, the more recent Russians resemble Israelis in their educational level, and thus tend to prefer their ingroup more than students of the outgroup. Such a pattern of ingroup acceptance has only recently been attained among Middle-Easterners, as their educational levels have risen (Schwarzwald & Amir, 1992). Similar trends appear in other countries. Studies in the United States, for example, have reported that a higher status group tends to prefer itself, whereas a lower status group prefers the other group (Brand, Ruiz, & Padilla, 1974). Greater ingroup acceptance has tended to be limited to those individuals whose personal status was relatively high (Williams, 1966; Hraba & Grant, 1970; Stephan & Rosenfield, 1978). The findings of this study, when taken in the broader context of research in Israel, tend to concur with Taylor & McKirnan’s (1984) fivestage model of intergroup relations. This model predicts specific stages as low-status groups progress towards attaining an equal status with other relevant social groups. Our review of intergroup relations of MiddleEasterners and Westerners suggests that Middle-Easterners, during initial periods of absorption, entered at the third stage of this model and subsequently progressed to the fourth stage. This is delineated in the model as the transition from the stage in which the belief that, with effort and achievement, mobility is possible to the stage in which disadvantaged groups believe that their status in the existing system is discriminatory, and cooperative efforts are needed in order to attain equality. This fourth stage, in which disadvantaged groups accept themselves, appears to follow on the heels of a reduction in perceived dissimilarities between the groups. In this regard, it is important to note that MiddleEasterners have, indeed, become more similar to Westerners along a series of cultural indices (e.g., Katz & Gurevitch, 1973; Weller, Don, & Hovav, 1976). It is these similarities that, on the one hand, make the dominant group a more realistic comparison model for the disadvantaged group (Schwarzwald & Amir, 1984) and, on the other hand, sets the stage for a greater self-acceptance and cooperative efforts towards attaining equality.

438

J. Schwarzwald et al.

Following this reasoning, it can be argued that the Russian immigrants commenced their relationship with the Israelis at the fourth stage. Immigrating from a Western culture with an advanced technology, they were similar, in many respects, to the absorbing Israeli population. This resemblance enabled their self-acceptance, despite the fact that they were newcomers. Indeed, our findings that Russians evaluated themselves just as highly as Israelis on the scholastic ability dimension is a viable indication of perceived similarity. The assymetries in intergroup perceptions regarding sociability and manners are particularly revealing. First, it is clear that Israelis and Russians differentiate between different stereotypic elements, and are willing to accept that Russians may, at times, have even more positive characteristics than Israelis. Second, close inspection of the actual scales scores reveals that the outgroup evaluations for both manners and sociability were not negatively loaded. Indeed, the average evaluations of the outgroup, even on the dimensions that were perceived as less typical, all exceeded the scale mid-point. In other words, neither group expressed outgroup negativity. The findings revealed impacts of self-esteem and age. Self-esteem had a differential influence on intergroup acceptance of Israelis and Russians. Among Israelis, students with a high self-esteem showed less ingroup acceptance than those with a low self-esteem. In contrast, among Russians, high self-esteem students revealed a greater ingroup acceptance than low self-esteem ones. This pattern is vastly different from that obtained for the relationship found for Middle-Easterners. Among the Middle-Easterners, high self-esteem students exhibited a greater acceptance of the outgroup compared to low self-esteem students (e.g., Hoffman & Schwarzwald, 1992). The effect of self-esteem may be understood within the cultural context of the involved groups. In general, high self-esteem individuals tend to adhere more to group norms and values (Kagan & Knight, 1979). Yet, which are the relevant norms? If, as we have argued, Russians are in the fourth stage of evolving relations, then they should have a greater respect for their own norms than those of the surrounding society. In contrast, Middle-Easterners in the third stage should show a greater respect for the outgroup norms than for their own. In this light, the findings are consistent with the interpretation that increased self-esteem tended to heighten these normative tendencies. With regard to age, the results indicated that older students exhibited a more marked differentiation between Russians and Israelis than did younger students. This concurs with basic developmental research indicating a greater articulation of social cognition and stereotypes with age (Hartup, 1983).

Intergroup Acceptance

439

REFERENCES ADLER, C. (1984). School integration in the context of the development of Israel’s educational system. In Y. Amir & S. Sharan (Eds.), School desegregation (pp. 21-45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. BENTWICH, J. S. (1960). Education in Israel. Tel-Aviv: Joshua Chachik Publishing House. BJERSTEDT, A. (1952). A “chess-board sociogram” for sociographic representation of choice directions for the analysis of “sociometric locomotions.” Sociometry, 15, 244-262. BRAND, E. S., RUIZ, R. A., & PADILLA, A. M. (1974). Ethnic identification and preference: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 860-890. FERSHTMAN, M., & CHEN, M. (1993). The segregation matrix: A new sociometric index. Megamot, 34, 5633581. GUTTMAN, L. A. (1950). The basis for Scalogram analysis. In S. A. Stoufer (Ed.), Measurement and Prediction (pp. 60&90). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. HARTUP, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook qfchild psychology (vol. 4, pp. 1033196). HOFFMAN, M., & SCHWARZWALD, J. (1992). Moderating effects of selfesteem on the use of ethnicity and academic standing as determinant of interpersonal acceptance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 749-762. HRABA, J., & GRANT, G. (1970). Black is beautiful: A reexamination of racial preference and identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 398402. INBAR, M., & ADLER C. (1977). Ethnic integration in Israel. New Brunswick, New York: Transaction Books. KAGAN, S., & KNIGHT, G. (1979). Cooperation-competition and self-esteem. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 10, 457-467. KATZ, E., & GUREVITCH, M. (1973). The culture of leisure in Israel. Tel-Aviv: Am Oved. NAVEH, G., NOAM, G., & BENITA, E. (1994). The employment and economic situation of immigrants from the former Soviet Union: Selected findings from a national employment survey. In G. Noam (Ed.), Immigrant absorption in Israel. Jerusalem: JDC Brookdale Institute of Gerontology and Human Development. NOAM, G. (1994). Immigrant Absorption in Israel. Jerusalem: JDC Brookdale Institute of Gerontology and Human Development. PERES, Y. (1971). Ethnic relations in Israel. American Journal qf Sociology, 76, 1021-1047. RIM, Y. (1968). National stereotypes in children. Megamot, 16, 45-50. SCHWARZWALD, J., & AMIR, Y. (1984). Interethnic relations and education: An Israeli perspective. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in Contact. The Psychology of Desegregation (pp. 53.~-76). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. SCHWARZWALD, J., & AMIR, Y. (1992). Long-term effects of school desegregation experiences on interpersonal relations in the Israeli Defense Forces. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 357- 368.

J. Schwarzwald et al.

440

SCHWARZWALD, J., AMIR, Y., & CRAIN, R. L. (1992). Long-term effects of school desegregation experiences on interpersonal relations in the Israeli defence forces. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 3577386. SCHWARZWALD, J., & COHEN, S. (1982). Relationship between academic tracking and the degree of interpersonal acceptance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4, 5888597.

SCHWARZWALD, J., LAOR, T., & HOFFMAN, M. (1986). Impact of sociometric method and activity content on assessment of intergroup relations in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 24-3 1. SCWHARZWALD, J., & YINON, Y. (1977). Symmetrical and asymmetrical interethnic perception in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1, 40-47.

SHUVAL, J. T. (1956). Patterns of intergroup

tension and affinity. UNESCO

International Social Science Bulletin, 8, 755 123.

SHUVAL, J. T. (1966). Self-rejection among North African immigrants to Israel. The Israel Annals of Psychiatry and Related Disciplines, 4, lOI- 110. SMOOHA, S. (1978). Israel-Pluralism and Conjict. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. STAHL, A. (1976). Culture integration in Israel. Tel-Aviv: Am Oved. STEPHAN, W. G., & ROSENFIELD, G. (1978). Effect of desegregation on race relations and self-esteem. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 670-679. SWIRSKY, S. (1981). Orientals and Ashkenazim in Israel. Haifa: Mahbarot Lemehkar Ulvikoret. TAYLOR, D. M., & McKIRNAN, D. J. (1984). A five stage model of intergroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 291.-300. TAYLOR, D. M., & MOGHADDAM, F. M. (1987). Theories of intergroup relations. New York: Praeger. WELLER, L., DON, Y., & HOVAV, H. (1976). The impact of education on family change. The Israel Annals of Psychiatry and Related Disciplines, 14, 266-274.

WILLIAMS,

J. E. (1966). Connotations

of racial concepts and color names.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 53 l- 540.