Prospects of Social Identity Complexity and its correlates

Prospects of Social Identity Complexity and its correlates among formerly conflicting majority and minority groups in Kosovo Edona Maloku RIT Kosovo/American University in Kosovo Kaltrina Kelmendi University of Prishtina Political Psychology Conference Amsterdam, December 3 & 4, 2015

Introduction • Previously part of former Yugoslavia • Conflict in 1998 -1999, ended with a NATO intervention • Independence in 2008 brought a new national Identity – the Kosovar Identity • Why is this problematic? Source: http: //kosovoblogs. nl/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/newbornwikipedia. jpg

A challenging inter-ethnic setting • Main ethnic groups: majority Albanians (93%) and minority Serbs (3 -5%)* have conflicting past and very limited contact with oneanother (Kosovo Agency of Statistics [KAS], 2012) • Religious differences too: – Albanians (majority, Muslim; minority, Catholic) – Serbs (Orthodox) https: //commons. wikimedia. org/wiki/File: Flag_ of_Kosovo. png *Other minorities (less than 3%) are: Bosniacs, Gorani, Turkish, and Roma, Ashkali, and Egyptians combined (RAE)

Theoretical Framework • Social Identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) – Social aspect of ourselves informed by group membership (e. g. , Albanian, Kosovar, Dutch, Catholic, psychologist, woman, etc. ) • Social Identity Complexity (SIC; Roccas & Brewer, 2002) - the degree to which different identities are both differentiated and integrated in a person’s mental representation of her or his group membership - our focus is on the integration of nationality, ethnicity and religion

Past research on SIC http: //www. samlil. co. il/wpcontent/uploads/2009/12/kosovo_b. jpg • Past research has shown that SIC predicts a number of positive intergroup outcomes: – more favorable attitudes towards outgroups, – more support for diversity policies and – less distinctiveness threat (Brewer & Pierce, 2005; Miller, Brewer, & Arbuckle, 2009; Roccas & Brewer, 2002; Schmid, Hewstone, Tausch, Cairns, & Hughes, 2009). • In segregated contexts like Kosovo, SIC was shown to predict willingness to contact outgroup (Maloku, Derks, Van Laar, & Ellemers, in press)

Overall Research Objectives • Study reported here is only one part of a large regional research project (RRPP, 2015) 1. Explore complexity and inclusiveness of social identity among youth in Westerns Balkans (Kosovo, Macedonia, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) 2. Explore relationships to a number of socially relevant attitudes and behaviors (perceived group equality, religiosity, trust in institutions, social dominance orientation, etc. ) 3. Define contexts that foster complex and inclusive social identities

Methodology • Overall project: Quantitative & Qualitative • Study here: Section of the quantitative segment • SIC, Social Distance, Feelings Towards Outgroups & Frequency of contact – – – Quota sampling broken down by ethnicity, gender & education N=191 participants (102 females, 89 males) Sample ethnic breakdown: 105 Albanians, 86 Serbs Aged from 18 to 33 (Mage = 23. 69, SD = 3. 37) Two cities where ethnicities differ in min/maj status (Prishtina and Mitrovica north ) • Procedure: Passive snowballing & Electronic questionnaire in Qualtrics

Measures of focus: Examples of items • Social identity complexity - 6 pairs of group combinations – “When you think of people who are citizens of Kosovo, how many of them are Albanian? ” and vice-versa (1 none – 11 all of them) • Group Social Distance (Albanians, Serbs, Muslims, Orthodox) – “I wouldn’t mind living in the same neighbourhood with. . . ” (1 – I don’t agree at all – 5 I completely agree); recoded • Group Affection via a feeling thermometer (Albanians, Serbs, Muslims, Orthodox) – Please report your feelings towards each of the mentioned groups (1 cold – 100 warm) • Frequency of contact with outgroup (ethnic, religious) – “How often do you have contact with members of (outgroup) in the neighborhood you live in? ” (1 never – 5 often)

Results: Overall picture • A very dim situation, unfortunately • Generally very low complexity (overall M=4. 61, SD=2. 1) • Very little contact with outgroup (ethnic) • Similarly distant towards ethnic and religious outgroups and similarly negative affection about these outgroups

Means and SD of primary variables Albanians Serbs SIC Indexa M SD 4. 39* 1. 91 5. 67 2. 10 Frequency of Contactb 1. 69. 84 Social Distance with Ethnic Outgroupb Warmth for Ethnic Outgroupc 2. 87 1. 14 3. 19 1. 27 2. 23 1. 12 29. 83 26. 70 30. 61 28. 29 *SIC is significantly below theoretical mid-point of the scale 5. 5, t(104)= - 5. 96, p<. 001 a Scale range 1 -11 (higher values, higher complexity) b Scale range 1 -5 (higher values, more contact; more social distance) c Scale range is 1 -100 (higher values, more warmth)

How does SIC look like for these groups? Albanians Serbs SIC Overall Index M SD 4. 39 1. 91 5. 67 2. 10 SIC Ethnicity 4. 47 1. 20 5. 01 2. 16 SIC Religion 5. 37 3. 01 5. 28 2. 43 SIC Nationality 3. 35 1. 73 6. 66 2. 64 *Scale range 1 -11 (higher values, higher complexity or less overlap of identities) 1. Higher complexity for Nationality among Serbs? Unlike Brewer, Gonsalkorale, & Van Dommelen, 2013), where minority showed LOWER complexity than majority! 2. Serbs identification with nationality (M=3. 35) is lower than for Albanians (M=4. 14)

How is SIC correlated with Intergroup Outcomes of our interest? Albanians Correlations SIC Mean SD Social distance towards Muslims . 280* 1. 25 . 66 -. 051 3. 46 1. 13 Orthodox -. 124 2. 27 . 129 1. 26 . 66 Albanians . 319** 1. 11 . 54 -. 052 3. 19 1. 27 Serbs -. 199* Feeling thermometer Muslims -. 240* 2. 87 . 105 1. 20 . 65 84. 18 20. 97 -. 054 45. 49 29. 65 Orthodox . 218* 44. 90 26. 50 -. 105 86. 60 20. 36 Albanians -. 252** 92. 35 12. 97 . 109 30. 61 28. 29 -. 215* 90. 94 16. 68 Serbs . 176 Frequency of contact -009 Note. *p <. 1, **p 1. 02 1. 14 Serbs Correlations SIC Mean SD 29. 83 26. 70 1. 69 . 84 <. 05; higher values, more distance, more contact; a . 189 b higher 2. 23 1. 11 values, warmer feelings towards the group

Conclusions (1) • There is generally low complexity (or highly overlapping ethnic religious and national identities in Kosovo), especially for the majority group – speaks of rigid identity boundaries • Rigidity – problematic for an already segregated setting, especially for inclusion of the minority group (Serbs) • SIC relates to positive intergroup relations, but only for the majority group (Albanians); – Less ingroup bias and less social distance – But not for warmth towards ethnic outgroup (Serbs); SIC is cognitive, so the affective component might work through a different path. • SIC for Serbs is problematic when the measure includes national (Kosovar) identity

Conclusions (2) • Ethnic outgroup - lowest on warmth (even lower than religious outgroup) and among the lowest on social distance • Generally, findings read for ethnic ingroupoutgroup divison as most prominent feature of the intergroup setting • Contact is very limited and therefore no relationships with SIC emerge (e. g. , Maloku et al, in print; measured willingness to contact, yielded much better results)

Limitations and Future directions • Limitations: – This is only a portion of the study (rest is being analyzed, could give a different meaning to the picture) – SIC measure not working out for the minority at this point of identity formation (new identity) • What next? – We have another measured ingroup-outgroup on another related construct - Social Identity Inclusiveness - (Van Dommelen, Schmid, & Hewstone, 2012), operationalizes better the structure of social identities for Serbs

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! For further information on the regional project, part of which this study belongs to, please visit: http: //sibyouth. org/en/ https: //www. facebook. com/pages/Social-Identity. Complexity-in-the-Balkans/311987085670238