Content uploaded by Tamara Pavasovic Trost
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tamara Pavasovic Trost on May 18, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
135
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
Tamara Pavasović-Trošt
The Complexity of Ethnic
Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance
among Serbian Youth
Abstract:
Studies of ethnic distance among schoolchildren in the countries of the former
Yugoslavia have pointed to consistently strong prejudice between members of the
majority ethnic groups and ethnic “others”. In Serbia, schoolchildren have been
shown to demonstrate high ethnic distance primarily towards Roma, Albanians,
and Croats. However, the intensity, quality, and content of these stereotypes rarely
receive attention. Utilizing a rare in-depth longitudinal survey of 400 seventh
and eighth grade Serbian children, this study assesses ethnic boundaries both
quantitatively, using the Bogardus scale, and qualitatively, using the stereotype
content model (SCM). While ethnic distance scores shed light on the extent of
ethnic animosity, they fail to capture the multi-dimensionality of children’s
attitudes towards other ethnic groups. Responses to open-ended questions
demonstrate that Serbian schoolchildren align stereotypes of other ethnic
groups neatly along the SCM model (envied, despised, or pitied out-groups),
providing compelling information about the mechanisms and discourses of
ethnic divisions.
Key Words
boundaries, ethnic distance, stereotypes, Serbia, youth
Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies
136
Recent studies have found high levels of ethnic distance in schoolchildren in
the countries of former Yugoslavia. In studies of Serbian youth, scholars have
found that as early as third grade, children demonstrate strong animosity to-
wards members of other ethnic groups, primarily Roma, Albanians, and Croats
[(Opacic and Vujadinovic: 2004); (Petrovic: 2011)]. Given that these children were
born aer the wars of the early 1990s and thus have no personal experiences or
recollections of the war events themselves, the question arises: Which factors
engender and propagate ethnic stereotypes in youth? How can we better study
ethnic stereotypes and disaggregate ethnic distance so as to fully comprehend
the nuances of ethnic discrimination? Can recent psychological models and
brain imaging help account for more extreme forms of ethnic animosity, such
as bigotry and ethnic violence? is study attempts to bridge sociological and
psychological knowledge about prejudice and stereotypes to provide a more
nuanced understanding of interethnic intolerance.
Developments in psychological literature have further expanded our un-
derstanding of prejudice and discrimination, and this new research warrants
attention from sociologists. Indeed, sociologists have begun directing attention
towards new psychological studies of prejudice, discrimination, and stereotype
content. “Little known to most sociologists, recent psychological research pro-
vides a new approach to understanding the sources of racial discrimination
that compliments ideas from the new prejudice literature... [Implicit prejudice]
provides an important new layer of understanding about the nature and sources
of prejudice, discrimination, and racism” [Quillian: 2006: 323].
Studying the content of stereotypes, rather than the sheer extent of prejudice
or discrimination, is necessary for a nuanced understanding of the inter-eth-
nic processes at work. Social psychological literature on prejudice has recently
expanded notions of prejudice so that it can have distinct emotional proles
– stereotypes towards some groups can involve both positive emotions (respect,
admiration) and negative emotions (dislike) [Taylor: 2007: 597-617]. is study
helps us determine the complexity of these stereotypes through content coding
of children’s narratives of other ethnic groups, understanding how a mix of
positive and negative stereotypes can combine into distinct forms of prejudice.
Additionally, this study helps us understand more extreme forms of prejudice.
While both sociological studies on racial discrimination in housing or employment
markets and psychological studies on implicit prejudice do well in explaining the
sometimes hidden dimensions of dislike and inclination towards preferential treat-
ment of one’s group, neither have shed light on more extreme forms of prejudice.
Mainstream research on prejudice “fails to explain the extremes of bigotry some-
times observed in the world but rarely in the laboratory” [Taylor: 2007: 598], and
has not attempted to account for more specic forms of ethnic violence [Dutton,
Boyanowsky and Bond: 2005]. is is further augmented by cutting-edge brain
137
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
imaging studies which have shown that in certain combinations of stereotypes,
the part of the prefrontal cortex of the brain which recognizes human beings is not
activated, indicating dehumanization at a fundamental psychological level [Harris
and Fiske: 2006]. us, examining children’s articulation of these stereotypes,
particularly towards groups with histories of ethnic violence, might be critical
for our understanding of the dynamics of intergroup processes. Indeed, as the
subsequent content analysis of children’s narratives will demonstrate, studying
the content of stereotypes, particularly in populations exhibiting high ethnic
animosity (and already in young children), is highly relevant.
Further, the dimensions along which children categorize other ethnic groups
provide a deeper understanding of how they justify certain kinds of behaviour
towards these ethnic groups. Scholars of extreme ethnic violence have shown
that mass murder on an ethnic basis is commonly accompanied by a belief that
the ethnic group obtained unfair advantage in the past and symbolically re-
structures the group so that it is perceived as viral or cancerous; thus justifying
social violence as revenge, and validating violence towards non-violent members
of the ethnic group [Dutton et al.: 2005] It is well known in psychology that
stereotypes legitimize antipathy towards out-groups. Legitimizing myths can
maintain social inequity, and how these legitimizing myths are articulated by
children is of relevance [(Kay et al: 2007), (Kay and Jost: 2003)].
In the following sections, previous studies of ethnic distance are reviewed,
followed by the relevant literature on stereotype content. is is followed by the
results of the study, which included two waves of surveys with 374 seventh and
eighth grade children in two Belgrade schools. I rst examine levels of ethnic
distance, examining the extent and some determinants of ethnic distance (as
measured by the Bogardus scale [Bogardus: 1925]. Next, I assess the content of
the stereotypes (as measured by children’s responses to open-ended questions
about each of the groups), in light of new literature on stereotype content, in
which the severity of stereotypes depends on out-group classication as disgust,
pity, or envy [Harris and Fiske: 2007]. e paper concludes with a discussion
on the study’s implications on improving intergroup relations.
Ethnic Distance
Nationally representative ethnic distance surveys have been performed in Serbia
in 2000, 2001, and 2006 (as well as in the former Yugoslavia before its disinte-
gration in 1966, 1985, and 1995)1, allowing for rich historical and comparative
1 For the most authoritative ethnic distance studies, see: former Yugoslavia – Rot and Havelka
[1973]; Djuric [1980]; Bacevic [1990]; Pantic [1991]; Serbia – Kuzmanovic [1994]; Biro: [1997],
Sekelj [2000]; Popadic and Biro [2002;] Biro et al. [2002], Micevic [2005]; CeSID (2006);
Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies
138
analysis. Most studies of ethnic distance have generally portrayed a bleak picture
of ethnic intergroup relations most nations of the former Yugoslavia. For Serbs,
the groups with a highest preferred degree of ethnic distance were commonly
Albanians, Roma, Muslims, and Croats, with Albanians always occupying the
rst place. Table 1 summarizes the results of the nationally representative survey
of Serbian adults in 2006.
Table 1: Percentage of respondents marking “would accept”
relationship with particular ethnic group in 2006, N=1634.2
Albanians Croats Roma Montenegrins
as citizen 58 74 86 87
as colleague 56 74 77 86
as neighbour 52 72 76 86
as friend 48 68 69 86
as spouse 27 47 38 76
Relatively few studies have examined the degree of ethnic distance in youth
specically, although several recent studies have pointed to alarmingly high
level of ethnic distance in Serbian children. A 2003 study of 208 third and
fourth-graders and 242 of their parents found highest ethnic distance towards
Roma (61% would exclude from city, 76% wouldn’t share desk, 70% wouldn’t
accept as best friend), followed very closely by distance towards Albanians (61%
would exclude from city, 71% wouldn’t share a desk at school, 68% wouldn’t
accept as best friend), with Croats faring somewhat better (38% would exclude
Croats from city, 49% wouldn’t share desk, 42% wouldn’t accept as best friend)
[Mihic and Mihic: 2003]. Interesting in this study is that parents displayed
much higher tolerance (as expected, because of social desirability), but in a
similar hierarchy as for children: for a son- or daughter-in-law, 68% wouldn’t
accept an Albanian, 58% wouldn’t accept a Roma, and 42% wouldn’t accept a
Croat. e only dierence was that parents were more tolerant towards Roma
and extremely intolerant towards Albanians; while for children intolerance was
practically the same for Roma and Albanians [ibid].
Additionally, ethnic distance surveys with youth were done in neighbouring
countries as well, allowing for cross-national comparison. A study of ethnic dis-
Kandido-Jaksic [2008]; Croatia – Previsic [1996]; Siber [1997]; Malesevic and Uzelac
[1997]; Bosnia – Djipa [1996); Bilalic et al. [2002]; Turjacanin et al., [2002], Puhalo, [2003];
Turjacanin [2004]; Montenegro – Kuzmanovic [2001].
2 Serbian Public Opinion Survey CeSID (Centar za slobodne izbore i demokratiju), 2006.
139
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
tance in Croatia in university students in 1992 [Malesevic and Uzelac: 1997] for
instance, included two additional, more extreme, categories for social distance
(the standard Bogardus scale most extreme category is “I would exclude them
from my country”): “I would like someone to kill them all”, and “I would per-
sonally like to exterminate them all”. An astounding 15.3% of the respondents
chose one of those two additional categories (1992) and 14.1% in 1993. Surveys
were also done recently in Bosnia with juniors and seniors in high school, us-
ing adjectives (positive/negative stereotypes) about each of the ethnic groups,
allowing for very interesting comparison [Turjacanin [2004].
Theorizing Stereotype Content
Psychologists have identied two aspects of social perception – warmth and
competence – which combined represent two universal dimensions of human
social cognition. e presence of these dimensions, both at the individual
and group level, has been supported by a plethora of research, from experi-
mental psychological laboratories to cross-national studies. “Decades of prior
research support the importance (and constant recurrence) of the warmth and
competence dimensions ... In the past ve years cutting-edge studies of social
cognition have rmly established that people everywhere dierentiate each
other by liking (warmth, trustworthiness) and by respecting (competence, ef-
ciency).” [Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick: 2007] According the Stereotype Content
Model (SCM), warmth and competence interact in ways that produce dierent
aective responses to social groups: admired (high warmth, high competence),
pitied (high warmth, low competence), envied (low warmth, high competence)
and despised (low warmth, low competence) [Fiske et al.: 2002]. e warmth
dimension predicts whether the impression is positive or negative, while the
competence dimension predicts the extent to which the impression is positive
or negative [Fiske et al.: 2007].
Pride: Groups that are both liked and respected (high warmth, high compe-
tence) elicit pride and admiration. In the US, these include middleclass people,
Christian people, heterosexual people, and US citizens. [ibid]
Envy: Groups that are not liked but respected (low warmth, high competence)
elicit envious stereotypes. is includes out-groups that are acknowledged to
be doing well (for themselves), but their intentions towards the in-group are
presumed not to be positive. Members of such groups are perceived as too com-
petent, ambitious and hardworking, educing envy, which can lead to resentment
and social exclusion [Fiske et al.: 2002]. In the US, this includes rich people,
Asian people, Jewish people, female professionals, and minority professionals
[Fiske et al.: 2007].
Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies
140
Pity: Groups that are liked but not respected (high warmth, low competence)
elicit paternalistic stereotypes. Members of these groups perceived as neither
apt to nor capable of inducing harm to in-group members. Stereotypes towards
members of pitied groups can include overtones of compassion, sympathy, and
tenderness, under the right conditions [Fiske et al.: 2002]. In the US, this includes
housewives, disabled people, and elderly people.
Disgust: Groups that are neither liked nor respected (low warmth, low compe-
tence) elicit contemptuous stereotypes. Disgust, a not-exclusively social emotion, is
directed at people at objects that seem repellant [(Rozin and Fallon: 1987); Harris
and Fiske: 2006]. In the US, this includes homeless, welfare recipients, poor peo-
ple of any race, drug addicts, and undocumented immigrants [Fiske et al.: 2007].
Figure 1: Scatter plot and cluster analysis of competence and warmth ratings for 20 groups.
Reproduced from Fiske et al, 2007.
Evidence for the four combinations is profuse, not only in representative samples
of US adults, but has “t every society that has been studied so far”, including
19 nations on 4 continents, and in-depth US perceptions of specic US groups
(subtypes of older people, subgroups of immigrants, subtypes of gay men, and
similar) [see, Fiske et al.: 2007].
141
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
More importantly, this categorization schema has been linked with discrete
behavioral responses.3 As captured by the behaviors from intergroup aect and
stereotypes (BIAS) map, warmth stereotypes are associated with active behavioral
tendencies, including active harm (harassment) and active facilitation (help), while
competence stereotypes are linked to passive behavioral tendencies, including
passive harm (neglect) and passive facilitation (association) [(Cuddy, Fiske and
Glick: 2007), (Cuddy, Fiske and Glick: 2008]. Accordingly, envied groups induce
passive facilitation but active harm; pitied groups induce active facilitation but
passive harm, while groups low in warmth and competence induce both harm
inclinations [Cuddy et al.: 2007]. For example, institutionalizing the elderly (pit-
ied group) is active facilitation (institutionalization aids them) but passive harm
(social isolation); while for envied groups, people might shop at stores of minority
groups (passive facilitation) but under certain societal conditions might attack
and loot those shops (active harm), which was historically documented in the
cases of Jews during the Holocaust or Koreans in the LA riots [Fiske et al.: 2007].
Figure 2: Schematic representation of behaviors from intergroup aect and stereotypes.
Reproduced from Cuddy et al, 2007.
3 Some studies have shown that the path from perception to behavior is conditioned by
priming the goal or object; for a review, see Perugini and Prestwich [2007]
Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies
142
Outside of the laboratory setting, the way groups are perceived, and particu-
larly whether members of out-groups are dehumanized or not, are linked to
distinct public policy preferences, thus stressing the relevance of studying SCM.
A recent study found that threat and dehumanization of another ethnic group
might actually induce overt support for retaliatory aggressive policies, even
when respondents’ hawkishness, SES, and education level is taken into account
[Maoz and McCauley: 2008].
Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain has been increasingly used in recent
studies to detect stereotype and prejudice activation. ese studies have found
that for despised groups, judgments are made in a brain region anatomically
distinct from social groups with social emotions (pity, envy, pride) [Harris and
Fiske: 2006] and that in some cases, the part of the prefrontal cortex which recog-
nizes human beings is not activated. Extreme out-groups do not promote mPFC
activation as if they are not processed primarily as human beings, indicating
that despised groups might be dehumanized at a fundamental psychological
level [ibid].
Aside from magnetic resonance imaging studies, the emotion of disgust has
recently attracted increased attention by psychologists, and has been found
to be a critical factor in dehumanization of a particular ethnic group [Taylor:
2007]. Dehumanization is frequently studied by psychologists, as occurring in
multiple ways: groups acting outside societal norms are excluded from other
human groups [Bar-Tal:1989], on the grounds of moral exclusion [Staub: 1989],
the belief that some groups operate beyond moral rules and values [Opotow:
1990] or perception of lesser humanity [Struch and Schwarz: 1989]. According to
infra-humanization theory, people ascribe human essence and uniquely human
emotions (love, hope, resentment etc.) to their in-group and are reluctant to
associate them with out-groups [Leyens et al.:2003]. “Many forms of discrim-
ination and bias may develop not because out-groups are hated, but because
positive emotions such as admiration, sympathy, and trust are reserved for the
in-group and withheld from out-groups [Brewer: 1999: 438]. Recent studies on
in-group infrahumanization have also showed that dehumanized groups are
believed not to experience complex human emotions or share in-group beliefs
[Leyens at al.: 2003]. Infra-humanization, especially when accompanied by a
feeling of disgust and contempt towards an out-group, might be a critical venue
for research on ethnic conict.
Infra-humanization and nationalism are two sides of the same
coin. Infra-humanization is always implicit (except in extreme
cases). Nationalism is always explicit ... probably because of a
supportive norm ... is norm may lead some people to express
143
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
publicly nationalistic ideas that they do not share, because they
think that these ideas are shared by others. is norm also
makes legitimacy facile. e leap from patriotism to nationalism
is indeed easy [ibid: 713].
Finally, the SCM quadrant of disgust warrants attention because of its connec-
tion to other psychological processes that might make ethnic atrocities more
likely. While many traditional accounts of bigotry found in ethnic or racial
atrocities relied on hate theory [see Sternberg: 2005], researchers have found
that disgust might play an equal, if not more dangerous role in antipathy than
hate [(Moshman: 2005), (Taylor: 2007)]. e social contamination hypothesis
suggests that members of particular ethnic groups can be seen as a “a bearer
of pollution or disease, a danger to the integrity and purity of an individual or
group... disgusting, dangerous, and socially unacceptable.” [Taylor: 2007: 601].
Literature in this area has examined metaphors used for other ethnic groups
such as disease, contamination, corruption, and frequently impurity. “e
concomitant emotion for such an obsession is disgust ... e evocation of high
levels of disgust may be a crucial motivational factor in bigotry and perhaps
in the perpetration if intergroup atrocities.” [ibid] us, disgust as an emotion
towards members of particular ethnic groups is of particular relevance.
Data and Methodology
e data for this study are drawn largely from a self-administered survey of
youth in two Belgrade schools in December 2006 and June 2007. e sample
consists of two Belgrade public schools, of the entire eighth grade in each school
(four classrooms in one school and six classrooms in the other), and a control
group of seventh graders (four classrooms), totalling 374 children. e survey
was administered during class-time over a week period and all children present
lled out the ethnic distance scale section of the survey. Most of the children
lled out the open-ended section of the survey, except in a few classrooms where
teachers did not allow enough time for open-ended questions, and for these
classrooms, I have no qualitative data. e survey included a Bogardus ethnic
distance scale towards seven ethnic groups, as well as a battery of open-end-
ed questions about these groups. e responses considered in the qualitative
analysis include ones on perceptions of one’s own identity (What does it mean
to be Serbian?), knowledge about relevant historical events and opinions about
the ethnic groups from the ethnic distance survey.
Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies
144
e distribution by school, grade, and classroom and population demographics
are shown in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively.
Table 2: Distribution by school, grade, and classroom.
School Grade Classroom N
1 8 1 22
1 8 2 22
1 8 3 26
1 8 4 24
1 7 5 22
1 7 6 22
1 7 7 24
1 7 8 22
2 8 9 34
2 8 10 29
2 8 11 30
2 8 12 33
2 8 13 31
2 8 14 33
Total 7th graders: 90
Total 8th graders: 284
Total : 374
Table 3: Population demographics.
Variable Value % N
Sex Male 48.66 182
Female 46.52 174
Sex withheld 4.81 18
Total: 100.00 374
e rst part of the study compares children’s responses to open-ended questions
on ethnic groups with the level of ethnic distance. Social distance is dened
145
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
as “feelings of unwillingness among members of a group to accept or approve
a given degree of intimacy in interaction with a member of an out-group [Wil-
liams Jr.:1964: 29], and “an indication of how acceptable or objectionable vari-
ous ethnic groups are in society [Marger:1994:83]. e measurement of ethnic
distance, the Bogardus Social Distance Scale [Bogardus: 1967], is composed of
seven questions. e survey itself is straightforward: the “distance” variables
are arrayed as column headings, while ethnic group names are arrayed as row
headings. Respondents are told to mark “all of the relations with [ethnic group]
you would accept or prefer to have.” is means that respondents can choose
to accept a member of a dierent group in the capacity of a co-worker, but not
marry or be close friends with them. e choice continuum includes: marriage,
close friend, neighbour, co-worker, speaking acquaintance, visitor to my country,
would exclude from my country (Table 4).4 For children, this scale is modied
with appropriate categories: “would exclude from my country”, “would have in
my city”, “would have as a neighbour”, “would share a desk with”, “would have
as a teacher”, “would have as a best friend”, and “would date”.5
Table 4: The choice continuum
Original Bogardus scale (1925) Modified Bogardus scale
1. would admit to close kinship by marriage 1. would marry into group
2. would admit to my club as personal chums 2. would have as best friend
3. would admit to my street as neighbours 3. would have as next-door neighbours
4. would admit to employment in my occupation in my
country 4. would work in the same office
5. would admit to citizenship in my country 5. would have as speaking acquaintances only
6. would admit as visitors only to my country 6. would have as visitors to my country
7. would exclude from my country 7. would keep out of my country
e Bogardus scale is still widely used in sociological and psychological studies.
It is utilized for measuring plethora of social phenomena: in hospital settings,
health professionals, gender attitudes, and similar [For reviews, see Parrillo
and Donoghue [2005] and Weaver [2008]. While it has been subject to some
4 e scale assumes a hierarchical progression between variables, a hypothesis that has been
conrmed in methodological studies. However, I found that ‘would have as teacher’ category
does not t appropriately in children’s hierarchical structure, which is somewhat intuitive,
as it implies more authority than the equivalent category for adults (colleague at work).
5 For younger children, such as the 2002 study of 11 and 12-year olds, the scale’s most intimate
relationship is “would have as a best friend”.
Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies
146
criticism [For a review of methodological cautions, see Weinfurt and Mogh-
addam: 2001], and particularly recently due to the shrinking spread in scores,
it has “remained paramount in the understanding of continuously oscillating
feelings and attitudes about and among dierent racial and ethnic groups”
[Randall and Delbridge, 2005: 104-5] and “remains inuential and extensively
applied, vivid testimony from the academic community as to its merits” [Parrillo
and Donoghue: 2005: 259]. e greatest challenge of the scale is the diculty
of dierentiating whether decreasing social distance (i.e. increased tolerance)
among ethnic groups, as documented over the last 70 years, is a result of an
actual advance in intergroup relations, or merely a reection of increased po-
litical correctness and social desirability of appearing racially and ethnically
accepting [Parrillo: 2003]. For example, while several studies [Parrillo and
Donoghue: 2005: 260], laud improvements in interracial intimacy due to the
dramatically decreased mean distances expressed towards African Americans
in the U.S.6, other scholars note that prejudice now simply takes dierent forms:
“At the close of the 20th century, group dierences have changed shape rather
than disappeared” [Waters and Eschbach: 1995: 420]. Further, the fact that
many ethnic groups are still signicantly opposed to other groups being their
neighbours and marrying close relatives [Weaver: 2008], provides support for
the notion that much prejudice, discrimination and inequality remains persistent
and deeply-rooted.
e second part of the study involves coding of the open-ended questions
about ve of the groups: the in-group (Serbs), Croats, Albanians, Roma, and
Chinese. Children’s responses to open-ended questions were coded in accordance
with the SCM: the warmth dimension captures attributes related to perceived
intent, including friendliness, helpfulness, sincerity, trustworthiness and mo-
rality, while the competence dimension captures attributes related to perceived
ability, including intelligence, skill, creativity, and ecacy [Fiske et al.: 2007].
us, the codes for warmth included: fair, generous, helpful, honest, righteous,
sincere, tolerant, understanding; while the codes for competence included:
clever, competent, creative, ecient, foresighted, ingenious, intelligent, and
knowledgeable. Opposites of these were used as codes for the low-warmth and
low-competence categories. Responses were also coded for particular frames:
friend vs. enemy, relational (referencing the in-group), nuanced vs. categorical,
and positive versus negative descriptors. A word frequency count was also done
for all of the surveys.
6 In 1926, the overall mean of the social distance score was 2.14 with a spread of 2.85; in 1946
the mean was 2.12 with 2.57 spread, in 1956 the mean was 2.08 and spread = 1.75, in 1966
the mean = 1.92 and spread = 1.56, in 1977 mean=1.93 and spread = 1.37, and in 2005 the
mean = 1.45 and spread = .87 [Parrillo and Donoghue: 2005].
147
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
Results
As expected, although in alarmingly high levels, students are most hostile to
Albanians (76% of students would like to see Albanians excluded from their
country), followed by Croatians (50%) and Roma (41%): see Figure 3. is data
is similar with previous aggregate ethnic distance data from surveys done in
the last few years, although to a higher extent than anticipated.
Figure 3: Percentage of answers “Don’t want in my country”.
e average aggregate ethnic distance score across the sample is 2.36, on a
scale from 0 to 6, 0 being least accepting (“do not want in my country”), and 6
being most accepting (“would have as boyfriend/girlfriend”). e lowest (least
tolerant) average score is for Albanians, .86, and highest for Montenegrins, 3.43.
Attitudes towards Hungarians and Slovenians are more positive, as expected, but
were used to obtain aggregate ethnic distance scores by child. Scores towards
Bosniaks were dropped because most children confused the term: “Bosniak”
refers to Bosnian Muslims, while “Bosnian” usually refers to Bosnian Serbs, and
it was apparent that children interpreted the word both ways, thus obfuscating
the score.
Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies
148
Table 5: Descriptive statistics for dependent variable. (Low score = low tolerance.)
Variable Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Aggregate Ethnic Distance Score 2.36 1.68 0 6
Ethnic distance Albanian .86 1.71 0 6
Ethnic distance Croatian 1.99 2.30 0 6
Ethnic distance Roma 1.85 2.01 0 6
Ethnic distance Montenegrin 3.43 2.38 0 6
Ethnic distance Slovenian 2.87 2.25 0 6
Ethnic distance Hungarian 2.76 2.23 0 6
Ethnic distance Chinese 2.23 2.10 0 6
Across the dierent categories of acceptance (would have live in my city, would
have as a neighbour, would have as a teacher, would share desk with in school,
would have a best friend, and would date as boyfriend/girlfriend), similar pat-
terns emerge. Here it interesting to note that less than 5% of Serbian children
surveyed would date an Albanian or Roma, and that the distribution is quite
polarized for these two groups, while for Hungarians, Montenegrins, and Slo-
venians there is greater distribution across categories.
Table 6: Descriptive statistics for dependent variable by category.
Albanian
Croatian
Roma
Chinese
Montenegrin
Hungarian
Slovenian
not in my country 76% 50% 41% 25% 23% 21% 16%
city 10% 15% 31% 26% 17% 31% 30%
neighbour 2% 6% 7% 13% 9% 12% 11%
teacher 1% 2% 4% 5% 6% 5% 5%
school desk 3% 4% 5% 9% 6% 5% 7%
best friend 4% 8% 8% 13% 12% 9% 10%
date 5% 15% 5% 10% 27% 18% 22%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
149
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
Additionally, regression analysis of the results indicates that the data resemble
typical ethnic distance samples. For instance, as expected from a host of pre-
vious studies on ethnic distance, the variables correlated with ethnic distance
were sex (girls were more tolerant than boys), school GPA and college entrance
examination scores (youth with higher grades were signicantly more tolerant
[Hello, Scheepers, and Sleegers: 2006], and Social Dominance Orientation,
which predicted an individual student’s aggregate distance score for all groups
[Sidanius and Pratto: 2001].
While ethnic distance scores towards each ethnic group would indicate
relatively similar levels of animosity towards Croats and Roma, for instance,
examining qualitative responses to open-ended questions revealed highly inter-
esting pattern and illuminating the multi-dimensionality of children’s attitudes.
Stereotypes clustered in very particular ways, showing a completely dierent
schema and content of stereotypes.
In-group: Being Serbian was associated with almost entirely positive adjec-
tives: honest/wholesome/truthful (19), the best in everything (19), proud (18),
a good person (17), smart/resourceful (13), hardworking (13), devout (10), loyal
to country (8), friendly (7), fearless/brave (7). In terms of concrete actions or
traits, being Serbian was associated with: loving your country (39), Serbian
heritage/forefathers/roots (26), the Orthodox faith (19), being patriotic (19),
having Serbian citizenship (17), culture/food (16), Serbian language and Cyril-
lic script (16), ghting/giving life for your country (14), celebrating a slava7 (9),
being nationalist (8), not being afraid of war (7), and respecting dierences (2).
In describing what it means to be Serb, negative emotions or hostile emotions
focused towards outgroups were expressed by only three respondents: being
Serb meant to “hate Croats”, to “hate Croats, Shiptars8 and Muslims”, and “to
slaughter Gypsies, Shiptars, and Croatians”.
Albanians: Almost diametrically opposite to descriptions of Serbs, Albanians
were described as bad/the worst/evil (23), as people who multiply (19), are ugly
(18), are islamicized/Turks (15), Muslims (15), and are stateless or have no his-
tory (13). Feelings towards Albanians included ‘hate them’ (19) and kill them all
(15). As expected by the literature, although more severe than anticipated, the
adjectives used to describe Albanians included: lazy, lthy, tribe, savages, smell,
inferior race, disgusting, pitiful, dirty, corrupt, don’t take baths, backwards,
aggressive, rotten, dishonest, short, stubby. Albanians were also described in
relational terms: want to steal/take Kosovo away from us (37), want to destroy us
(19), want to kill Serbs (15), want a Great Albania (15). Among the entire sample,
only 1 respondent gave a neutral response (‘they’re not bad’) and there were no
7 Serbian Orthodox tradition of celebrating a family patron saint.
8 ‘Shipatar’ is a derogatory, albeit geographically correct, term referring to Albanians in
Kosovo.
Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies
150
positive descriptors. None of the respondents provided nuanced responses or
displayed any degree of identication; responses were entirely categorical (“all
Albanians”).
Most responses towards Albanians included simply “I hate them”, and many
of the respondents admitted lack of knowledge but nonetheless hate: “I don’t
know much about them, but I hate them.” While about one third of the re-
sponses were explicitly descriptive and derogatory (“they are like savages, live
in tribes, are in every sense backwards”, “they are short, stubby, and ugly and
wear some ugly caps”), about two thirds of the responses in some way alluded
to their ‘intrusion’, high birth rates (‘multiplication’) which lead to their inva-
sion of Kosovo, and ‘forced takeover of Kosovo from Serbs’, aided by the West.
e Roma are also characterized by derogatory terms, but mostly relating to
their living conditions and low socio-economic status. ey are described as poor
(25), dirty (18), lazy/don’t work (18), smelly (17), stateless (13). Other negative
attributes include: crooked, no hygiene, uncultured, rude, thieves/thugs, beggars,
ugly, uncivilized, don’t like to study, don’t try to succeed. However, they are also
frequently described as good people, friendly, cheerful, and charming9. Only
a handful of respondents expressed negative emotions (“don’t like them”) and
only 1 respondent used the word “hate”. Interestingly, none of the respondents
described the Roma in relational terms. However, many children oered nu-
anced responses, articulating their dislike only of those Roma with particular
traits (being lazy), but not of the entire Roma population:
“ey are totally discriminated in Serbia, there are good and
bad ones, like any other people.”
“ey are prosecuted by everyone. I have nothing against those
who work.”
“ere’s a lot of them in Serbia. ere are clean ones and there
are also dirty (messy) ones.”
“If they beg then I don’t like them, and a few times I fought them,
but if they are hardworking then they are ok.”
9 is supports previous research on adult Serbian stereotypes towards the Roma: they are
considered lazy (60%), noisy (84%), quarrelsome (74%), and greedy (58%); however, they
are also considered hospitable (73%,) musical (93%), and ethnically tolerant (56%), and only
16% of Serbs would prefer to see them excluded from the country. See Djurovic [2002)
151
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
Also, some respondents overtly expressed pity and compassion: “ere is a lot
of them in my surroundings, I nd feel both disgusted and sorry when I see how
they lead their lives.”
Croatians: Apart from a very few descriptive attributes, Croats are mostly
described in relational terms, or simply as enemies (20) or bad people (14). Nearly
a third of the respondents described Croats as people who “don’t like us”, “hate
us”, “don’t like the Serbs”, and another third stated just that “we hate each other”
and “they hate us just like we hate them”. Very frequent descriptors were “they
try to be dierent from us” (15) or explicitly calling them jealous, envious, or
resentful (14). While many of the dehumanizing adjectives present for Albanians
are absent in descriptions of Croats, 15 respondents said that “they should all
be killed”, and eleven expressed hate. Purely descriptive adjectives appear rarely,
but the ones mentioned include: inconsiderate, thugs, slime, parasites, spiteful,
distorted, rude, ugly, liars, bloody, genocidal, livestock. A few of the responses,
but not many, were nuanced:
“I have nothing against Croatians who have nothing against us,
but I have a problem with Croats who have problems with me.”
“I know I’d kill [a Croat] if he swore anything at me. Otherwise
I’d just hate him a lot.”
Nearly a half of the respondents answered the question “what do you know
about Croats” not in terms of their known feelings, but in terms of what Croats
thought of Serbs:
“ey try to be as dierent as they can from us and to be more
developed as a country.”
“ey try to be dierent from us and to make their own culture
and traditions, trying not to be similar to Serbs”
“ey are taught from when they are little to hate Serbs.”
e Chinese, with whom Serbian youth would have had no opportunity for
contact other than in Chinese markets, are mostly explained in merely de-
Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies
152
scriptive terms: there are “many” of them (more than a half of the respondents),
are of the yellow race (31), sell cheap things (25), have slanted eyes (23), have
an ancient civilization (20), and are little/small (17). Only a few respondents
spoke in terms of feelings towards the group: “like them” appeared two times,
“don’t like them” two times, “hate them” only once, and ambivalent feelings “I
have nothing against them” three times. Positive descriptors included: friendly,
good, proud, hardworking, cute, interesting history, smart, cool, nice. Negative
descriptors included: poor, ugly, smelly food, look the same, eat cats and dogs,
smell, disgusting, eat messily, cheap workforce, and dirty.
It was evident in the surveys that some children described Chinese from their
knowledge (or media and textbooks) about the culture – an ancient civilization,
dierent religion, dicult language, martial arts, good technology, rising world
power – but some were referring to the Chinese encountered in Chinese market
places, which are located in dilapidated parts of Belgrade and sell low-quality
goods; and thus, the results of the coding are mostly mixed depending on which
of these the respondent was referring to. e lack of experience with Chinese
lead to many of the responses to have an amused/intrigued tone:
“ey are short, yellow, talkative. ey can exchange passports
amongst each other because the rest of the world can’t tell them
apart. And they have terrible food.”
“I nd them cute with those cute eyes.”
“ey are a funny people, they like their culture, very modest
and friendly.”
“ere’s a lot of them in our country because there’s no more
space in theirs so they have to move to other countries.”
Ve r y fe w re s po n de nt s d es c r ib e d Ch i n es e i n re l at i on a l te r ms , ex c ep t t h a t t he y a re
“traditionally our friends” and that “a lot of them moved to our country.” Also, none
of the responses were nuanced; all were categorical referring to the entire group.
When graphed using the warmth and competence ratings, the distribution
shown in Table 7 appears10.
10 Numbers reect percentages of all respondents with particular category coded. For instance,
if a respondent merely included “I hate all of them”, this was scored for low warmth, but
not scored for competence, and the competence % would not include this respondent.
153
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
Table 7: Distribution by warmth and competence ratings.
Warmth Competence
Serbs (ingroup) 96% 94% high warmth, high competence admired
Albanians 3% 12% low warmth, low competence despised
Croatians 11% 59% low warmth, high competence envied
Roma 56% 4% high warmth, low competence pitied
Chinese 31% 48% mixed; inconclusive
Discussion
Results from children’s open-ended responses clearly demonstrate multi-di-
mensional stereotypes, which would have been completely missed by the ethnic
distance score. For example, the mean ethnic distance score towards Roma
(1.85) was very similar to the score for Albanians (1.99), yet the content of the
stereotypes, both in terms of the SCM and frames, was drastically dierent.
Chinese were described as friends, Albanians and Croats as enemies, and Roma
as neither, further validating their complete social isolation. Further, a complex
and nuanced understanding was clearly present for the Roma, and to a lesser
extent also for Croatians, while it was entirely absent for Albanians and Chi-
nese. ese results certainly shed light on many psycho-social processes and
possibilities for future projects to bridge inter-ethnic stereotypes.
A particular mismatch between ED scores and qualitative content analysis of
survey data is evident in responses about the Roma: while responses are nuanced,
frequently positive, and show individuation, there is nonetheless a worryingly
high degree of ethnic distance (almost matching the level of distance towards
Albanians). is is ever more so surprising considering that Roma exhibit none
of the traits typically associated with high ethnic distance: they are neither
threatening nor have ever laid claims on Serbian property: “[e Roma] were
never in real conict with any other ethnicity, they never demanded anything
which might in the long run jeopardize [the majority] [Djurovic: 2002: 668]. A
possible answer could be found in infra-humanization theory: infra-human-
ization occurs even when there is no conict between groups, and cannot be
explained by dierential familiarity with the in-group and out-group [Leyens at
al.: 2003]. e optimistic news is that infra-humanization does not occur when
the ethnic group member is individualized (thus partially explaining why some
Serbs have more positive attitudes towards Roma). However, non-infra-human-
ization of a concrete person in the outgroup does not mean generalization to
the whole outgroup, indicating that the evidence of individuation in the sample
Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies
154
might not denote a solution for improving intergroup animosity [Gaertner and
Dovidio:, 2000].
Additionally, the media and social climate during the time of the survey
certainly play an important role. A concurrent analysis of Croatian media and
Croatian attitudes towards Serbs and Muslims showed this eect dramatically: in
1992, when Croatian media were very anti-Serb but largely pro-Muslim, extreme
aggressiveness (preference to have the entire group exterminated) towards Serbs
was 15.3% while only 0.6% for Muslims [Malesevic and Uzelac: 1997: 294-5].
However, only a year later, when conicts between the Croats and Muslims
lead to an intensication of anti-Muslim messages in Croatian media, extreme
aggressiveness towards Muslims leaped to almost 5% and general exclusion
to 20%, a statistically signicant increase (while aggressiveness towards Serbs
remained about the same, at 14.1%). is is strong testimony to the eect of the
media, as these respondents did not have any personal contact with Muslims
during this period [ibid].
Additionally, as Harris and Fiske stress, social cognition always depends on
context [Harris and Fiske: 2006]. Scholars have found that these stereotypes vary
systematically as a function of the perceived state of intergroup relations, as
well as the context in which groups are positioned, calling for a more functional
examination of stereotypes in the context of intergroup relations [Alexander,
Brewer, and Livingston: 2005]. Examining social context in this case seems
particularly worthwhile, as individual-level attributes, such as right-wing au-
thoritarianism, were not shown to be signicant in explaining ethnic distance.
is is aligned with previous ethnic distance studies in Serbia, which found that
authoritarianism was not correlated with ethnic distance [Kuzmanovic: 1994].
is and similar studies concluded that other factors played a more important
role, including the ‘social climate’ of the times [ibid: 254]. All of these ndings
indicate that it is not the fact that some youth are merely more disposed towards
ethnic animosity and violence than others.
Further, this study provides insight into the social contact hypothesis. Psy-
chology and sociology scholars alike have generally reached a consensus that
social contact should increase tolerance, under certain conditions [Pettigrew
and Tropp: 2006], and studies of social distance in particular have typically
documented that “long-term social contact has a relationship with lower social
distance” [Randall and Delbridge: 2005: 120]. Results of this study and levels of
ethnic distance towards the Chinese indicate that social contact, in this context,
might actually increase rather than decrease social distance. However, extensive
social contact might be the factor inuencing children’s positive stereotype
content and their attribution of secondary emotions (happiness, joy, etc.) to
members of the Roma ethnic group.
155
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
Finally, the results of the coding also displayed robust evidence of legitimizing
myths. Legitimizing myths are attitudinal or ideological instruments which
promote that subordinate groups deserve their inferior and subordinate status
and thus justify and provide moral and intellectual legitimacy to the hierarchy
and social inequality [Sidanius, Liu, Shaw and Pratto:1994]. In the surveys, this
was evident in the way children used “knowledge” of history to justify their atti-
tudes towards Croats and Albanians, and also in the way Roma were portrayed
as deserving of their segregation and social isolation, by virtue of being lazy.
Legitimizing myths, typically rooted in some (although not entirely correct) ver-
sion of Serbian history, was most frequently used in discussion about Albanians:
“e rest of the world made them so that they would prevent
Serbs from spreading to the south.”
“eir state was created to prevent Serbs from extending to
the south of the Balkans. So they’re nothing and nobody. And
they smell.”
“eir state was formed in 1912. with the intention of destroying
Serbia.”
“ey are an articially created nation and they are helped by
Americans.”
“ey didn’t have a state until 1912, and they got it so that Serbia
would be denied access to the sea. Now they want to get Kosovo.”
Apart from legitimizing myths, system justication also occurs by victim-blaming
attributions, usually involving complementary stereotypes (poor and unhappy,
rich and happy). Recent work, however, has shown that cognitively inconsistent
stereotypes (“poor but happy”) are more likely to induce a perception of a fair
and legitimate social hierarchy [Kay et al.: 2007] “As opposed to victim-dero-
gating attributions, victim-enhancing ascriptions increase system justication
by “subtly reminding people that every position in society has both advantages
and disadvantages and that the system is fair.” [Kay and Jost: 2003] is kind
of articulation is clearly evident in the children’s narratives about members of
the Roma subgroup. (“ey are mostly primitive but happy people”; “ey are
poor but charming”).
Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies
156
Implications for Improving Intergroup Relations
Most importantly, results of the coding revealed that attitudes towards Albanians
t very neatly (and worryingly) into the “despise” quadrant of the SCM model;
in addition to the explicit disgust-related themes in the surveys. e attributes
and descriptors for Albanians (comparing them to vermin, contamination, need
for total extermination and similar) displayed clear evidence of dehumanization,
which is consistent with Fiske et al’s work with brain imaging: as mentioned
previously, groups that t in the ‘despise’ quadrant were not found to active
the part of the brain which recognizes human emotions. If disgust is indeed a
critical component of more extreme forms of ethnic violence, policies for rec-
onciliation “which focus on reducing disgust may be more eective than those
which aim to diminish anger or fear” [Taylor, 2007: 614].
Scholars have indicated that education and economic opportunities can
help [Fiske et al.: 2002]. In terms of education specically, the way Albanians are
portrayed in media and textbooks could be an important factor contributing to
the anti-Albanian discourse present in Serbian youth. In a study of how blacks
convicted of capital crimes are depicted in newspaper articles, authors argued
that it is critical to examine the subtle persistence of specic historical repre-
sentations (in their case, of Blacks as ape-like) highlight important processes
of dehumanization of stereotyping [Go, Eberhardt, Williams and Jackson: 2008].
Additionally, laboratory experiments examining the process through which
stereotypes are learned have demonstrated that the way in which stereotypes
are learned can aect the individuation of information towards a group mem-
ber, which aects the way in which stereotypes are further used (whether in an
assimilative or contrastive fashion judgment) [Hicklin and Wedell: 2007].
Important to notice is that the study also illuminated the fact that ethnic ste-
reotypes are already very pronounced by 8th grade, indicating that interventions
should be focused at earlier stages. No single prescription for enhancing education
can be oered, though: education is shown to work in both ways – both in making
stereotypes better and worse, with no uniform eect: while for the Chinese it
deepened children’s understanding and allowed them to attribute positive traits
and associations (ancient civilization, religion, culture, language, martial arts),
for Albanians and Croats it merely provided the children with historical ‘facts’
(ty pical ly ent irely m isundersto od or misrepr esent ed) to ju st if y t heir hatred.
It is nally relevant to underscore the relevance of age of the respondents
of this study. First, the survey was done during class-time with rambunctious
13- and 14-year old children, and as such, it remains to be explored whether a
statement such as “I would kill them all” actually carries behaviour tendencies,
or is simply a brash, easy, and “cool”-perceived response of teenagers. Further,
as previous surveys indicate, ED scores towards the Roma and Albanians might
157
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
always remain low, even into adulthood. However, as they age, or with further
education, children might adapt their stereotypes: extreme prejudice might
diminish in adulthood as they gain a more complex understanding of the world
and knowledge of other ethnic groups. A recent study found that young adults
exhibit more biases than older adults because they perceive less similarity and
distance themselves more from the out-group [
Al Chasteen: 2005]
. Research from
developmental psychology would also lead us to expect that children’s ethnic
distance might fall over time: with increases in children’s cognitive abilities
(the onset of concrete operational thinking begins at approximately 7 years of
age), there is a systematic decline in group-based biases and more attention to
dierences between individuals [(Aboud: 1998); (Doyle: 1988), (Nesdale: 1999)].
According to these studies. two cognitive processes occur simultaneously: aec-
tive processes (fear of the unknown and attachment to the familiar; children’s
preference is based on skin color, language), and focus of attention (while young
children mostly focus on themselves and their preferences and perceptions,
older children focus on individuals who are liked or disliked for their personal
characteristics)
[Nesdale: 1999]
. Observing the patterns and changes in stereotype
content over time would provide invaluable insight into the question of lasting
and behaviour-relevant attitudes of youth11.
References:
Alexander M., Brewer M., and Livingston R. 2005. “Putting stereotype content
in context: Image theory and interethnic stereotypes.” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 31(6):781-794.
Bacevic, Lj. 1990. “Nacionalna svest omladine” in Deca Krize, edited by Miha-
jlovic et al. Beograd, IDN – Centar za politikološka istraživanja i javno mnenje.
Bar-Tal, D. 1989. “Delegitimization: e Extreme Case of Stereotyping” Pp. 151-
167 in Stereotypingand Prejudice: Changing Conceptions, edited by Bar-Tal,
Grauman, Kruglanski, and Strobe. New York: Springer.
Bilalic, M., Pasic, E., Koso, M., Powell, S. and Butollo, W. 2002. “Etničke stereo-
tipije i etnička distanca studenata psihologije u Sarajevu i Banjaluci.” Dani
psihologije, Zadar.
Biro, Miklos. 1997. “Stavovi građana srpske nacionalnosti prema nacionalnim
manjinama” Pp.15-18 in Helsinška povelja 2.
11 is study was completed in the form of the author’s qualifying paper for the Department
of Sociology, Harvard University, 2008
Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies
158
Biro, Miklos, V. Mihic, P., Milin and S. Logan. 2002. “Did Socio-political
changes in Serbia Change the Level of Authoritarianism and Ethnocentrism
of Citizens?” Psihologija 35(1-2): 37-47.
Bogardus, Emory. S. 1925. Social Distance and its Origins. Sociology and Social
Research (9): 216–225.
Bogardus, Emory. S. 1933. A Social Distance Scale. Sociology and Social Re-
search (22): 265–271.
Bogardus, Emory. S. 1947. Changes in Racial Distance. International Journal of
Attitude and Opinion Research (1):55–62.
Bogardus, Emory. S. 1958. Racial Distance Changes in the United States during
the past thirty years. Sociology and Social Research (43) 127–135.
Bogardus, Emory. S. 1967. A Forty-Year Racial Distance Study. Los Angeles:
University of Southern California Press.
Brewer, M.B. 1999. “e Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup
Hate.” Journal of Social Issues 55:429-444.
Brown R. 1965. Social psychology. New York: Free Press.
Chasteen, AL. 2005. “Seeing eye-to-eye: Do intergroup biases operate similarly
for younger and older adults?” International Journal of Agint and Human
Development 61 (2): 123-139.
Clark, Kenneth, and Mammie Clark. 1939. “e Development of Consciousness
of Self and the Emergence of Racial Identication of Negro School Children.”
Journal of Social Psychology 10: 591-599.
Crull, Sue R. and Brent T. Bruton. 1979. “Bogardus Social Distance in the 1970s.”
Sociology and Social Research 63:771–83.
Cuddy, Amy, Fiske Susan, and Peter Glick. 2008. “Warmth and competence
as universal dimensions of social perception: e stereotype content model
and the BIAS map.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 40:61-149.
Cuddy, Amy, Fiske Susan, and Peter Glick. 2007. “e BIAS map: Behaviors
from intergroup aect and stereotypes.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 92(4):641-648.
Djipa, D. 1996. “Sadržaj, oblici i intenzitet nacionalne vezanosti mladih u Sa-
rajevu.” Senior thesis, Faculty of Philosophy, Sarajevo.
Djurovic, Bogdan. 2002. “Social and ethnic distance towards Romanies in Ser-
bia.” Facta Universitatis: Philosophy, Sociology and Psychology 2(9): 667-681.
Duckitt J . 2006. “Dierential eects of right wing authoritarianism and social
dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat
from and competitiveness to outgroups.” Personality and Social Pscynology
Bulletin 32(5):684-696.
159
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
Duckitt, John. 1994. e Social Psychology of Prejudice. Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers.
Djurić, Dj. 1980. Psihološka struktura etničkih stavova mladih. Novi Sad: Vu-
kan Jovanovic.
Erikson, Erik. 1968. Identity, Youth, and Crisis. New York: Norton.
Dutton, Donald G., Boyanowsky, Ehor O., and Bond, Michael Haris, “Extreme Mass
Homicide: from Military Massacre to Genocide”, 10 Aggression and Violent Be-
havior (2005), 437-473
Fiske, Susan, Cuddy Amy, and Glick, Peter. 2007. “Universal dimensions of social
cognition: warmth and competence.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(2):77-93.
Fiske, Susan. 2002. “What we know now about bias and intergroup conict,
the problem of the century.” Current Directions in Psychological Science
11(4): 123-128.
Fiske, Susan; Cuddy, Amy; Glick, Peter; and Xu, Jun. 2002. “A model of (oen
mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow
from perceived status and competition”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 82(6) 878-902.
Gaertner and Dovidio. 2000. Reducing Intergroup Bias: e Common Ingroup
Identity Model. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
Go, Phillip; Eberhardt, Jennifer; Williams, Melissa; Jackson, Matthew. 2008.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94(2) 292-306.
Golubović, Z, Kuzmanović, B. and Vasović, M. 1995. Društveni karakter i
društvene promene u svetlu međunacionalnih sukoba. Beograd: Filip Višnjić.
Harris and Fiske. 2007. “Social groups that elicit disgust are dierentially pro-
cessed in mPFC.” Social Cognitive and Aective Neuroscience 2(1):45-51
Harris and Fiske. 2006. “Dehumanizing the Lowest of the Low: Neuroimaging
Responses to Extreme Out-Groups.” Psychological Science 17(10)847 – 853.
Hello, Evelyn; Scheepers, Peer; Sleegers Peter. 2006. “Why the more educated are
less inclined to keep ethnic distance: An empirical test of four explanations.”
Ethnic and Racial Studies 29(5):959-985.
Hicklin Susanne, and Douglas Wedell. 2007. “Learning group dierences: Im-
plications for contrast and assimilation in stereotyping.” Social Cognition
25(3):410-454.
Hobsbaum, E. and T. Ranger, eds. 1983. e Invention of Tradition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hodson, Gordon and Costello, Kimberly. 2007. “Interpersonal disgust, ideolog-
ical orientations, and dehumanization as predictors of intergroup attitudes.”
Pscychological Science 18(8):691-698.
Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies
160
Hraba, Joseph, Timothy Radlo, and Phyllis Gray-Ray. 1999. ‘‘A Comparison of
Black and White Social Distance.’’ Journal of Social Psychology 139:536–9.
Kandido-Jaksic M. 2008. “Social distance and attitudes towards ethnically mixed
marriages” Psihologija 41(2):149-162.
Kay, Aaron; Jost, John; Mandisodza, Anesu; Sherman, Steven, Petrocelli, John.,
Johnson, Amy. “Panglossian ideology in the service of system justication:
How complementary stereotypes help us to rationalize inequality.” Advances
in Experimental Psychology 39.
Kay, Aaron and John Jost. 2003. “Complementary justice: Eects of “poor but
happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justication
and implicit activation of the justice motive.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 85(5):823-837.
Kleg Milton and Kaoru Yamamoto. 1998. “As the world turns: Ethno-racial
distances aer 70 years.” Social Science Journal 35(2): 183-190.
Kleg, Milton and Kaoru Yamamoto. 1995. ‘‘Ethnic and Racial Social Distance:
Seven Decades Apart.’’ Psychological Reports 76:65–6.
Kuzmanović, B. 1994. “Socijalna distanca prema pojedinim nacijama” in M.
Lazić (ed.) Razaranje društva: Jugoslovensko društvo u krizi 90-tih. Beograd:
Filip Višnjić.
Kuzmanović, B.R. 2001. “Etnička distanca u Crnoj Gori.” Pp. 177-246 in Lazic
M., Besic M. (eds..), Nacija i država Podgorica: SoCEN .
Lemaine G, and BenBrika J. 1997. “Rejection. From attitudes to intentions to
exclude: Social distance, phenotype, race and culture.” Social Sciences In-
formation Sur Les Sciences Sociales 36(1):81-113.
Leyens JP, Cortes B, Demoulin S, Dovidio JF, Fiske ST, Gaunt R, Paladino MP,
Rodriguez-Perez A, Rodriguez-Torres R, Vaes J . 2003. “Emotional prejudice,
essentialism, and nationalism.” European Journal of Social Psychology 33(6):
703-717.
Malesevic, Sinisa and Gordana Uzelac. 1997. “Ethnic Distance, Power, and War:
e Case of Croatian Students.” Nations and Nationalism 3(2):291-298.
Mannheim, Karl. 1952. “e Problems of Generations” in Essays on the So-
ciology of
Maoz, Ifat, and McCauley, Clark. 2008. “reat, dehumanization, and support
for retaliatory aggressive policies in asymmetric conict.” Journal of Conict
Resolution 52(1)93-116.
Marger, M. N. 1994. Race and ethnic relations: American and global perspectives
(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
161
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
Mićević Jelena, 2005, “Dierence between the attitudes towards minority groups
among parents and their children.” Psihologija 38(2)167-179.
Mihic Vladimir, and Ivana Mihic, 2003, “Ethnic Distance in Primary School
Children and eir Parents.” Psihologija 36(2):167-182.
Moshman, D. 2006. “Genocidal Hatred: Now you see it, Now you don’t” Pp.
185-210 in R. Stermberg (ed.) e Psychology of Hate. Washington DC: e
American Psychological Association.
Neckerman, Holly J. 1996. “e Stability of Social Groups in Childhood and
Adolescence: e Role of the Classroom Social Environment.” Social De-
velopment 5(2):131-145.
Nesdale, Drew. 1999. “Developmental Changes in Children’s Ethnic Preferences.”
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 20(4): 501–519.
Oldmeadow, Julian, and Fiske, Susan . 2007. “System-justifying ideologies
moderate status = competence stereotypes: Roles for belief in a just world
and social dominance orientation” European Journal of Social Psychology
37(6): 1135-1148.
Opacic, G. and B. Vujadinovic. 2004. “Ethnic Distance and Ethnic Stereotypes
as Factors Inuencing the Decision on Repatriation” in Living in Post-War
Communities.
Owen, Carolyn A., Howard C. Eisner, and omas R. McFaul. 1981. ‘‘A Half-
Century of Social Distance Research: National Replication of the Bogardus’
Studies.’’ Sociology and Social Research 66:80–98.
Pantić, D. 1991. “Nacionalna distanca građana Jugoslavije” in Baćević, Lj. et al
(eds.) Jugoslavija na kriznoj prekretnici. Beograd: Centar za politikološka
istraživanja i javno mnenje.
Parrillo VN, Donoghue C. 2005. “Updating the Bogardus social distance studies:
a new national survey.” Social Science Journal 42(2):257-271.
Parrillo, V. N. 2003. Strangers to these shores (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Perugini, Marco and Prestwich Andrew. 2007. “e gatekeeper: Individual
dierences are key in the chain from perception to behaviour.” European
Journal of Personality 21(3): 303-317.
Pettigrew, omas and Linda Tropp. 2006. “A Meta-Analytic Test of Integroup
Contact eory.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(5):751-783.
Popadić, D. i Biro, M. 2002. “Autostereotipi i heterostereotipi Srba u Srbiji” Beo-
grad, Nova srpska politička misao, (Posebno izdanje) Etnički stereotipi: 33-56.
Previsic V. 2007. “Sociodemographic characteristics of secondary-school stu-
dents and social distance towards national and religious groups.” Drustvena
istrazivanja 5(5-6): 859-874
Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies
162
Puhalo, S. 2003. Etnička distanca građana Republike Srpske i Federacije BiH
prema narodima bivše SFRJ. Novi Sad: Friedrich Ebert Stiung, Regional
Oce .
Quillian, Lincoln. 2006. “New approaches to understanding racial prejudice
and discrimination.” Annual Review of Sociology 32: 299-328.
Raden, D. 1998. “American Blacks’ and Whites’ preferred social distance from
Jews.” Journal of Social Psychology 138: 265–267.
Randall NH, and Delbridge S. 2005. “Perceptions of social distance in an eth-
nically uid community.” Sociological Spectrum 25(1):103-122.
Rot, N. i Havelka, N.N. 1973. Nacionalna vezanost i vrednosti kod srednjoškolske
omladine (National aliation and values among secondary school youth).
Beograd: Filozofski fakultet - Institut za psihologiju, Institut društvenih nauka.
Rozin, P. and Fallon, A. E. 1987. “A Perspective on Disgust.” Psychological
Review 95: 23-41.
Sandefur, Gary D. and Julie A. Lam. 1985. ‘‘e Distinction Between Social
Distance and Stereotyping.’’ Sociological Spectrum 5:245–54.
Schaefer, Richard T. 1987. ‘‘Social Distance of Black College Students at a Pre-
dominantly White University.’’ Sociology and Social Research 72:30–2.
Schwartz, S. H., & Struch, N. 1989. “Values, stereotypes, and intergroup antag-
onism.” In D. Bar-Tal, C. F. Grauman, A. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.),
Stereotyping and prejudice: Changing conceptions (pp. 151–167). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Sears, David and Sheri Levy. 2003. “Childhood and Adult Political Development”
in Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford University Press.
Sears, David. 1975. “Political Socialization” in Greenstein and Polsby, eds.,
Handbook of Political Science 2. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. pp. 93-153.
Sekelj, Laslo. 2000. “Etnička distanca, ksenofobija i etnonacionalistička manip-
ulacija.” Sociologija 1:1-24.
Šiber, I. 1997. “War and the changes in social distance toward the ethnic mi-
norities in the Republic of Croatia.” Politička misao, Zagreb, 5, 3-26.
Sidanius, Jim and Felicia Pratto. 2001. Social Dominance: An Intergroup eory
of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, T. W. 1998. Intergroup relations in contemporary America: An overview
of survey research. In W. Winborne & R. Cohen (Eds.), Intergroup relations
in the United States. Research perspectives (pp. 69–155). New York: National
Conference for Community and Justice.
Smith, T. W. 2001. Intergroup relations in a diverse America: Data from the
2000 General Social Survey. New York: American Jewish Committee.
163
The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes:
A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth
Sparrow, Kathleen H. and David M. Chretien. 1993. ‘‘e Social Distance Per-
ceptions of Racial and Ethnic Groups by College Students: A Research Note.’’
Sociological Spectrum 13:277–88.
Staub, E. 1989. e roots of evil: e origins of genocide and other group vio-
lence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
Taylor, Kathleen. 2007. “Disgust is a factor in extreme prejudice.” British Journal
of Social Pscyhology 46:597-617.
Turjacanin V. 2004. “Ethnic Stereotypes among Bosniak and Serbian Youth in
Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Psihologija 37(3): 357-374.
Turjačanin, V., Čekrlija, Đ., Powell, S., Butollo, W. 2002. “Etničke distance i
etnički stereotipi studenata psihologije u Banjaluci i Sarajevu”. Usmeno sa-
opštenje na simpozijumu Empirijska istraživanja u psihologiji 2002, Beograd.
Walsh, A. 1989. “Becoming an American and liking it as functions of social
distance and severity of initiation.” Sociological Inquiry, 60, 177–189.
Waters, Mary C. and Karl Eschbach. 1995. ‘‘Immigration and Ethnic and Racial
Inequality in the United States.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 21:419–46.
Weaver, Charles N. 2008. “Social distance as a measure of prejudice among
ethnic groups in the united states.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology
38(3): 779-795.
Weinfurt KP, Moghaddam FM. 2001. “Culture and social distance: A case study
of methodological cautions.” Journal of Social Pscyhology 141(1):101-110.
Williams, R. 1947. e reduction of intergroup tensions. New York: Social
Science Research Council.
Williams, R. M., Jr. 1964. Strangers next door: Ethnic relations in American
communities. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yancey, G. 1998. “An examination of the eects of residential and church inte-
gration on racial attitudes of Whites.” Sociological Perspectives 42: 279–330.
