COMPARING MACEDONIAN AND AUSTRIAN STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF IDENTITY ASPECTS AND COLLECTIVE IDENTITY

Abstract

This research was focused on the association between aspects of identity orientation and
collective identity among students in Macedonia and Austria. The survey in Macedonia
was conducted among Macedonian and Albanian state university students, and in
Austria, it was conducted among students from the Department of Political Science and
Sociology at the University of Salzburg. The same methodological procedure was applied:
orientation towards two aspects of identity - Personal aspect of Identity (PI) and Social
aspect of Identity (SI), measured with the AIQ (Aspect of Identity Orientation) Scale. The
collective identity was run through a grid of one scale (according to Laponce): importance
was given to each of 13 social groups, such as: family, friends, gender, age, profession,
religion, preferred political party, place of birth, residence, university, ethnicity, class, andcitizenship. According to the results on the PI and the SI scales, four groups of respondents
were obtained. The first group, termed “Integrated”, was the group with high scores on
both scales; the second group, termed, “Ego-oriented”, had high scores on the PI scale and
low scores on the SI scale; the third group, “Pre-defined”, presented individuals with low
scores on both scales, and the last group, “Over-socialized”, was the group that had high
scores on the SI scale and low scores on the PI scale. The main topic of research was the
importance that each of these four groups (in a Macedonian and Austrian context) assigned
to the collective identity. The comparative study underlined some important issues: family
and friends are the first and second most important social groups for the four groups in
both samples; in both samples, the “Integrated” group places the highest importance to the
collective identity; the collective identity is mostly predominant among the Macedonian
students, and, no matter how much personality is integrated, the least important group for
the Austrian sample of students is religion, while for the Macedonian sample of students -
political party.

Full text

23
INSTITUTE FOR SOCIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL AND JURIDICAL RESEARCH
UDC 316.6(497.7)(436)
Sceintic paper / Научен труд
Marijana Markovik, PhD
Associate Professor
“Ss. Cyril and Methodius” University, Institute for Sociological, Political and Juridical
Research, Skopje
marijana@isppi.ukim.edu.mk
Eleonora Seramovska, PhD
Associate Professor
“Ss. Cyril and Methodius” University, Institute for Sociological, Political and Juridical
Research, Skopje
eleonora@isppi.ukim.edu.mk
COMPARING MACEDONIAN AND AUSTRIAN
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF IDENTITY
ASPECTS AND COLLECTIVE IDENTITY
Abstract
This research was focused on the association between aspects of identity orientation and
collective identity among students in Macedonia and Austria. The survey in Macedonia
was conducted among Macedonian and Albanian state university students, and in
Austria, it was conducted among students from the Department of Political Science and
Sociology at the University of Salzburg. The same methodological procedure was applied:
orientation towards two aspects of identity - Personal aspect of Identity (PI) and Social
aspect of Identity (SI), measured with the AIQ (Aspect of Identity Orientation) Scale. The
collective identity was run through a grid of one scale (according to Laponce): importance
was given to each of 13 social groups, such as: family, friends, gender, age, profession,
religion, preferred political party, place of birth, residence, university, ethnicity, class, and

24
ANNUAL 2016, XL / 2
Marijana Markovik, Eleonora Seramovska
citizenship. According to the results on the PI and the SI scales, four groups of respondents
were obtained. The rst group, termed “Integrated”, was the group with high scores on
both scales; the second group, termed, “Ego-oriented”, had high scores on the PI scale and
low scores on the SI scale; the third group, “Pre-dened”, presented individuals with low
scores on both scales, and the last group, “Over-socialized”, was the group that had high
scores on the SI scale and low scores on the PI scale. The main topic of research was the
importance that each of these four groups (in a Macedonian and Austrian context) assigned
to the collective identity. The comparative study underlined some important issues: family
and friends are the rst and second most important social groups for the four groups in
both samples; in both samples, the “Integrated” group places the highest importance to the
collective identity; the collective identity is mostly predominant among the Macedonian
students, and, no matter how much personality is integrated, the least important group for
the Austrian sample of students is religion, while for the Macedonian sample of students -
political party.
Key words: comparative study, aspects of identity orientation, social groups, non-EU
country - Macedonia, EU country - Austria

25
INSTITUTE FOR SOCIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL AND JURIDICAL RESEARCH
COMPARING MACEDONIAN AND AUSTRIAN STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF IDENTITY ASPECTS ...
I. INTRODUCTION
Dening the notions related to the term identity
The term “identity” should be delimited from the following terms: identication,
self, self-concept, and self-esteem (Baumeister, 1986). The fundamental difference
between the notions of identity and identication is that identity refers to the
level of sameness (i.e. the difference in regard to others) of itself over time, and
identication refers to the central process of continuous assimilation of properties,
the properties of the “other”, which leads to complete or partial transformation in
accordance with the identication model (Poro, 1990). In psychology, the term
identity is associated with the image of oneself (the mental model that a person has
created for himself/herself), the self-evaluation and term individuality (Weinreich,
1986). Psychologists usually use the term identity, referring to personal identity,
i.e. those aspects which make a person unique (Krstikj, 1991).
Personal identity refers to everything that differentiates a specic person from
others as a unique constellation of traits and characteristics that are durable over
time. Theoretically, personal identity has two aspects: personal aspect, private,
and social aspect, public. The private aspect of personal identity is the aspect
of what may be “visible” only for the individual and refers to their own needs,
thoughts, attitudes, feelings, values and moral standards, goals and expectations,
fears, feelings of unity and continuity, and their self-evaluation. The public aspect
of personal identity is what is “outside” the personal part, or the manifestation of
personality, including: one’s physical appearance, their popularity, the reactions of
others to the individual, their allure, the impressions they leave on others, and their
overall social behavior.
The social identity refers to the perceived belonging to some larger or
smaller social groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). This identity can also be
viewed through two aspects: relational aspect and collective aspect of the
social identity. The relational aspect/self reects how we see ourselves in
the context of our intimate relationships. The collective aspect of social
identity refers to belonging to a particular group(s) in society: as male/
female, Macedonian/Albanian/Turkish/Roma, psychologists/sociologists/
lawyers, etc.
As regards personal identity, the psychologist Marcia extends the work of
Ericsson and promotes the idea that sense of identity is determined mainly by
two processes: the process of exploration and the process of commitment made
in respect to certain personal and social characteristics. In accordance with the
degree to which these two processes have been achieved, there are four identity

26
ANNUAL 2016, XL / 2
Marijana Markovik, Eleonora Seramovska
statuses (Marcia, 1966): identity achievement, moratorium, foreclosure, and
identity diffusion. Identity achievement means completed exploration and achieved
commitment. These people have developed well-dened personal values and self-
concept. Their identities can be expanded further, but the foundations have already
been laid. These people accept themselves and are capable of establishing intimate
relationships. Moratorium means the exploration is completed, but commitment
has not been reached. These persons have gained vague or poorly-formed
ideological and professional commitments; they are still in search of identity.
They are beginning to commit themselves to identity, but are still developing it.
Foreclosure means unnished exploration, but achieved commitment. These
adolescents blindly accept the identity and the values that have been passed on by
their family and their signicant others. They are committed to the identity, but
not as a result of their own self-exploration or crisis. In fact, they have not gone
through an identity crisis, since they have avoided resisting and risking. Identity
diffusion means unnished exploration and non-reached commitment. Adolescents
who are unable to cope with the need for development of identity avoid exploring
or dedicating to something and remain in an amorphous state of identity diffusion,
which can sometimes produce social isolation. This type of identity is the least
complex and the least mature in comparison with the other three.
Main features of the Macedonian and Austrian societies
Macedonia is a multi-ethnic, multilingual, and multi-religious society in which
these divisions largely overlap and reinforce each other, placing the country in the
group of so-called plural societies or “deeply divided societies” (Христова, 2014).
According to the latest census of the Republic of Macedonia, which was carried
out in 2002, the ethnic Macedonian population constitutes 64.2 %, while the ethnic
Albanian population is approximately 25.2 %. The conict between the two main
ethnic groups began in 2001, and ended with the signing of the Ohrid Framework
Agreement (13 August 2001), which introduced elements of the consociational
model of power-sharing (according to Христова и др, 2014) in the constitutional
system of the country (Maleska, 2005).
In 2015, the unemployment rate in Macedonia was 26.8%1 . In 2012, the level
of GDP (nominal) was a total of $10.198 billion and per capita $4,9352.
1 Indicators. Republic of Macedonia State Statistical Oce, Retrieved 20 November 2015., http://www.
stat.gov.mk/KlucniIndikatori.aspx
2 Report for Selected Country. International Monetary Fund. Retrieved9 November 2015.,
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs//weo/2012/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=2&pr.
y=17&sy=2008&ey=2012&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=962&s=NGDPD%2CNGD-
PDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=

27
INSTITUTE FOR SOCIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL AND JURIDICAL RESEARCH
COMPARING MACEDONIAN AND AUSTRIAN STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF IDENTITY ASPECTS ...
Austria is a parliamentary-representative democracy comprising of nine federal
states.3 It is one of the richest countries in the world, with a nominal per capita
GDP of $52,216. The country has developed a high standard of living and in 2014 it
was ranked 21st in the world for its Human Development Index. Austria has been a
member of the United Nations since 1955, it joined the European Union in 1995, and
it is a founder of the OECD4. Austria also signed the Schengen Agreement in 1995,
and adopted the Euro in 1999.5
The ethnic groups in Austria are: Austrians 91.1%, former Yugoslavs 4%
(includes Croats, Slovenes, Serbs, and Bosnians), Turks 1.6%, Germans 0.9%, and
others or unspecied 2.4% (according to the 2001 census). The GDP (nominal) for
2015 was $380.555 billion and GDP per capita for 2015 was $44,4756.
II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research problems
Is there a difference in the self-denition between students from the EU and
non-EU country, how do they dene their personal identity, and does the way they
dene their personal identity (a certain orientation in the self-denition process)
affect their collective identity (as importance given to social groups to whom the
respondents belong) - were the main research problems.
Hypothesis
The general hypothesis states that there is no difference in importance given
to social groups to whom the respondents belong between the EU and non- EU
country, as regards the aspects of identity orientation.
3 e World Factbook.Central Intelligence Agency. 14 May 2009. Archivedfrom the original on 10
June 2009. Retrieved31 October 2015., https://web.archive.org/web/20090610113837/https://www.
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/AU.html.
4 Austria About. OECD.Archived from the original on 6 May 2009. Retrieved 20 November 2015.,
https://web.archive.org/web/20090506022708/http://www.oecd.org/about/0,3347,
en_33873108_33873245_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
5 Austria joins Schengen.Migration News. May 1995. Retrieved30 November 2015., http://migration.
ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=643_0_4_0
6 Austria.International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 25 November 2015., http://www.imf.org/external/
pubs//weo/2015/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=67&pr.y=14&sy=2014&ey=2020&scsm=1&ss-
d=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=122&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGD-
P%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a=

28
ANNUAL 2016, XL / 2
Marijana Markovik, Eleonora Seramovska
Variables
Citizenship was a relevant demographic variable in the study and a base for
comparison.
The identity orientation is determined by the scores obtained on both sub-scales
of the Aspects of Identity Questionnaire (AIQ), namely: a Scale which measures
the orientation towards the personal aspect of personal identity (PI Scale) and a
Scale which measures the orientation towards the social, public aspect of personal
identity (SI Scale).
One of the tested variables assumed as variable under the inuence of the level
of expression of the identity orientation is the collective identity and it is determined
by the result on the Scale for intensity of importance given to different social groups
(constructed by Laponce and explained below).
Instruments
The AIQ (Aspect of Identity Questionnaire) was applied to measure the
orientation towards the different aspects of identity. In fact, for the purpose of
this research, two sub-scales from the Scale for measuring the aspects of identity
orientation (AIQ), designed by Jonathan Cheek and Linda Tropp (Cheek & Tropp,
2002), were used.
The Personal Identity Scale (PI) measures the orientation towards the private,
personal aspect of identity, and it refers to: own needs, thoughts, attitudes, feelings,
personal values, etc.
The Social Identity Scale (SI) measures the orientation towards the social, public
aspect of identity, and it covers the following aspects: one’s physical appearance,
their popularity, the reactions of others to the individual, their allure, the impressions
they leave on others, and their social behavior.
The Austrian version of the AIQ was a 5-point scale, like the original one, while
a 7-point scale was applied to the Macedonian sample due to the consistency of
the answers with the other implemented instruments in the research “Perception
of Identities among the Student Population in the Republic of Macedonia”
(implemented during 2011).
The initially-implemented statistical procedures speak in line for justication of
the use of both the SI and the PI scales in both (Macedonian and Austrian) samples
(Христова и др., 2014).
The other tool that was applied in this study was a questionnaire designed by
Laponce (2004), aimed at determining the minority effect. Laponce constructed a
questionnaire concerning 14 different roles which every individual “plays” during

29
INSTITUTE FOR SOCIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL AND JURIDICAL RESEARCH
COMPARING MACEDONIAN AND AUSTRIAN STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF IDENTITY ASPECTS ...
their life (gender, age, nationality, ethnicity, occupation, religion, preferred political
party, nationality, place of residence, university, ethnic background, language,
family, close friends) 7. Each role also means belonging to a particular social group
and is considered from the following aspects: common interests with the members
of these groups, solidarity with them, how easy it is to make changes to any of
the roles, general satisfaction of the members of a certain group with the current
circumstances, and how important belonging to a group is for the individuals. This
comparative study paid attention only to one aspect of Laponce’s questionnaire:
how important belonging to a certain social group is for the individuals. Each role/
group was to be located between the polarities (very important to me and it does not
matter to me) on the 5- or 7-level Likert scale.
Sample
For the Macedonian sample the survey used a target sample consisting of
451 respondents. It included three public universities: “Ss. Cyril and Methodius”
University in Skopje (originally UKIM), “Goce Delchev” University in Shtip
(originally UGD), and Tetovo State University (originally DUT), from the Faculties
of Social Sciences.
The Austrian sample consisted of 61 students from the University of Salzburg,
from the Department of Political Science and Sociology. It was a convenience
sample.
The distribution of respondents as regards gender is presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Distribution of the sample according to university and state
Country Male Female Total
Austria 30 49.2% 31 50.8% 61 100%
Macedonia 156 34.6% 295 65.4% 451 100%
Total 186 36.3% 326 63.7% 512 100%
III. RESULTS
Association between Personal and Social Identity Orientation and Collective
Identity
7 e role of language has been omitted from the initial Laponce version due to the fact that in the
Republic of Macedonia the language matches the ethnicity, so in the nal version a total of 13 social
groups/roles will be listed.

30
ANNUAL 2016, XL / 2
Marijana Markovik, Eleonora Seramovska
The research question was the following: are there differences in the way that
Macedonians’ and Austrians’ identity orientation affects the collective identity
expressed through the given importance to social groups to which they belong.
The students’ responses to the question as to how personally meaningful and
important they nd social groups/roles can be found in Table 2.
1. Characteristics of the “Over-socialized” group regarding the importance of
social groups: family and friends are the most important social groups/roles
for both samples of respondents who belong to the “Over-socialized” group
as regards the scores on the PI and the SI scales. The least important social
group/role for the Macedonian sample is that of political party, while for
the Austrian sample it is religion. Besides profession, which is in the same
position for both samples (in the the third position, or discounting family and
friends - in the rst position), religion for Macedonians and university for
Austrians are the next important group/role.
2. The characteristics of the “Pre-dened” group regarding the importance of
social groups: besides family and friends, the most important groups/roles
for the Austrian respondents who belong to the category “Pre-dened” are
residence and place of birth. For the Macedonian respondents in the “Pre-
dened”- those groups are religion and profession/student. Once again, the
least attractive social group/role for the Austrian respondents “Pre-dened”
is religion, while for the Macedonian respondents “Pre-dened” is political
party.
3. Characteristics of the “Ego-oriented” and “Integrated” groups regarding the
importance of social groups:

COMPARING MACEDONIAN AND AUSTRIAN STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF IDENTITY ASPECTS ...
31
INSTITUTE FOR SOCIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL AND JURIDICAL RESEARCH
Table 2. Answers to the question: “How signicant are the following groups to you concerning respondents’ category (Over-
socialized, Pre-dened, Ego-oriented, Integrated)?”
Over-socialized Pre-dened Ego-oriented Integrated
Rank MK М R Austria М Rank MK М Rank A М Rank MK М R A М Rank MK М R A М
I. Family 6,44 I. Friends 6,50 I. Family 6,37 I. Family 6,31 I. Family 6,76 I Family 6,31 I. Family 6,73 IFriends 6,38
II. Friends 6,26 II. Family 6,30 II. Friends 6,01 I. Friends 6,31 II. Friends 6,54 II Friends 6,19 II. Friends 6,62 II Family 6,25
III. Profession 5,55 III. Profession 4,60 III. Religion 5,58 II. Residence 4.06 III. Religion 5,97 III Prof.ession 4,75 III. Religion 6,11 III University 5,25
III. Religion 5,55 IV. University 4,40 I V. Profession 5,48 III. Birthplace 4,00 I V. Profession 5,83 IV University 4,13 IV. Profession 6,04 IV Profession 5,19
IV. Residence 5,42 V. P. Party 4.00 V. Birthplace 5,13 IV. University 3,81 V. Residence 5,90 VP. Party 3,88 V. Residence 5,93 V Citizenship 4,13
IV. Ethnicity 5,42 VI. Residence 3,90 VI. Residence 5,12 V. Profession 3,69 VI. Ethnicity 5,58 VClass 3,88 V. Birthplace 5,93 VI Residence 4,00
V Gender 5,32 VII. Gender 3,70 VII Gender 4,94 VI. Age 3,56 VII. Age 5,39 VI Gender 3,81 VI. Gender 5,79 VII Birthplace 3,88
VI. University 5,21 VII. Citizenship 3,70 VIII Ethnicity 4,83 VII. Citizenship 3,38 VII. Citizenship 5,39 VII Age 3,38 VII. Ethnicity 5.78 VIII Age 3,75
VII Age 5,20 VIII Class 3,60 VIII Age 4,83 VII. P. Party 3,38 VIII. Birthplace 5,37 VII Residence 3,38 VIII. Age 5,64 IX Gender 3,14
VIII. Birthplace 5,19 IX. Age 3,50 IX. University 4,81 VII. Class 3,38 IX. University 5,24 VIII Citizenship 3,31 IX. Class 5,56 XClass 3,38
IX Citizenship 4,91 X. Ethnicity 3,30 X. Class 4,38 VIII Ethnicity 3,31 X Gender 5,30 IX Ethnicity 2,75 X. University 5,49 XI Ethnicity 3,20
XClass 4,79 XI. Birthplace 3,10 XI. Citizenship 4,27 XI. Gender 3,00 XI. Class 4,90 XBirthplace 2,21 XI. State 5,18 XII P. Party 3,13
XI P.Party 3,44 XII. Religion 2,90 XII. P. Party 3,11 X. Religion 2,88 XII. P. Party 2,79 XI Religion 2,13 XII. P. Party 3,54 XIII Religion 2,31
Total 5,28 4,12 Total 4.98 3.98 5.46 3.85 5.72 4.15

32
ANNUAL 2016, XL / 2
Marijana Markovik, Eleonora Seramovska
The “Ego-oriented” and the “Integrated” respondents from both samples are
the two groups that rank the same social groups as the most important ones besides
family and friends. Namely, for the Macedonian “Ego-oriented” and “Integrated”
respondents, the most important roles are religion and profession, and for the
corresponding Austrian groups those roles are university and profession.
The analyses of the association between aspects of identity orientations (grouped
in four categories) and the importance of all social groups (roles played) in society
reveal that the Macedonian students place more importance on all social groups/
roles than their Austrian counterparts (see Table 2). It can be said that collective
identity is more important for the Macedonian respondents than for the Austrian
ones (t=9,448 p<0,01).
IV. DISCUSSION
This research was based on several basic assumptions: rst, that youth is
undeniably a great potential in the development of a modern, democratic and
human rights-directed society. The selected sample composed of students is a set
of people who share a common experience, people who have been socialized in
similar conditions, and they represent the generation they belong to. Second, one of
the major incentives for involvement in social action or social movements should
be sought in the characteristics of the collective identity of individuals.
The object of this research was to see how young people in Macedonia and
Austria dene themselves, how they dene their personal identity, and whether the
way they dene the personal identity affects their collective identity.
The research data show that students (from Macedonia and from Austria) in the
process of self-denition are almost equally oriented towards the private aspect
and the public aspect of identity. The identity orientation in the process of self-
denition is a cross-cultural phenomenon and points out the expected potential of
the individuals from the two countries for self-denition and distinction from others.
Summarized, the main differences which were found between the two groups (a
EU and a non-EU country) in this research were the following:
1. The least important social group/role for all the students from the EU country
is religion (no matter how personality is integrated), while for all the students
from the non-EU country that is political party (no matter how personality is
integrated);
2. After family and friends, religion is the most important social group in the
Macedonian case for all four groups (“Over-socialized”, “Integrated”, “Ego-
oriented”, and “Pre-dened”);

33
INSTITUTE FOR SOCIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL AND JURIDICAL RESEARCH
COMPARING MACEDONIAN AND AUSTRIAN STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF IDENTITY ASPECTS ...
3. Profession/Student and university are very important social groups/roles
for the following three Austrian groups: “Over-socialized”, “Integrated”,
and “Ego-oriented”; for the “Pre-dened” it is residence (and this is also
followed by place of birth);
4. The next most important group/role for the Macedonians (after religion) is
profession, that is, to be a student, while they rank university as a relatively
unimportant social group;
5. The collective identity is mostly predominant in the non-EU country
respondents. For all the four groups in the Macedonian sample, the average
score for the importance of all social groups is higher in comparison with the
same average score in the Austrian sample (see Table 2).
Literature
Arieti S (1994) Interpretation of Schizophrenia, p. 197. Jason Aronson.
Baumeister R (1986) Identity: Cultural Change and the Struggle for Self, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, USA.
Check JM (1982) Aggregation, moderator variables, and the validity of personality tests: A
peer-rating study, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 43 (6), pp. 1254-1269.
Cheek JM, Briggs SR (1982) Self-consciousness and aspects of identity, Journal of
Research in Personality, pp. 16, 401-408.
Cheek JM, Tropp LR (2002) Aspect of identity Questionnaire, 1st edition on-line 1994 and
2nd edition on-line 2002. http://academics.wellesley.edu/Psychology/Cheek/identity.html
(rst accessed 26 June 2011).
Erikson EH (1956) The problem of ego identity, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
Association. Vol. 4, pp. 56-121.
Erikson EH (1963) Childhood and society (2nd ed.) New York: Norton.
Fearon JD (1999) What is identity (As we now use the word), Stanford: Stanford University.
http://www.stanford.edu/~jfearon/papers/iden1v2.pdf (rst accessed 8 May 2012)
Fenigstein A, Scheier M F, Buss AH (1975) Public and private self-consciousness:
Assessment and theory, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Vol. 43, pp. 522–
527.

34
ANNUAL 2016, XL / 2
Marijana Markovik, Eleonora Seramovska
Fulgosi A (1987) Psihologija lićnosti: teorije i istraživanja, Zagreb: Školska Knjiga.
Golubović Z (1999) Ja i drugi, Republika (rst accessed 15 April 2010) http://www.yurope.
com/zines/republika/arhiva/99/jaidrugi/.
Gormly A, Brodzinski D (1990) Lifespan human development. Harcourt Brace College
Publishers.
Laponce J (2004) Using a role by role interview to measure the minority effect: a note on
ongoing research, Social Science Information, Vol. 43 (3), pp. 477-492.
Laing RD (1977) Podeljeno Ja. Politika doživljaja, Beograd: Nolit.
Krstić D (1991) Psiholośki rećnik, Beograd: Savremena administracija.
Maleska M (2005) “What kind of political system did Macedonia get after the Ohrid Peace
Agreement?”, in New Balkan Politics. Issue 9. http://www.newbalkanpolitics.org.mk/
napis.asp?id=31&lang=English.
Maleska M (2013) “Multi-ethnic democracy in Macedonia: political analysis and emerging
scenarios” in New Balkan Politics. Issue 13, pp. 1-27.
Marcia JE (1966) Development and validation of ego-identity status, Journal ol personality
and social psychology. Vol. 3 (5), pp. 551-558.
Nikolić M et al. (2004) Mladi zagubljeni u tranzicii, Beograd: Centar za proućavanje
alternative.
Poro А (1990) Enciklopedija Psihijatrije, Beograd: Nolit.
Rokeach M (1960) The open and closed mind, New York: Basic Books.
Rokeach M (1964) Differences between open- and closed-minded subjects on learning-set
and oddity problems, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 68, no. 6, pp.
648-654.
Rummens JA (2000) Canadian Identities: An Interdisciplinary Overview of Canadian
Research on Identity, Canadian heritage multiculturalism, http://ceris.metropolis.net/
Virtual%20Library/EResources/Rummens2000.pdf (accessed 12 February 2012).
Sampson E E (1978) Personality and the location of identity, Journal of Personality, Vol.
46, pp. 552-568.
Sedikides C, Brewer MB (2001) Individual self, relational self, collective self, Philadelphia,
PA: Psychology Press.

35
INSTITUTE FOR SOCIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL AND JURIDICAL RESEARCH
COMPARING MACEDONIAN AND AUSTRIAN STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF IDENTITY ASPECTS ...
Tajfel H, Turner JC (1986) The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel
and L. W. Austin (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Weinreich P (1986) The operationalisation of identity theory in racial and ethnic relations,
in J.Rex and D.Mason (eds). Theories of Race and Ethnic Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Weinreich P, Sounderson W (Eds) (2003) Analysing Identity: Cross-Cultural, Societal and
Clinical Contexts, London: Routledge.
Wojslawowicz JK (2005) Public and Private Self-Consciousness During Early
Adolescence, dissertation, Baltimore: University of Maryland http://drum.lib.umd.edu/
bitstream/1903/2494/1/umi-umd-2371.pdf (rst accessed 23 May 2013).
Христова Л, Серафимовска Е, Марковиќ М, Цекиќ А (2014) Перцепција на
идентитетите на студентската популација во Република Македонија, Скопје:
Универзитет Св Кирил и Методиј, Институт за социолошки и политичко-правни
истражувања-Скопје. (In English: Hristova L, Seramovska E, Markovich M, Cekich A
(2014) Perception of Students’ Identities in the Republic of Macedonia, Skopje: Ss. “Cyril
and Methodius” University, Institute for Sociological, Political and Juridical Research -
Skopje.)