1. bookVolume 15 (2021): Issue 2 (December 2021)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2570-5857
First Published
16 Apr 2017
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Do Praguers differ from Czechs? Selected topics of recent intergroup antagonism attempts

Published Online: 26 Oct 2021
Volume & Issue: Volume 15 (2021) - Issue 2 (December 2021)
Page range: 154 - 186
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2570-5857
First Published
16 Apr 2017
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Due to the recent attempts to divide Czech society based on the antagonism between Prague and the countryside, this study researches some of the aspects of this division—basic human values and the national identity of the inhabitants of Prague. These very basic level sources of the antagonism are researched via a combination of ISSP (National identity III module) and ESS (Round 8) surveys and two focus groups with Prague inhabitants. The results show that there are no real, or wrongly interpreted, differences between Praguers and people in the countryside with respect to both basic human values and Czech national identity. Regarding the basic human values of the two groups, only the conservation value dimension is stronger outside Prague. However, this value dimension is inherently ambiguous because its value of security is stronger within Prague, which is in contrast to values of conformity and tradition that are stronger outside Prague. In addition to this, conservation is still the stronger dimension within Prague compared with the openness to change value dimension. Praguers are rather compelled to be open and they are capable of adapting, even if their values are more conservative. The same values prevail among people within and outside Prague, which has been confirmed in the focus groups. There are also more similarities between the two groups in their national identities, e.g., when they are less nationalistic than patriotic. Both groups are of similar strength for patriotism and nationalism. The sources of national pride among the two groups are very similar and Praguers are those who can be labeled as being prouder in a few of the aspects of the Czech nation. The division between Praguers and non-Praguers seems to be rather artificial and based on inaccurate perceptions and/or interpretations.

Keywords

Introduction

Differences between big capitals and smaller towns and villages in the countryside

The term countryside refers to the area outside of the capital (Prague) in this study further on.

are often the sources of themes ranging from perceived stereotypes materialized in jokes or everyday conversations, through real experiences rising from direct contact between the two, to scholars’ attempts to understand the different dynamics and characteristics between capitals or cities and the countryside or rural environments (e.g., Fuguitt 1963; Renkow and Hoover 2000; Berry and Okulicz-Kozaryn 2011) or using their different natures as an explanation for other issues (e.g., Wilson 1991; Carter and Borch 2005). Sometimes, these (perceived) differences could be sources of potential conflicts within societies.

In Czechia, this division line was recently followed by many political attempts to divide Czech society, the most obviously seen by using the term “Prague café.”

In original: pražská kavárna. The term attempts to divide society, putting Prague intellectuals against “normal” people in the countryside. The dividing potential of the term is evident because it allows us to find its counterpart “country pub” (in original: vesnická hospoda). It is by no surprise that the Czechs are famous for their love of beer (and its consumption) and for possessing an extremely high share of very small municipalities (OECD 2014, 75). This makes a similar division very useful for those opposing the “Prague café.”

People from the “Prague café” have often been negatively described as being full of complexes, angry, disdainful, superior, unsuccessful, lazy, wannabe democrats, “welcomers,” pro-Bruselists, and elitist (see Zeman in Panenka, 2016; Okamura in Černá, 2018). Due to the fact that this label has received tremendous, almost viral, attention and is used for distinguishing the “us” from “them” (Praguers and non-Praguers), the goal of this article is to explore whether and how Prague inhabitants differentiate compared with the rest of the Czech inhabitants on two basic levels linked to the “Prague Café” narrative: basic human values and national identity. The two concepts have been chosen for their potential to serve as cornerstones of what is being exploited by the recent populists. First, basic human values are researched to understand whether perceptions about “different” people in Prague have some deeper justification. The different approaches to other people may stem from the basic human values that underlie attitudes and behavior (Schwartz 2003, 262; Schwartz 2012, 16). Second, the article focuses on the capital's national identity because it is among the prime topics of the abovementioned division. Supporters of the recent Czech populists often portray people from the “Prague Café” in a way that gives the impression that these people are betraying the country (or selling it out) for their Western orientations (see, for example, Jandourek 2018). It works the other way too. Politicians opposing the “Prague Café” are often accused of being pro-Eastern, pro-Russian, or pro-China, oriented on the edge of being traitors (Fendrych 2018). The characteristics of the two groups (Praguers and non-Praguers) are therefore compared to understand the relevancy of such arguments.

The study follows the logic of investigating whether there is some kind of Pragueness in the relevant issues. As Lalli argues, “Towns have their own identity, also evaluated as ‘image’ from outside, which ‘rubs off’ onto its residents and gives them a certain personality” (Lalli 1992, 293). In the context of the very specific status of Prague within Czechia, Praguers’ personalities are therefore expected to differ compared with those of others. This differentiation enables an understanding of whether the differences are real or rather perceived.

The study utilizes both a phenomenological (via firsthand experience of the group) and a survey-based approach to the topic. It is important to note that some perceptions of the city or its inhabitants might be limited by the environment (bubble) in which an individual lives and his/her perceptions might be biased. For instance, a wealthy man surrounded by people who share his socio-economic status can assume that the people within the city are rich even when the majority of the city can be very poor. The phenomenological approach takes place-identity from the individual's perspective as a part of his/her own self-identity (Proshansky 1978; Proshansky, Fabian and Kaminoff 1983). Seamon (1979, 21–4) recommends using some kind of group inquiry to understand such a phenomenon. However, there are problems with the generalization and accuracy of such findings (Seamon 1979, 23–4). To limit such potential problems, the study is supported and/or triangulated by the survey data because they are focused on more standardized measurements of society's individuals and their lives, which makes some of the findings more reliable.

After the theoretical presentation of the two aspects of the Prague-countryside division—basic human values and national identity—two separate studies cover these topics. The first study is a survey-based research, while the second study provides results based on the focus group (FG) findings. The conclusion and discussion of the results ends the study.

Selected Aspects of Pragueness

As Praguers are depicted in the public narrative differently from other Czech inhabitants, Prague inhabitants are expected to have their own identity. Identity is defined by two features—sameness and distinctiveness (Lewicka 2008, 211). In general, it is a set of attributes which make a person (in a psychological sense), group of people (in a sociological sense), or place (in an environmental sense) distinguishable and unique compared with other persons, groups, or places. Social identity based on identification with certain groups in society serves as an underlying concept for this study. It is defined as a common set of attributes of a group of people which differentiates them from other groups. The problem with group identity is that it is difficult to decide whether to ascribe someone the identity based on his/her apparent membership of a group or on his/her voluntarist membership (Jones and Smith 2001) or his/her group identification (Tajfel 1982, 2). Tajfel and Turner's social identity theory says that social identity is based on three aspects: categorization, identification, and comparison. In other words, people categorize themselves (by giving themselves certain labels), associate with certain groups on the basis of in-group and out-group identification, and these groups are compared in a way to make the in-group better than the out-group (Tajfel and Turner 1979).

Due to availability of data, the first approach will be used and the group of Praguers is to be ascribed with the attributes (human values and national identity) that are (based on public narratives) supposed to make this group of inhabitants different from other Czech inhabitants. The point is that capitals can serve as indicators of countries’ dominant values (Meisel 1993, 4). This creates the need to understand if not inhabitants’ perceptions of people in the capital, then at least the capital's inhabitant perception of how they appear in the eyes of the rest of the population.

Putting aside other approaches, this study serves as a first step in the exploration of whether basic human values and national identity can play any role in the group identification of Prague's inhabitants and, therefore, whether they can serve as a part of their, even ascribed, identity. Because of this, I speak rather about aspects of Pragueness of Prague inhabitants than their identity, which cannot be tested yet.

The two analyzed groups are defined in the following manner. To be a Praguer is not restricted by their place of birth. People living in Prague can feel like Praguers with positive feelings toward the city even if they were not born in the capital.

As people living in Prague revealed in the focus groups (see below).

Prague-born inhabitants make up around 50% of the city's population (Regional Office of the Czech Statistical Office in the Capital City of Prague, Information Services Unit 2013, 31). Also, for the Czech inhabitants living outside Prague, who have no direct links to the capital, the short-term life in Prague is sometimes enough to call even their children Praguers (Fajkusová 2015). The group of non-Praguers is defined as all the people living within Czechia and outside of Prague. Such a heterogeneous category has been chosen to reflect the recent attempts to divide Czech society based on such binary populist rhetoric. Although this can cause some issues in statistical analysis, these issues are complemented and moderated by the qualitative part of the research (see below—Study 2). Due to such a binary differentiation, non-Praguers will be also referred to here as people outside Prague, people in the countryside, or others.

Basic Human Values

Meisel's (1993, 4) abovementioned argument about the reflection of a country's values in the capital is contested by a body of research on the connection between the values and characteristics of urban and rural settings. Generally speaking, people in the countryside are supposed to be more collectivist (Jha and Singh 2011) than those in the city. Higher individualism is expected to be linked with higher economic development (gross domestic product (GDP) per capita) (see Hofstede 2001, 252–3), but also with more urbanized societies (Greenfield 2009; Raeff, Greenfield and Quiroz 2000). Therefore, due to the fact that Prague is the capital, it has the highest GDP per capita within the country (Czech Statistical Office 2020) and also the highest level of education among the Czech regions (Czech Statistical Office 2014). This makes Prague, in combination with its international status with high exposure of its people to cultural diversity (Triandis 2018, 66), a place where it makes sense to expect to be driven by individualistic values. On top of that, conservative values are often linked to the Czech countryside rather than big cities, which are supposed to be more liberal (e.g., Šmídová Matoušková and Markvartová 2011).

Human values play a role in social interactions (Feather 1980), which makes sense given that attitudes and behavior are dependent on human values (e.g., Rokeach 1973; Schwartz 2012). Values serve as a source of motivation (Fulton et al. 1996). For a long time, there was no widely acknowledged set of human values comparable among different societies which allowed the use of the term with various meanings and references (see Williams (1979, 16) or compare Albert (1956) and Schwartz (2012)). Shalom H. Schwartz, therefore, came up with a set of human values that can be compared cross-culturally.

Schwartz (2012) has identified 10 basic human values: self-direction (SD), stimulation (ST), hedonism (HE), achievement (AC), power (PO), security (SE), conformity (CO), tradition (TR), benevolence (BE), and universalism (UN). These values may be aggregated into four dimensions as openness to change (SD, ST, partially HE) and conservation (SE, CO, TR); self-enhancement (AC, PO, partially HE) and self-transcendence (BE, UN), where both pairs of dimensions are contradictory (see Figure 1). For the purpose of this study, self-enhancement was renamed as individualism and self-transcendence as collectivism, only because these names are more understandable, they follow the logic behind the original terms, and it is easier to link them in the text with the abovementioned expectations.

Fig. 1

Schwartz's theoretical model of relationships among 10 motivational types of value and four dimensions. Source: Schwartz (2012, 9).

The first dimension contrasts values as order, self-restriction, resistance to change and preservation of the past with values of feelings and readiness for change, independence of thought, and action. In the second dimension, welfare and interest for others are contradictory to the values of success, dominance, and pursuit of one's own interest (Schwartz 2012, 8–9). These values may serve as sources for understanding the attitudes and behaviors of people (Schwartz 2012).

In addition, Schwartz's theory says that there is a sort of dynamic relationship between these values, which means that some values are related, while some of them are rather contradictory (Schwartz 2012). Such a perception of the structure of values differs from the multiple-value approach by the different arrangement of the values and their hierarchies (compare with Rokeach 1973). In other words, some values in Schwartz's model motivate different actions that can be expected to contradict other values. Therefore, it makes sense to expect the pairs of values to be negatively correlated.

Praguers’ National Identity

The national identity of Prague's inhabitants is not so easy to predict. On the one hand, they may be influenced by the fact that Prague has been important for the Czech nation as the site of old kings, the provincial government within the Habsburg Monarchy, and later, as the capital of the Czechoslovakia and Czech Republics. In fact, the events in Prague during the second half of the nineteenth century were crucial for both the stronger and faster emancipation of the Czech people within the Habsburg Empire and the Czech national identity when Prague opened its doors to countryside Czech peasants. This within-country migration shifted the balance between the Czech and German ethnicities/languages within the capital (Nolte 2007), which was important for Czech emancipation.

Since 1918, Prague has served as the capital of Czechoslovakia and later that of the Czech Republic. It has also served as the political, economic, and cultural center of the country. The main political, economic, and societal changes (both positive and negative) were mostly connected to Prague events (e.g., the Communist coup d‘état in 1948 and the Velvet Revolution in 1989). In other words, Prague has served as the center of the Czech country and nation. That is why it makes sense to expect that people in Prague are closer to what the idea of a nation is and they stand behind this idea compared with the people outside Prague.

Contrary to this theoretical expectation, it is possible to observe the recent attempts within Czech society to differentiate between Prague and the rest of the country. This may exploit stereotypes within the country wherein Prague and the countryside are approached as two counterpoints. Praguers may be perceived as those who think that people in the countryside are stupid. People in the countryside also label Praguers as people who have everything (while people in countryside have nothing), who work less for more money, and are boasters (see, for example, Fajkusová 2015, 34–5). Although similar stereotypes and prejudices had not been important for constructing a strong cleavage within Czechia (Hloušek and Kopeček 2008, 524 and 528), they can be catalyzed when they are successfully applied within a new content. For instance, wellbeing can be successfully linked to pro-European attitudes in public discourse and these attitudes can be proclaimed to oppose the country's interests (e.g., pejorative accusation of being pro-Bruselist—see above), etc. In other words, this approach toward the nation could be linked to stereotypes and prejudices. In this sense, Praguers may have not only different values (see above) but also different attitudes and feelings toward the Czech nation.

Various aspects of such attitudes and feelings are measured here. Common approaches to the topic are utilized so the main focus is given to the concepts of patriotism, nationalism, and sources of national pride when Praguers are compared with non-Praguers.

Patriotism and nationalism constitute parts (together with chauvinism) of what Bahna (2015, 4) identifies in the academic literature as national identity, which has its roots in the work of Adorno et al. (1950). However, an interplay between the three terms may be approached in many ways (see Coenders and Scheepers 2003). In this study nationalism and patriotism are analyzed separately, providing them with meanings that define patriotism with a positive attachment, emotions, and loyalty to the nation and/or country (see Kosterman and Feshbach 1989, 260; Kelman 1997, 166), while nationalism with both positive and rather negative (or comparative) aspects (in terms of national preference or superiority) (e.g., Dekker, Malová, and Hoogendoorn 2003, 347). Although it is also possible to define nationalism with clearly negative aspects (such as hate and xenophobia, see Minogue 1967), this strategy is not so important for addressing the comparison of group relationships to the country, even if there can be a connection to the less negative version of nationalism.

This is done for two reasons. First, it is due to the nature of the motivation for this study given by the specific situation of the recent Czech context and the character of the attempted division between Prague and the countryside. Second, there are evident differences in how various authors measure the two concepts (see Bahna 2019, 5–6). Defining the two terms in the proposed way, therefore, allows for easier differentiation between the two terms and provides an easily comprehensible picture of people's relationships to their country. In addition, the utilized data also enable the smooth differentiation between the two concepts.

Study 1
Method and Data

The first results are based on the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP): National Identity III by the ISSP Research Group (ISSP 2015) and the European Social Survey (ESS) Round 8: Round 8 Data (2016). Although these two data sources do not cover all the topics covered in this study and they are not representative samples of Prague, they still provide more representative results than the results of the second (qualitative) study (see below). Both datasets represent the Czech population. Table 1 provides a basic description of the two samples within each of the two datasets. An interpretation of the findings based on the capital's inhabitants (as a subsample of the total samples) may not be representative for Prague. However, the two Czech samples are big enough to provide a relatively big number of Prague inhabitants (see Table 1).

A basic description of the Czech samples in the ISSP and ESS datasets

ISSP (2015) ESS (2016)
Prague Others Total Prague Others Total
Number of cases 216 1,693 1,909 277 1,992 2,269
11.3% 88.7% 100% 12.2% 87.8% 100%
Women 103 871 974 154 1,018 1,172
47.7% 51.4% 51.0% 55.6% 51.1% 51.7%
Age mean 47.55 46.38 45.51 45.07 46.2 46.06

Sources: ISSP (2015), ESS (2016).

Commonly used ISSP (2015) data from the module National Identity III are utilized here for the simplicity of measurements of the abovementioned concepts. The ISSP data allows us to measure nationalism by a battery of statements which stress the superiority of a nation/country above others while these items are internally consistent (see Bahna 2019, 5–6). The same items selected in Bahna's (2019) work are a part of Figure 9.

Patriotism as an emotional bond is measured in ISSP data (2015) by the question, “How proud are you of being Czech?” However, other measurements of patriotism based on this sort of emotional attachment are available as well. These are, “How emotionally attached do you feel to the Czech Republic?” (ESS 2016) and “How close do you feel to the Czech Republic?” (ISSP 2015). The indicators of pride to certain domains of the country's life are described based on ISSP (2015) data as well.

ESS (2016) provides data on basic human values. The four dimensions of human values are constructed by 10 basic human values (see above) which consist of a number of items, as specified in Appendix A.

The operationalization of regression models below (based on ESS (2016) data) is mostly evident from the respective Table 2 with results. The age is coded by the real age. A household's total net income was coded as 10 deciles from the lowest to the highest income. For more information on a household's income coding see ESS8 Appendix A2 at ESS Round 8: European Social Survey Round 8 Data (2016). To control for domicile, three items have been created based on the respective size reflecting the basic expectations, i.e., a big city and its suburbs or outskirts, town or a small city, and country village or farm/home in countryside. Education is analyzed here based on the highest education of the respondent on the level of basic school, high school without A-level exam, high school with A-level exam, and post A-level diploma or university education. Finally, the results are controlled for different regions in Czechia on the level of NUTS 3.

Linear regression results on determinants of the four basic human values dimensions

Indicator Conservation Openness Collectivism Individualism
Gender (F=0, M=1) −0.110*** 0.057** −0.131*** 0.050*
Age 0.155*** −0.353*** 0.026 −0.232***
Household‘s total net income 0.019 0.138*** 0.085** 0.221***
Domicile—big city and its suburbs
Domicile—town or small city 0.069* 0.033 0.044 0.058*
Domicile—village or countryside farm 0.022 0.006 −0.071* 0.023
Basic school
High school without A-level −0.001 −0.045 −0.028 −0.048
High school with A-level −0.004 −0.007 −0.027 −0.058*
University or post A-level diploma 0.024 0.076** 0.040 0.073**
Prague region
Central Bohemian region 0.050 −0.034 0.069 0.014
South Bohemian region −0.021 −0.037 −0.004 −0.029
Plzeň region −0.009 0.019 0.006 −0.036
Karlovy Vary region −0.043 −0.017 −0.019 −0.046
Ústí nad Labem region −0.072* −0.050 −0.075* −0.06*
Liberec region 0.024 0.024 0.011 −0.017
Hradec Králové region 0.019 0.034 0.040 −0.005
Pardubice region −0.034 −0.015 −0.017 −0.034
Vysočina region −0.026 −0.057* −0.053 −0.03
South Moravian region 0.035 −0.019 0.099** −0.051
Olomouc region 0.037 0.072** 0.041 0.085**
Zlín region 0.053 −0.005 0.048 −0.03
Moravian-Silesian region 0.122*** 0.015 0.073* 0.023
Adjusted R2 0.058 0.216 0.052 0.172

Note: Standardized coefficients Beta; pairwise exclusion.

p-values:

p<0.05;

p<0.01;

p<0.001.

ISSP (2015) data are used in a similar fashion. The only difference is in the household's total net income, which is coded as a dummy variable with four categories based on the four quartiles of the original data distribution (first quartile: up to 17,500 CZK, second quartile: 17,501–25,000 CZK, third quartile: 25,001–35,000 CZK, and fourth quartile: over 35,000 CZK).

Results
Basic Human Values

As ESS data show (see Figure 2), the only significant difference between the inhabitants of Prague and those living outside of Prague is in the conservation value dimension, which is slightly stronger outside Prague (t = −2.141, df = 365.786, p = 0.033). All the remaining values between Prague and the countryside are similar. However, this does not mean that Praguers are not conservative, rather the opposite.

Fig. 2

Indexes of the four dimensions of basic human values inside and outside Prague. Source: ESS (2016).

When comparing contrasting value dimensions within Prague, there are clear tendencies when conservative values dominate openness to change value dimension (t = 2.053, ds = 527.874, p = 0.041) and collectivism is stronger than individualism (t = −5.269, df = 548, p = 0.000). The same tendencies are valid for the people outside of Prague. They are also more conservative than open (t = 11.888, df = 3,953.826, p = 0.000) and more collectivist than individualist (t = −19.673, df = 3,822.555, p = 0.000). In other words, to say that people outside Prague are more conservative does not mean that Praguers are more open to changes than conservative, rather the opposite.

A closer look at individual values (Figure 3) reveals the ambiguity of the conservation dimension, even if this dimension is the only one which differs between Prague and the countryside. Three values (security, conformity, tradition) make up the conservation dimension. However, while the conformity and tradition values are significantly stronger (t = −2.487, df = 2.260, p = 0.013; t = −7.254, df = 379.711, p = 0.000) outside Prague, the opposite is true for the value of security which is stronger among Prague inhabitants (t = 3.716, df = 2.262, p = 0.000). This means that it makes no sense to say that people in Prague do not value security compared with others because it is exactly the opposite, even though other conservative values are more common for the countryside.

Fig. 3

Ten basic human values indexes inside and outside Prague. Source: ESS (2016).

Going back to the four values’ dimensions, a deeper look at the differences between these dimensions confirms that there is no such thing as a clear division between Prague and the rest of the country, even when it is disaggregated into individual regions (see Table 2). Generally speaking, the vast majority of the regions do not significantly differ from Prague in their impact on the four values. In each model explaining values of conservation, openness to change, and individualism, there are only two regions which differ from Prague even when controlled for the size of the domicile. In the case of collectivism, three regions differ significantly from Prague. There is also no clear trend identified among the different sizes of the settlements. The lack of a difference between the big cities and villages is rather surprising and, in the case of collectivism, it goes against the expectations because it seems that people in villages possess less collectivist values than those in big cities.

Other results show that being a man positively affects values of openness and independence, while women seem to possess stronger conservative and collectivist values. Age is an important factor for openness and individualism, which are typical for younger people, while older people are linked to conservative values. Education influences the values of individualism and openness but only when comparing people with the highest basic education and people with a university (or other post A-level) diploma. However, the impact on individualist values is lower among people with an A-level diploma, compared with those with basic education, which is a rather unexpected and confusing finding. A household's higher income seems to increase all values but conservation. The perceived size of the domicile provides rather weak and less convincing (lower significance levels) trends which are not easy to interpret, because they are sometimes in contrast to expectations. It seems that there is a more significant difference between big cities and towns than between big cities and villages. However, as mentioned above, the impact on the level of the value is very small. It is also important to note that models explaining conservation and collectivism are very poor when they are able to explain only over 5% of the variance.

What is important to emphasize here is that the dynamic relationships between the two pairs of values do not work as Schwartz expects. Pearson's correlations are significantly (p=0.000) positive for both pairs of value dimensions, i.e., conservation and openness to change (r=0.179), and individualism and collectivism (r=0.310), which contradicts the expectations. What does this mean? Due to the positive results in all aggregated values it makes sense to rethink the interpretation of Schwartz's scale and to approach it not in a way that people are, e.g., not as collectivists or individualists, but rather to say that people are both collectivist and individualist, while their individualist values are dominated by the values common for collectivism. This is then a multiple-identity approach which is often used when dealing with the social structure (Burke and Stets 2009); however, this can serve as an incentive for further discussion of Schwartz's value scale. What is more important for now is to take the above interpretation, which follows this direction, into account.

National Identity

Due to the specific language it is not very surprising that language is the most important sign of being Czech. Feelings to be a member of a nation and citizenship are among the most important for people to be considered as Czechs. Differences between Praguers and others are not significant with the exception of religion (t = 6.162, df = 288.474, p = 0.000), which plays a more important role for being Czech outside of the Prague. However, religion is the weakest attribute for an explanation of what is the Czech national identity (see Figure 4).

Fig. 4

Differences between Praguers and non-Praguers in what they consider important to be Czech. Source: ISSP (2015).

Patriotism, measured here simply as pride in being Czech, is not significantly different between Praguers and non-Praguers. It is evident (Figure 5) that both populations are similarly patriotic and their patriotism seems to be rather moderate. The same is true when approaching patriotism via emotional attachment to the country. As data from ESS (2016) show, Czech inhabitants are emotionally attached to Czechia to a very similar extent in both Prague and the countryside (Figure 6). In addition, this tendency does not mean that the feelings toward Europe are negative, as is sometimes presented. These two emotional attachments are positively correlated (Spearman's rho is .466 significant at the 0.01 level).

Fig. 5

Patriotism of Praguers and non-Praguers measured as general pride in being Czech. Note: Question asked—“How proud are you of being Czech?” Reversed scale: 1—not proud at all; 2—not very proud; 3—somewhat proud; 4—very proud. Source: ISSP (2015).

Fig. 6

Patriotism of Praguers and non-Praguers measured as an emotional attachment to Czechia (Europe for comparison). Note: Question asked—“How emotionally attached do you feel to the Czech Republic?” Scale: 0—not at all emotionally attached; 10—very emotionally attached. Source: ESS (2016).

The sort of territorial identity, in a sense of attachment to the territory, is also indistinguishable (nonsignificant) between Praguers and non-Praguers (see Figure 7). Both groups’ relationships to all the levels of territorial units are very similar. In general, it means that feelings toward Europe are lower than feelings to smaller territorial units, while the closest relationship is perceived to be to one's own town or city and to the country.

Fig. 7

Patriotism of Praguers and non-Praguers measured as territorial attachment to Czechia (other territorial levels for comparison). Note: Question asked—“How close do you feel to?” Reversed scale: 1—not close at all; 2—not very close; 3—close; 4—very close. Source: ISSP (2015).

The main sources of Czech national pride are history, arts, sports, and scientific achievements. In other words, cultural aspects are the main sources of national pride and they prevail over the political or economic developments of the state. Although most of the sources of pride resonate similarly inside as outside Prague, there are a few instances that are significantly stronger within Prague. Pride in arts and literature achievements (t = −2.806, df = 1822, p = 0.005), history (t = −2.043, df = 1.871, p = 0.041), and the fair treatment of all groups in society (t = −3.257, df = 1807, p = 0.001) are slightly stronger in Prague compared with the rest of the country, although the last mentioned is not much important for Czech pride (see Figure 8). The accusation that Praguers disrespect their own country, according to these data, does not make any sense because in the most important aspects Praguers show even more national pride than people in the countryside.

Fig. 8

A comparison of Praguers and non-Praguers in the sources of their national pride. Note: Question asked—“How proud are you about the Czech Republic in these spheres?” Reversed scale: 1—not proud at all; 2—not very proud; 3—somewhat proud; 4—very proud. Source: ISSP (2015).

The way in which nationalism is measured here means that the middle value (3) on the five-point scale stands for neither agree nor disagree with being nationalist. The results reveal that the level of nationalism (in the meaning of being a superior country/nation) only very slightly crosses the middle value in the direction of being rather nationalist (Figure 9). However, this tendency is rather disputable because it is very small. Also, the differences are not significant between Praguers and the rest of the country even if it may seem that people in the countryside are greater nationalists. Based on this, Czechs are, in general, clearly less nationalistic than patriotic because their patriotism seems to be more decisive in comparison with the findings about nationalism.

Fig. 9

A comparison of the level of nationalism among Praguers and non-Praguers. Note: Index computed as a mean of the four items: “I would rather be a citizen of the Czech Republic than of any other country in the world”; “The world would be a better place if people from other countries were more like the Czechs”; “Generally speaking, the Czech Republic is a better country than most other countries”; and “People should support their country even if the country is in the wrong.” 1—disagree strongly; 2—disagree; 3—neither agree nor disagree; 4—agree; 5—agree strongly. Source: ISSP (2015).

The explanation for patriotism and nationalism is very difficult based only on basic socioeconomic and geographic indicators (see Table 3), because all the models are able to explain 3–7% of the variance of the dependent variable. It is evident that age is the strongest predictor here when a higher age is linked with higher patriotism and nationalism. Gender may only play a minor role just in the cases when patriotism is measured as an emotional attachment, when being female slightly increases patriotism. ESS (2016) data show some effect of a household's total income on patriotism as emotion, however, other approaches do not provide such evidence (nor in models with a more categories of the income).

Linear regression results on determinants of the three versions of patriotism and nationalism

Indicator Patriotism 1 Patriotism 2 Patriotism 3 Nationalism
Gender (F=0, M=1) −0.023 0.015 −0.055* 0.018
Age 0.072* 0.127*** 0.213*** 0.114***
Household‘s total net income (ESS 2016) 0,110***
Household's total net income, 1st quartile (up to 17,500 CZK)
Household's total net income, 2nd quartile (up to 25,000 CZK) 0.048 0.013 0.021
Household's total net income, 3rd quartile (up to 35,000 CZK) 0.001 −0.011 −0.007
Household's total net income over, 4th quartile (over 35000 CZK) 0.036 0.026 0.023
Domicile—big city and its suburbs
Domicile—town or small city −0.111** −0.052 −0.059 −0.104**
Domicile - Village or countryside home −0.031 −0.043 −0.125*** −0.028
Basic school
High school without A-level 0.001 0.038 −0.026 −0.015
High school with A-level −0.008 0.074 −0.032 −0.029
University of post A-level diploma −0.004 0.031 −0.009 −0.097*
Prague region
Central Bohemian region 0.126** 0.075 0.093** 0.122**
South Bohemian region 0.079* 0.038 0.019 0.049
Plzeň region −0.016 −0.031 −0.023 −0.003
Karlovy Vary region −0.026 −0.002 −0.033 0.018
Ústí nad Labem region 0.084* −0.008 −0.020 0.181***
Liberec region 0.036 0.060* 0.082** 0.051
Hradec Králové region 0.070* 0.032 0.096** 0.072*
Pardubice region 0.018 −0.023 −0.014 0.082*
Vysočina region 0.103** 0.085* −0.007 0.135***
South Moravian region −0.041 −0.111** 0.005 −0.018
Olomouc region 0.105** 0.029 0.098** 0.075*
Moravian-Silesian region 0.053 −0.061 0.097** 0.009
Zlín region 0.042 0.000 0.093** 0.045
Adjusted R2 0.030 0.043 0.069 0.055

Note: Standardized coefficients Beta; pairwise exclusion.

Note: Patriotism 1 = pride; Patriotism 2 = territorial attachment (ISSP 2015); Patriotism 3 = emotional attachment (ESS 2016).

p-values:

p<0.05;

p<0.01;

p<0.001.

Sources: ISSP (2015), ESS (2016).

A clean division between Prague and the countryside does not exist because the results show that being an inhabitant of another region does not affect the levels of nationalism and patriotism compared with Prague, even though this is not true for all the regions. For instance, living in Central Bohemia, Liberec, Hradec Králové, Vysočina, and Olomouc regions is positively associated with levels of patriotism. The same is true for nationalism, which does not apply for the Liberec region but is valid also for the Ústí nad Labem and Pardubice regions. This is also the case when controlling for the size of the domicile. Evidence shows that pride in the nation and nationalism is mostly smaller in smaller cities and towns than in big cities and their suburbs. Living in a village and in the countryside is connected with lower patriotism only when it is based on emotional attachment.

Study 2
Method and Data

Two FGs were held on October 21 and 22, 2019.

The FGs were organized by Donath Business & Media in cooperation with the author of this study.

Their participants (living or working in Prague on a long-term basis) were chosen to represent the Prague population in two ways. The first FG consisted of randomly selected (eight) local political representatives on the level of local municipalities within Prague.

The goal was to reach between 8 and 10 representatives. More local representatives were approached and 8 of them were able to attend the session.

They were chosen for being in daily contact with their electorate, their knowledge of the city from their local experience and expertise, and their affiliation to eight different Prague municipalities (no two representatives came from the same municipality). The second group represented various professions within Prague. The idea behind this choice was the contact of such “experts” with people from different backgrounds. The composition of the second FG was supposed to consist of people from these areas: business, culture, church, university, media, architecture, health, and sport. Only the representative of sport did not attend the meeting while two representatives each of culture, business, and media were present.

Although we attempted to balance the gender aspect within the FGs, only three out of eight women were present in the political FG, while there were only two women out of ten attendees in the expert FG.

The utilization of such FGs has some limitations. Although their participants are expected to reflect various dimensions and represent various kinds of Prague inhabitants, the participants are still people with pretty high cultural capital. That is also why ongoing findings are presented in the context of the quantitative results above.

Results
Basic Human Values
Conservation Versus Openness To Change

The assessment of Praguers being open to changes or conserved depends on three to four main things which quantitative surveys are not able to capture. First, we would combine the two common answers which are based on (a) the issue under discussion and (b) the situation of the people with respect to the issue. One respondent described it very illustratively with his ambiguous answer:

I think that if they (Praguers) are open, there is something Czech in every Praguer that gets them to be not as open to these changes.

(P5)

For instance, speaking about big issues (e.g., housing and immigration) resonating within the Czech society may lead to shared general feelings and attitudes toward these issues also in Prague. On the contrary, the current situation of Prague inhabitants and their experience evolve their values in two directions. Praguers are perceived to be more open to the opportunities to enlarge their living options. However, when these options can be a source of discomfort or danger then they tend to be conservative. In this sense, the NIMBY effect was often identified among the respondents, for instance:

Playgrounds are really nice unless they are built right next to my house because children would scream. Roads and bypasses are very important unless, in the words of the Mayor of Suchdol, they are routed through Suchdol. [...] The attitude – yes, but not in my backyard – is prevalent.

(P2)

The situation can be also defined by other attributes, such as past experience, education of the respective person, his/her locality, neighborhood, etc. For instance:

I think it is different across social groups and depends on a person's education level. Prague has a huge number of educated people, and that is the reason why it is more open. Unfortunately, I have classmates from elementary school with a very low education level [...] Listening to what they say there, it is terrible, but in general, you would be tempted to say Prague residents are open. There is xenophobia. It is horrible.

(P14)

It is also due to the character of my municipality. A very conservative electorate. I succeeded there with a very conservative programme.

(P1)

Second, the ambiguity between conservation and openness can be explained by the size of change Praguers are willing to accept. Praguers are open to rather smaller and well-communicated changes. When changes are too big, they prefer to stay with the status quo rather than change their neighborhood rapidly. This may be linked to their negative past experiences with big projects within the city, disappointment, and a (comparative) lack of trust for politicians:

I would give one example that goes beyond our city quarter. Like how they wanted to build the Ferris wheel in Náplavka. Every metropolis of the world has something like that, so Prague would deserve it too. I think it gave rise to fundamental resistance. I think it is a conservative view that Prague is nice as it is and we should leave it alone. This may be a too broad example. I mean, the people do not want any fundamental changes.

(P6)

The comparison of Prague with other capitals introduces the third reason for Prague's assessment, which is perspective, i.e., which entity is Prague being compared with. Comparison with other, especially Western, capitals might make Prague look less open:

In the context of the metropolises of the world, I think they are conservative, but in the context of Czech cities, Prague is absolutely progressive. We are leading the whole republic.

(P9)

Based on the abovementioned quotes, it seems that the inhabitants of Prague are by nature conservative Czechs rather than open Praguers. Although it is a rather general perception that Praguers are more open to changes and progressive, based on the FGs it is possible to sum it up as follows: Prague, due to its position within and outside of Czechia, is under strong pressure to be progressive even though its inhabitants do not often share these values. In other words, Prague's inhabitants are rather compelled to be open and they are capable of adapting, even if their values are more conservative:

I think Praguers mind a lot of things, and they say out loud what they mind. It means they are often forced to change, that it is inevitable for them. I am almost inclined to say it seems as though they wanted to be conservative, but they are forced to change, that there simply is not another way, and, in the end, because they travel, they also see this is where it is heading.

(P13)

Individualism Versus Collectivism

The general picture of Praguers being more individualist is caused mainly by the NIMBY logic. People understand the needs of others, but they are not much willing to make a personal sacrifice for them:

I think, for example, in the case of construction or transport, this attitude of “not in my backyard” is extremely prevalent in Prague. We have to build new apartments so that the prices are not so high, but we are certainly not going to thicken our housing estates. A typical example of this is part of a ring road that a municipality of 1,500 inhabitants has been blocking for 20 years to the detriment of Prague as a whole. I think this syndrome. That yes, we are willing to give up comfort for the benefit of the community, but only if it does not directly affect us.

(P3)

It may not be solely comfort which makes Praguers seem unwilling to sacrifice for others. Similarly, as in the previous section, the role of past experience and information seems to be crucial for explaining this Praguer image. They are often unwilling to step out of their comfort zones in practice because they do not believe that this will serve a greater good. There is a lack of trust in people toward politicians or big business:

Perhaps from my experience, I would say people would be willing to make concessions. But we have seen many times that something declared to be in general or public interest is actually in the interest of a partial group. And they were disappointed often that they were very distrustful and suspicious of things labelled as being in the general interest. They have experienced many disappointments over the past 30 years, so they are very cautious and distrustful.

(P6)

Praguers in general feel the need of others; however, they are not so willing to put others in front of themselves. The main limitations for this attitude are lower trust and past negative experience with local politics and business, as well as an unwillingness to make personal sacrifices for others.

What is interesting and a quite important finding from the FGs, in the Czech context, is that when FG participants spoke about individual values (other or subordinated to those represented above; e.g., tolerance, freedom, achievement, openness), they often came to the conclusion that differences between Prague and the countryside are not much striking in the case of values as much as in lifestyles.

National Identity

Prague is extremely important for the Czech national identity, both for Praguers and for non-Praguers, even if their mutual relationship is rather ambiguous. On the one hand, the relationship between Praguers and non-Praguers seems to be rather negative mainly due to the mutual labeling with negative qualities based mostly on the prejudices and stereotypes that are perceived among people. On the other hand, Praguers speak about Prague and its symbolic importance to the extent that Prague often serves as the main representative identity when they leave the country. Some FG participants even described it as an exporting article when dealing with other countries. Prague is also perceived to be similarly important for non-Praguers, whose pride in Prague can be manifested in their approach to the city:

I think even when someone from localities outside of Prague travels abroad, they boast about Prague. Or if a guest from abroad came here, they would take that guest to Prague. Although it is not completely safe to have a Prague registration number if you stop by at, for example, a wine cellar in Moravia.

(P8)

When (expert) FG participants were asked about patriotism in Prague, they tended to speak more about Prague patriotism rather than Czech patriotism.

With respect to patriotism, the political FG was wrongly asked about Prague patriotism, which was not considered in this paragraph.

It is supposed that this was due to the strong attachments and identities of individual Prague municipalities. Praguers agree that they are (Czech) patriots, emphasizing patriotism to be a positive term. However, the manifestation of patriotism seems to be limited compared with some other countries, such as the United States or Switzerland. Praguers are not used to visualizing their patriotism publicly on a daily basis. Some of them mentioned that they feel that the national symbols have been, in these days, somehow stolen by extreme nationalists and they do not feel comfortable using the Czech flag for this reason. It would be apt to say that they are willing to visually identify as Czech only when they are part of a bigger group, when the event/happening is connected to something Czech, such as during protests or sport events:

We are proud of the Czech nation, but we do not let others know as often as Americans do. They have flags everywhere. When you climb a hill there, there is a flag, there is a flag in front of every house. When my husband flew the flag from the balcony, I thought we were going to come across as nationalists, as Nazis. [...] So I think the visual features of patriotism were kind of taken away from us by some social group that claims to be representing its own interests.

(P9)

Although non-exalted patriotism seems to be the case in Prague, the extent of nationalism is more difficult to assess. Some FG participants overshadow nationalism with the term patriotism, which is in their perception the relevant one. Experience with others (foreigners in Prague or outside of Czechia) and the level of education are perceived to be the reasons why Praguers are more tolerant of foreigners. However, Praguers replicate some of the national tendencies as well as having their own issues. For instance, the attitude against the Russian minority seems to be rather negative, which clearly has its historical roots. Similarly, lower educated people are, even in Prague, perceived to be nationalists with even xenophobic attitudes (see above). Therefore, the higher education level in Prague may be the reason why the tolerant perception of Praguers prevails. Amongst this, one Prague-specific problem is the large number of dormitories for gastarbeiters which “generat(e) fear, if not problems” (P8). This issue may be interesting in the future for the evolution of Prague inhabitants’ tolerance. To assess Czech nationalism within Prague, seems, in the given time, to be rather ambiguous because it is dominated by already moderate patriotism, even though it has further potential to increase or radicalize.

Discussion and Conclusion

All the observations in this study were conducted on very basic levels. Nevertheless, these observations provide important background and arguments which contradict the simplified and often false visions of Czech society in the way it is often presented in the public space. The results, from both study 1 and study 2, show that there are no important differences (or they are badly interpreted) on the very basic levels of the phenomena of the research, i.e., they are rather fabricated.

Basic human values reveal that Praguers do not differ much from non-Praguers. These values underlie concepts that are often ascribed to the negative characteristics of Praguers as well as of people outside Prague, and that are perceived here as a sources of peoples’ attitudes and behavior. Rather on the contrary, Praguers and non-Praguers are often very similar, which has been confirmed both statistically and in the FGs. To set Praguers and non-Praguers against each other on the basis of human values, or attitudes and behaviors based on such values, is clearly manipulative. Although Praguers may feel that they possess collectivist values, they are not willing to behave in line with these values because of their past negative experience and lack of trust. The domination of conservative values within Prague is also sidelined due to the fact that these values are stronger in the countryside. These kinds of facts can serve as a source of confusion or misinterpretation of reality.

The same values prevail among people within and outside Prague. FG participants even tended to put aside the differences between Prague and the rest of Czechia based on the values and described the differences by the different lifestyle and experiences. The differences and mutual negative perceptions between Praguers and people in the countryside are not driven by basic human values as “guiding principles in life” (Schwartz 2012, 16). This indicates that the (perceived) differences are created artificially.

The division between Praguers and others based on their relationship to the Czech country and nation seems to be false too. National identity, measured by various measurements of patriotism and nationalism, and sources of national pride revealed that there are no important differences between the two observed groups, or at least the differences that would make sense to be used for such a division. When someone tries to label one of the two groups by any form of disrespect to the Czech country or nation, she/he is clearly wrong. Czechs, including Praguers, are clearly proud of their country, and they are patriots, even if they do not visualize their pride as often as it is common in some other countries. The sources of their pride are generally the same and the data reveal that Praguers are rather those who can be labeled as being prouder of most of the observed aspects of the Czech nation than people in the countryside. To speak about non-Praguers as about nationalists is also misleading. While Czechs, both Praguers and non-Praguers, like their country they do not approach, in general, Czechia or Czechs to be somewhat superior to other countries or nations. However, there are potential sources of future intensification of nationalist tendencies, compared with the recent nationalist ambiguity. In other words, this study confirms that on a very basic level the arguments based on the love or treason of the country or a different value background are too simplified and mostly wrong.

It is important to stress several limitations these findings have. First, the quantitative subsamples of Prague are not representative samples of Prague, or at least it is not possible to check the within-Prague municipality affiliation of Prague respondents. This may bring some uncertainty into the presentation of the results. However, the Prague samples consisted of 216 and 277 respondents (see Table 1), which is quite a large number of cases thanks to the large samples in the ISSP (2015) and ESS (2016) data. These statistical findings were also confirmed in the FG debates, which increase their validity.

FGs are another source of potential bias. The selection of FG participants was marked by three important limitations. First, the financial limit allowed us to run only two FGs while a higher number would be more beneficial to incorporate other segments of Praguers. Second, the logic by which participants were selected ended in the exclusion of Prague inhabitants with a lower cultural capital. Although the local political representatives were expected to also represent those omitted Praguers, it is possible that their cultural capital and position within society were able to affect their responses and to bias the qualitative findings, even if they sometimes mentioned those disadvantaged people. Finally, the depth of the FG findings in the presented topics was limited by the extent of the FGs (with a higher number of questions in combination with a high number of participants), which ran as part of a wider research project.

Fig. 1

Schwartz's theoretical model of relationships among 10 motivational types of value and four dimensions. Source: Schwartz (2012, 9).
Schwartz's theoretical model of relationships among 10 motivational types of value and four dimensions. Source: Schwartz (2012, 9).

Fig. 2

Indexes of the four dimensions of basic human values inside and outside Prague. Source: ESS (2016).
Indexes of the four dimensions of basic human values inside and outside Prague. Source: ESS (2016).

Fig. 3

Ten basic human values indexes inside and outside Prague. Source: ESS (2016).
Ten basic human values indexes inside and outside Prague. Source: ESS (2016).

Fig. 4

Differences between Praguers and non-Praguers in what they consider important to be Czech. Source: ISSP (2015).
Differences between Praguers and non-Praguers in what they consider important to be Czech. Source: ISSP (2015).

Fig. 5

Patriotism of Praguers and non-Praguers measured as general pride in being Czech. Note: Question asked—“How proud are you of being Czech?” Reversed scale: 1—not proud at all; 2—not very proud; 3—somewhat proud; 4—very proud. Source: ISSP (2015).
Patriotism of Praguers and non-Praguers measured as general pride in being Czech. Note: Question asked—“How proud are you of being Czech?” Reversed scale: 1—not proud at all; 2—not very proud; 3—somewhat proud; 4—very proud. Source: ISSP (2015).

Fig. 6

Patriotism of Praguers and non-Praguers measured as an emotional attachment to Czechia (Europe for comparison). Note: Question asked—“How emotionally attached do you feel to the Czech Republic?” Scale: 0—not at all emotionally attached; 10—very emotionally attached. Source: ESS (2016).
Patriotism of Praguers and non-Praguers measured as an emotional attachment to Czechia (Europe for comparison). Note: Question asked—“How emotionally attached do you feel to the Czech Republic?” Scale: 0—not at all emotionally attached; 10—very emotionally attached. Source: ESS (2016).

Fig. 7

Patriotism of Praguers and non-Praguers measured as territorial attachment to Czechia (other territorial levels for comparison). Note: Question asked—“How close do you feel to?” Reversed scale: 1—not close at all; 2—not very close; 3—close; 4—very close. Source: ISSP (2015).
Patriotism of Praguers and non-Praguers measured as territorial attachment to Czechia (other territorial levels for comparison). Note: Question asked—“How close do you feel to?” Reversed scale: 1—not close at all; 2—not very close; 3—close; 4—very close. Source: ISSP (2015).

Fig. 8

A comparison of Praguers and non-Praguers in the sources of their national pride. Note: Question asked—“How proud are you about the Czech Republic in these spheres?” Reversed scale: 1—not proud at all; 2—not very proud; 3—somewhat proud; 4—very proud. Source: ISSP (2015).
A comparison of Praguers and non-Praguers in the sources of their national pride. Note: Question asked—“How proud are you about the Czech Republic in these spheres?” Reversed scale: 1—not proud at all; 2—not very proud; 3—somewhat proud; 4—very proud. Source: ISSP (2015).

Fig. 9

A comparison of the level of nationalism among Praguers and non-Praguers. Note: Index computed as a mean of the four items: “I would rather be a citizen of the Czech Republic than of any other country in the world”; “The world would be a better place if people from other countries were more like the Czechs”; “Generally speaking, the Czech Republic is a better country than most other countries”; and “People should support their country even if the country is in the wrong.” 1—disagree strongly; 2—disagree; 3—neither agree nor disagree; 4—agree; 5—agree strongly. Source: ISSP (2015).
A comparison of the level of nationalism among Praguers and non-Praguers. Note: Index computed as a mean of the four items: “I would rather be a citizen of the Czech Republic than of any other country in the world”; “The world would be a better place if people from other countries were more like the Czechs”; “Generally speaking, the Czech Republic is a better country than most other countries”; and “People should support their country even if the country is in the wrong.” 1—disagree strongly; 2—disagree; 3—neither agree nor disagree; 4—agree; 5—agree strongly. Source: ISSP (2015).

j.jnmlp-2021-0010.tab.004

Value dimensions Basic human values Items Item labels
Openness to change SD ipcrtiv Important to think new ideas and being creative
Openness to change SD impfree Important to make own decisions and be free
Openness to change ST impdiff Important to try new and different things in life
Openness to change ST ipadvnt Important to seek adventures and have an exciting life
Openness to change HE ipgdtim Important to have a good time
Openness to change HE impfun Important to seek fun and things that give pleasure
Conservation SE impsafe Important to live in secure and safe surroundings
Conservation SE ipstrgv Important that government is strong and ensures safety
Conservation CO ipfrule Important to do what is told and follow rules
Conservation CO ipbhprp Important to behave properly
Conservation TR ipmodst Important to be humble and modest, not draw attention
Conservation TR imptrad Important to follow traditions and customs
Individualism AC ipshabt Important to show abilities and be admired
Individualism AC ipsuces Important to be successful and that people recognize achievements
Individualism PO imprich Important to be rich, have money and expensive things
Individualism PO iprspot Important to get respect from others
Collectivism UN ipeqopt Important that people are treated equally and have equal opportunities
Collectivism UN ipudrst Important to understand different people
Collectivism UN impenv Important to care for nature and environment
Collectivism BE iphlppl Important to help people and care for others well-being
Collectivism BE iplylfr Important to be loyal to friends and devote to people close

A basic description of the Czech samples in the ISSP and ESS datasets

ISSP (2015) ESS (2016)
Prague Others Total Prague Others Total
Number of cases 216 1,693 1,909 277 1,992 2,269
11.3% 88.7% 100% 12.2% 87.8% 100%
Women 103 871 974 154 1,018 1,172
47.7% 51.4% 51.0% 55.6% 51.1% 51.7%
Age mean 47.55 46.38 45.51 45.07 46.2 46.06

Linear regression results on determinants of the four basic human values dimensions

Indicator Conservation Openness Collectivism Individualism
Gender (F=0, M=1) −0.110*** 0.057** −0.131*** 0.050*
Age 0.155*** −0.353*** 0.026 −0.232***
Household‘s total net income 0.019 0.138*** 0.085** 0.221***
Domicile—big city and its suburbs
Domicile—town or small city 0.069* 0.033 0.044 0.058*
Domicile—village or countryside farm 0.022 0.006 −0.071* 0.023
Basic school
High school without A-level −0.001 −0.045 −0.028 −0.048
High school with A-level −0.004 −0.007 −0.027 −0.058*
University or post A-level diploma 0.024 0.076** 0.040 0.073**
Prague region
Central Bohemian region 0.050 −0.034 0.069 0.014
South Bohemian region −0.021 −0.037 −0.004 −0.029
Plzeň region −0.009 0.019 0.006 −0.036
Karlovy Vary region −0.043 −0.017 −0.019 −0.046
Ústí nad Labem region −0.072* −0.050 −0.075* −0.06*
Liberec region 0.024 0.024 0.011 −0.017
Hradec Králové region 0.019 0.034 0.040 −0.005
Pardubice region −0.034 −0.015 −0.017 −0.034
Vysočina region −0.026 −0.057* −0.053 −0.03
South Moravian region 0.035 −0.019 0.099** −0.051
Olomouc region 0.037 0.072** 0.041 0.085**
Zlín region 0.053 −0.005 0.048 −0.03
Moravian-Silesian region 0.122*** 0.015 0.073* 0.023
Adjusted R2 0.058 0.216 0.052 0.172

Linear regression results on determinants of the three versions of patriotism and nationalism

Indicator Patriotism 1 Patriotism 2 Patriotism 3 Nationalism
Gender (F=0, M=1) −0.023 0.015 −0.055* 0.018
Age 0.072* 0.127*** 0.213*** 0.114***
Household‘s total net income (ESS 2016) 0,110***
Household's total net income, 1st quartile (up to 17,500 CZK)
Household's total net income, 2nd quartile (up to 25,000 CZK) 0.048 0.013 0.021
Household's total net income, 3rd quartile (up to 35,000 CZK) 0.001 −0.011 −0.007
Household's total net income over, 4th quartile (over 35000 CZK) 0.036 0.026 0.023
Domicile—big city and its suburbs
Domicile—town or small city −0.111** −0.052 −0.059 −0.104**
Domicile - Village or countryside home −0.031 −0.043 −0.125*** −0.028
Basic school
High school without A-level 0.001 0.038 −0.026 −0.015
High school with A-level −0.008 0.074 −0.032 −0.029
University of post A-level diploma −0.004 0.031 −0.009 −0.097*
Prague region
Central Bohemian region 0.126** 0.075 0.093** 0.122**
South Bohemian region 0.079* 0.038 0.019 0.049
Plzeň region −0.016 −0.031 −0.023 −0.003
Karlovy Vary region −0.026 −0.002 −0.033 0.018
Ústí nad Labem region 0.084* −0.008 −0.020 0.181***
Liberec region 0.036 0.060* 0.082** 0.051
Hradec Králové region 0.070* 0.032 0.096** 0.072*
Pardubice region 0.018 −0.023 −0.014 0.082*
Vysočina region 0.103** 0.085* −0.007 0.135***
South Moravian region −0.041 −0.111** 0.005 −0.018
Olomouc region 0.105** 0.029 0.098** 0.075*
Moravian-Silesian region 0.053 −0.061 0.097** 0.009
Zlín region 0.042 0.000 0.093** 0.045
Adjusted R2 0.030 0.043 0.069 0.055

Adorno, Theodor W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Row. AdornoTheodor W. Frenkel-BrunswikElse LevinsonDaniel J. SanfordR. Nevitt 1950 The Authoritarian Personality New York Harper & Row Search in Google Scholar

Albert, Ethel M. 1956. “The Classification of Values: A Method and Illustration.” American Anthropologist 58 (2): 221–48. AlbertEthel M. 1956 “The Classification of Values: A Method and Illustration.” American Anthropologist 58 2 221 48 10.1525/aa.1956.58.2.02a00020 Search in Google Scholar

Bahna, Miloslav. 2019. “Context Matters: Measuring Nationalism in the Countries of the Former Czechoslovakia.” Nationalities Papers 47 (1): 2–19. BahnaMiloslav 2019 “Context Matters: Measuring Nationalism in the Countries of the Former Czechoslovakia.” Nationalities Papers 47 1 2 19 10.1017/nps.2018.21 Search in Google Scholar

Berry, Brian J. L. and Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn. 2011. “An Urban-Rural Happiness Gradient.” Urban Geography 32(6): 871–883. BerryBrian J. L. Okulicz-KozarynAdam 2011 “An Urban-Rural Happiness Gradient.” Urban Geography 32 6 871 883 10.2747/0272-3638.32.6.871 Search in Google Scholar

Burke, Peter J. and Jan E. Stets. 2009. Identity Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. BurkePeter J. StetsJan E. 2009 Identity Theory New York Oxford University Press 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388275.001.0001 Search in Google Scholar

Carter, J. Scott and Casey A. Borch. 2005. “Assessing the Effects of Urbanism and Religionism on Gender-Role Attitudes, 1974–1998.” Sociological Inquiry 74 (4): 548–563. CarterJ. Scott BorchCasey A. 2005 “Assessing the Effects of Urbanism and Religionism on Gender-Role Attitudes, 1974–1998.” Sociological Inquiry 74 4 548 563 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2005.00136.x Search in Google Scholar

Černá, Daniela. 2018. “‘Drahoš dělal, že mě nevidí, aby se neušpinil.’ Okamura vypráví, co se mu stalo 17. listopadu.” ParlamentníListy.cz, January 13, 2018. https://www.parlament-nilisty.cz/arena/rozhovory/-Drahos-delal-ze-me-nevidi-aby-se-neuspinil-Okamura-vypravi-co-se-mu-stalo-17-listopadu-519814?fbclid=IwAR0nwjktwUjStRRQUk9R38tOyZGdQdQKUs6RMuQc_9SaBdIr9mdYGzYPA1. ČernáDaniela 2018 “‘Drahoš dělal, že mě nevidí, aby se neušpinil.’ Okamura vypráví, co se mu stalo 17. listopadu.” ParlamentníListy.cz January 13 2018 https://www.parlament-nilisty.cz/arena/rozhovory/-Drahos-delal-ze-me-nevidi-aby-se-neuspinil-Okamura-vypravi-co-se-mu-stalo-17-listopadu-519814?fbclid=IwAR0nwjktwUjStRRQUk9R38tOyZGdQdQKUs6RMuQc_9SaBdIr9mdYGzYPA1. Search in Google Scholar

Coenders, Marcel and Peer Scheepers. 2003. “The Effect of Education on Nationalism and Ethnic Exclusionism: An International Comparison.” Political Psychology 24 (2): 313–343. CoendersMarcel ScheepersPeer 2003 “The Effect of Education on Nationalism and Ethnic Exclusionism: An International Comparison.” Political Psychology 24 2 313 343 10.1111/0162-895X.00330 Search in Google Scholar

Czech Statistical Office. 2014. “Úroveň vzdělání obyvatelstva podle výsledků sčítání lidu.” [The level of education of the population according to the results of the census]. Accessed March 16, 2020. https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/20536250/17023214.pdf/7545a15a-8565-458b-b4e3-e8bf43255b12?version=1.1. Czech Statistical Office 2014 “Úroveň vzdělání obyvatelstva podle výsledků sčítání lidu.” [The level of education of the population according to the results of the census] Accessed March 16, 2020. https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/20536250/17023214.pdf/7545a15a-8565-458b-b4e3-e8bf43255b12?version=1.1. Search in Google Scholar

Czech Statistical Office. 2020. “Comparion of Regions in the Czech Republic 2019.” Accessed March 16, 2020. https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/5-macroeconomic-indicators-rso98cuz69. Czech Statistical Office 2020 “Comparion of Regions in the Czech Republic 2019.” Accessed March 16, 2020. https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/5-macroeconomic-indicators-rso98cuz69. Search in Google Scholar

Dekker, Henk, Darina Malová, and Sander Hoogendoorn. 2003. “Nationalism and Its Explanations.” Political Psychology 24(2): 345–376. DekkerHenk MalováDarina HoogendoornSander 2003 “Nationalism and Its Explanations.” Political Psychology 24 2 345 376 10.1111/0162-895X.00331 Search in Google Scholar

ESS Round 8: European Social Survey Round 8 Data. 2016. Data file edition 2.1. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC. ESS Round 8: European Social Survey Round 8 Data 2016 Data file edition 2.1. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC Search in Google Scholar

Fajkusová, Lucie. 2015. “Lokální identita Pražských novousedlíků – lidé z Kroměříže.” [Prague Newcomers Local Identity - people of Kroměříž]. Bachelor thesis, Karlova Univerzita v Praze. FajkusováLucie 2015 “Lokální identita Pražských novousedlíků – lidé z Kroměříže.” [Prague Newcomers Local Identity - people of Kroměříž] Bachelor thesis, Karlova Univerzita v Praze Search in Google Scholar

Feather, N. T. 1980. “Value Systems and Social interaction: A Field Study in a Newly Independent Nation.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 10 (1): 1–19. FeatherN. T. 1980 “Value Systems and Social interaction: A Field Study in a Newly Independent Nation.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 10 1 1 19 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1980.tb00689.x Search in Google Scholar

Fendrych, Martin. 2018. “Zeman zradil svoji vlast, jedná v zájmu Ruska, je pátou kolonou Moskvy v Praze.” Aktuálně.cz, May 4, 2018, Accessed March 27, 2020. https://nazory.aktualne.cz/komentare/zeman-zradil-svoji-vlast-jedna-v-zajmu-ruska-pata-kolona/r~738631944f8411e88b47ac1f6b220ee8/. FendrychMartin 2018 “Zeman zradil svoji vlast, jedná v zájmu Ruska, je pátou kolonou Moskvy v Praze.” Aktuálně.cz May 4 2018 Accessed March 27, 2020. https://nazory.aktualne.cz/komentare/zeman-zradil-svoji-vlast-jedna-v-zajmu-ruska-pata-kolona/r~738631944f8411e88b47ac1f6b220ee8/. Search in Google Scholar

Fuguitt, Glenn V. 1963. “The City and Countryside.” Rural Sociology 28 (3): 246–261. FuguittGlenn V. 1963 “The City and Countryside.” Rural Sociology 28 3 246 261 Search in Google Scholar

Fulton, David C., Michael J. Manfredo, and James Lipscomb. 1996. “Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual measurement approach.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal 1 (2): 24–47. FultonDavid C. ManfredoMichael J. LipscombJames 1996 “Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual measurement approach.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal 1 2 24 47 10.1080/10871209609359060 Search in Google Scholar

Greenfield, Patricia M. 2009. “Linking Social Change and Developmental Change: Shifting Pathways of Human Development.” Developmental Psychology 45 (2): 401–418. GreenfieldPatricia M 2009 “Linking Social Change and Developmental Change: Shifting Pathways of Human Development.” Developmental Psychology 45 2 401 418 10.1037/a0014726 Search in Google Scholar

Hloušek, Vít, and Lubomír Kopeček. 2008. “Cleavages in the Contemporary Czech and Slovak Politics Between Persistence and Change.” East European Politics and Societies: and Cultures 22 (3): 518–552. HloušekVít KopečekLubomír 2008 “Cleavages in the Contemporary Czech and Slovak Politics Between Persistence and Change.” East European Politics and Societies: and Cultures 22 3 518 552 10.1177/0888325408315833 Search in Google Scholar

Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. HofstedeGeert 2001 Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations Thousand Oaks Sage Publications Search in Google Scholar

ISSP Research Group. 2015. “International Social Survey Programme: National Identity IIIISSP 2013.” GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5950 Data file Version 2.0.0. ISSP Research Group 2015 “International Social Survey Programme: National Identity IIIISSP 2013.” GESIS Data Archive Cologne ZA5950 Data file Version 2.0.0. Search in Google Scholar

Jandourek, Jan. 2018. “Myšlenky babišolidí: Havloidi, pražská kavárna, demozumpa, lepšolidi, ODS kdu-čsl piráti top09.” Forum 24, December 30, 2018, Accessed March 27, 2020. https://www.forum24.cz/myslenky-babisolidi-havloidi-prazska-kavarna-demozumpa-lepsolidi-ods-kdu-csl-pirati-top09/. JandourekJan 2018 “Myšlenky babišolidí: Havloidi, pražská kavárna, demozumpa, lepšolidi, ODS kdu-čsl piráti top09.” Forum 24 December 30 2018 Accessed March 27, 2020. https://www.forum24.cz/myslenky-babisolidi-havloidi-prazska-kavarna-demozumpa-lepsolidi-ods-kdu-csl-pirati-top09/. Search in Google Scholar

Jha, Shalini Duggal, and Kamlesh Singh. 2011. “An Analysis of Individualism-Collectivism Across Northern India.” Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology 37 (1): 149–156. JhaShalini Duggal SinghKamlesh 2011 “An Analysis of Individualism-Collectivism Across Northern India.” Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology 37 1 149 156 Search in Google Scholar

Jones, F. L., and Philip Smith. 2001. “Individual and Societal Bases of National Identity: A Comparative Multi-level Analysis.” European Sociological Review 17 (2): 103–118. JonesF. L. SmithPhilip 2001 “Individual and Societal Bases of National Identity: A Comparative Multi-level Analysis.” European Sociological Review 17 2 103 118 10.1093/esr/17.2.103 Search in Google Scholar

Kelman, Herbert C. 1997. “Nationalism, Patriotism, and National Identity: Social–Psychological Dimensions.” In Patriotism in the lives of individuals and nations, edited by Daniel Bar-Tal, and Ervin Staub (eds.), 165–89. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers. KelmanHerbert C. 1997 “Nationalism, Patriotism, and National Identity: Social–Psychological Dimensions.” In Patriotism in the lives of individuals and nations edited by Bar-TalDaniel StaubErvin (eds.), 165 89 Chicago Nelson-Hall Publishers Search in Google Scholar

Kosterman, Rick, and Seymour Feshbach. 1989. “Toward a Measure of Patriotic and Nationalistic Attitudes.” Political Psychology 10 (2): 257–274. KostermanRick FeshbachSeymour 1989 “Toward a Measure of Patriotic and Nationalistic Attitudes.” Political Psychology 10 2 257 274 10.2307/3791647 Search in Google Scholar

Lalli, Marco. 1992. “Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirici findings.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 12 (4): 285–303. LalliMarco 1992 “Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirici findings.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 12 4 285 303 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80078-7 Search in Google Scholar

Lewicka, Maria. 2008. “Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 28 (3): 209–231. LewickaMaria 2008 “Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 28 3 209 231 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.001 Search in Google Scholar

Meisel, John. 1993. “Capital Cities: What is a Capital?” In Capital Cities/Les Capitales: International Perspectives/Perspectives Internationales, edited by John Taylor, Jean G. Lengellé, and Caroline Andrew (eds.), 3–6. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. MeiselJohn 1993 “Capital Cities: What is a Capital?” In Capital Cities/Les Capitales: International Perspectives/Perspectives Internationales edited by TaylorJohn LengelléJean G. AndrewCaroline (eds.), 3 6 Ottawa Carleton University Press Search in Google Scholar

Minogue, Kenneth R. 1967. “Nationalism: The Poverty of a Concept.” European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie 8 (2): 332–343. MinogueKenneth R. 1967 “Nationalism: The Poverty of a Concept.” European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie 8 2 332 343 10.1017/S0003975600001582 Search in Google Scholar

Nolte, Claire. 2007. “Voluntary Associations and Nation-building in Nineteenth-century Prague.” In Different Paths to the Nation: Regional and National Identities in Central Europe and Italy, 1830–70, edited by Laurence Cole (ed.), 82–99. London: Palgrave Macmillan. NolteClaire 2007 “Voluntary Associations and Nation-building in Nineteenth-century Prague.” In Different Paths to the Nation: Regional and National Identities in Central Europe and Italy, 1830–70 edited by ColeLaurence (ed.), 82 99 London Palgrave Macmillan 10.1057/9780230801424_5 Search in Google Scholar

OECD. 2014. OECD Regional Outlook 2014: Regions and Cities: Where Policies and People Meet. OECD Publishing. OECD 2014 OECD Regional Outlook 2014: Regions and Cities: Where Policies and People Meet OECD Publishing Search in Google Scholar

Panenka, Radim. 2016. “Exkluzivní VIDEO: Miloš Zeman rozstřílel ‘totalitní pražskou kavárnu’ a její média. Tak drsně jako dosud ne. To způsobí úžas.” ParlamentníListy.cz, June 17, Accessed February 27, 2020. https://www.parlamentnilisty.cz/arena/rozhovory/Exkluzivni-VIDEO-Milos-Zeman-rozstrilel-totalitni-prazskou-kavarnu-a-jeji-media-Tak-drsne-jako-dosud-ne-To-zpusobi-uzas-440834. PanenkaRadim 2016 “Exkluzivní VIDEO: Miloš Zeman rozstřílel ‘totalitní pražskou kavárnu’ a její média. Tak drsně jako dosud ne. To způsobí úžas.” ParlamentníListy.cz June 17 Accessed February 27, 2020. https://www.parlamentnilisty.cz/arena/rozhovory/Exkluzivni-VIDEO-Milos-Zeman-rozstrilel-totalitni-prazskou-kavarnu-a-jeji-media-Tak-drsne-jako-dosud-ne-To-zpusobi-uzas-440834. Search in Google Scholar

Proshansky, Harold M. 1978. “The City and Self-Identity.” Environment and Behavior 10 (2): 147–169. ProshanskyHarold M. 1978 “The City and Self-Identity.” Environment and Behavior 10 2 147 169 10.1177/0013916578102002 Search in Google Scholar

Proshansky, Harold M., Abbe K. Fabian, and Robert Kaminoff. 1983. “Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 3 (1): 57–83. ProshanskyHarold M. FabianAbbe K. KaminoffRobert 1983 “Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 3 1 57 83 10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80021-8 Search in Google Scholar

Raeff, Catherine, Patricia Marks Greenfield, and Blanca Quiroz. 2000. “Conceptualizing interpersonal relationships in the cultural contexts of individualism and collectivism.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development (87): 59–74. RaeffCatherine GreenfieldPatricia Marks QuirozBlanca 2000 “Conceptualizing interpersonal relationships in the cultural contexts of individualism and collectivism.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 87 59 74 10.1002/cd.23220008706 Search in Google Scholar

Regional Office of the Czech Statistical Office in the Capital City of Prague, Information Services Unit. 2013. Sčítání lidu, domů a bytů 2011 – Hlavní město Praha – analýza výsledků. [Population and Housing Census 2011 – capital city of Prague – analysis of the results]. Prague: Czech Statistical Office. Cit 27. 3. 2020 (https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/20567427/10413513.pdf/ac6d9991-8c8e-4aac-b0e0-ad5e20ce6d8e?version=1.0). Regional Office of the Czech Statistical Office in the Capital City of Prague, Information Services Unit 2013 Sčítání lidu, domů a bytů 2011 – Hlavní město Praha – analýza výsledků. [Population and Housing Census 2011 – capital city of Prague – analysis of the results] Prague Czech Statistical Office Cit 27. 3. 2020 (https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/20567427/10413513.pdf/ac6d9991-8c8e-4aac-b0e0-ad5e20ce6d8e?version=1.0). Search in Google Scholar

Renkow, Mitch, and Dale Hoower. 2000. “Commuting, Migration, and Rural-Urban Population Dynamics.” Journal of Regional Science 40 (2): 261–287. RenkowMitch HoowerDale 2000 “Commuting, Migration, and Rural-Urban Population Dynamics.” Journal of Regional Science 40 2 261 287 10.1111/0022-4146.00174 Search in Google Scholar

Rokeach, Milton. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press. RokeachMilton 1973 The Nature of Human Values New York The Free Press Search in Google Scholar

Schwartz, Shalom H. 2003. “A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations.” In Core ESS Questionnaire, 259–319, Accessed March 11, 2020. https://www.european-socialsurvey.org/docs/methodology/core_ess_questionnaire/ESS_core_questionnaire_human_values.pdf. SchwartzShalom H. 2003 “A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations.” In Core ESS Questionnaire 259 319 Accessed March 11, 2020. https://www.european-socialsurvey.org/docs/methodology/core_ess_questionnaire/ESS_core_questionnaire_human_values.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

Schwartz, Shalom H. 2012. “An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values.” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2 (1). SchwartzShalom H. 2012 “An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values.” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2 1 10.9707/2307-0919.1116 Search in Google Scholar

Seamon, David. 1979. A Geography of the Lifeworld: Movement, Rest and Encounter. London: Croom Helm. SeamonDavid. 1979 A Geography of the Lifeworld: Movement, Rest and Encounter London Croom Helm Search in Google Scholar

Šmídová Matoušková, Olga, and Lucie Markvartová. 2011. “Vizuální představy o české společnosti 1989-2009 v kolektivní paměti: Město a venkov v obrazech a v příbězích o obrazech.” [Visual imagery of Czech society in collective memory between the years 1989 and 2009: The city and the countryside in pictures and in stories about pictures]. Biograf (55): 27–62. Šmídová MatouškováOlga MarkvartováLucie 2011 “Vizuální představy o české společnosti 1989-2009 v kolektivní paměti: Město a venkov v obrazech a v příbězích o obrazech.” [Visual imagery of Czech society in collective memory between the years 1989 and 2009: The city and the countryside in pictures and in stories about pictures] Biograf 55 27 62 Search in Google Scholar

Tajfel, Henri. 1982. “Social psychology of intergroup relations.” Annual Review of Psychology 33: 1–39. TajfelHenri 1982 “Social psychology of intergroup relations.” Annual Review of Psychology 33 1 39 10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245 Search in Google Scholar

Tajfel, Henri, and John Turner. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” In The social psychology of intergroup relations, edited by William G. Austin and Stephen Worchel (eds.), 33–48. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. TajfelHenri TurnerJohn 1979 “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” In The social psychology of intergroup relations edited by AustinWilliam G. WorchelStephen (eds.), 33 48 Monterey, CA Brooks/Cole Search in Google Scholar

Triandis, Harry C. 2018. Individualism & Collectivism. New York: Routledge. TriandisHarry C. 2018 Individualism & Collectivism New York Routledge 10.4324/9780429499845 Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Thomas C. 1991. “Urbanism, Migration, and Tolerance: A Reassessment.” American Sociological Review 56 (1): 117–123. WilsonThomas C. 1991 “Urbanism, Migration, and Tolerance: A Reassessment.” American Sociological Review 56 1 117 123 10.2307/2095677 Search in Google Scholar

Williams, Jr. Robin M. 1979. “Change and Stability in Values and Value Systems: A Sociological Perspective.” In Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal, edited by Milton Rokeach (ed), 15–46. New York: The Free Press. WilliamsRobin M.Jr. 1979 “Change and Stability in Values and Value Systems: A Sociological Perspective.” In Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal edited by RokeachMilton (ed), 15 46 New York The Free Press Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo