What Is an “Ethnic Group” in Ordinary People’s Eyes? Different Ways of Understanding It Among American,British,Mexican,and Polish Respondents

Introduction

The terms “ethnic group” (EG) or “ethnicity” have been studied by a range of disciplines including statistics, demography, political science, sociology, history, ethnology, and anthropology, as well as geography and psychology. A quick look into the Academic Databases EBSCO shows more than 57,000 hits for EG in the PsycInfo database alone, with another 36,000 for “ethnicity.” However, there is no agreement on their definitions across or even within disciplines, as researchers differ in perceiving their content and scope (see, for example, Banton, 2007; Barth, 1969; Bhopal & Donaldson, 1998; Gil-White, 2005; Phinney, 1996; Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001). Some researchers simply avoid defining the term—Isajiw’s (1974) meta-analysis of 65 sociological and anthropological studies dealing with ethnicity showed that only 13 of them included a definition. Their reason may be what Omi and Winant (1994) summarized as “The definition of the terms ‘ethnic group’ and ‘ethnicity’ is muddy” (p. 14). Furthermore, the meaning of “ethnic group” has changed and is changing constantly (Zelinsky, 2001).

There is also much confusion in the way people across countries and cultures use the terms (Shiraev & Levy, 2004). Some researchers use the word “ethnicity” interchangeably, with “race” (e.g., in the United States), some with “nation” (e.g., in Eastern Europe; also see Peterson, Søndergaard, & Kara, 2018; Vermeulen, 2015; Zelinsky, 2001), and others with “culture” (see, for example, Benet-Martínez & Hong, 2014; Benet-Martínez & Oishi, 2008; Bobowik, Martinovic, Basabe, Barsties, & Wachter, 2017; Brubaker, Loveman, & Stamatov, 2004; Deaux & Verkuyten, 2014; Fouad & Byars-Winston, 2005; Gil-White, 2005; Phinney, 1996; Shiraev & Levy, 2004; Smedley & Smedley, 2005; Vermeulen & Govers, 1994). Moreover, human groups are constantly moving and mixing and, as a result, people have some freedom to choose their cultural and ethnic identities and the group with which they want to identify. Thus, such phenomena as ethnic or national identity are becoming increasingly dynamic and based on the differing interests, ideas, and choices of individuals (Burton, Greenberger, & Hayward, 2005; Shiraev & Levy, 2004).

If there is so much ambiguity in defining “ethnic group” among scholars, it seems important to examine how ordinary people define the term. This knowledge is crucial, for example, in conducting research. In psychological or sociological studies, participants’ characteristics are often used and one of these characteristics is self-ascribed ethnicity or EG. When asked to identify their EG, how do respondents understand this term? And, is that understanding constant across cultures, or does it vary from culture to culture? Answering such questions is vital for the interpretation and application of the results of studies of ethnicity, including large-scale international surveys, such as the World Values Survey (n.d.) or the European Values Study (n.d.). Before results of such cross-national surveys can be compared, researchers must understand the meanings that members of the surveyed cultures assign to these concepts. Conceptualizations and operationalizations of such concepts should take into account the differences in how this term is understood by individuals from different countries.

In addition, the term “ethnic group” is often used in media and public debates on important social issues (for examples from the United Kingdom, the United States, Poland, and Mexico, see, for example, Duncan & Edwards, 2017; Jedlecki, 2016; Klimas, 2018; Milenio Digital, 2017; Slawson, 2017; Weinstein, 2018). Meanwhile, less research exists on how individuals understand the term. The starting point to understanding the meaning of concepts, including “ethnic group,” is to realize that these concepts, as both social practice and ideology, manifest themselves discursively (Wodak & Reisigl, 2003). Exploring it is of great importance, because people’s understanding of the social world has an impact on attitudes and behaviors in social, political, and economic dimensions (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005). The popular understanding of the term “ethnic group” is no exception, particularly because attitudes toward minority EGs have been shown to influence social cohesion, attitudes toward public policy initiatives, and support for specific political parties (e.g., Dustmann & Preston, 2001; Verkuyten, 2018).

The research reported in this article addresses the question on how ordinary people understand the term “ethnic group.” We expect the EG definitions to depend on sociocultural context; hence, this research is conducted in four different countries in two continents, each possessing a different sociocultural context, ethnic makeup, and history. In a cross-sectional study, U.S., U.K., Mexican, and Polish participants were asked to describe their understandings of the term “ethnic group.” Their answers were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Various Definitions of the Term “Ethnic Group”

The term “ethnic” was derived from the word ethnos (Greek: people or nation), and during the 18th century became the object of research in ethnology, which is now called cultural anthropology in the United States and social anthropology in the United Kingdom (Vermeulen, 2015). The word “ethnic” was used by Homer to describe a swarm or flock of animals, “a biologically defined grouping” (Sekulić, 2008, p. 456). Later, it was applied to humans to mean a unity of persons of common culture and language or of common blood and descent. At some point, “ethnic” also indicated pagans, and by the 20th century, it was used to refer to “others,” those who were not “us” (Schaefer, 2008; Sekulić, 2008).

The latter way of defining EG as “otherness” and “minority” can be still found in some scholars’ work (e.g., Phinney, 1996) and in contemporary dictionaries, which are a common source of knowledge for laypeople or media. For example, Oxford Dictionaries define EG as

Relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition: 1.1 Relating to national and cultural origins; 1.2 Denoting origin by birth or descent rather than by present nationality <ethnic Indian populations>; 1.3 Characteristic of or belonging to a non-Western cultural tradition. (Ethnic, n.d.-b)

This has been called “minus one” ethnicity as members of the dominant group omit their own when adding up the number of EGs (Banton, 1998). Thus, ethnic identity might refer to identification with a group that is perceived as being different from the majority, whether for cultural, “racial,” or religious reasons (Persky & Birman, 2005; see also Merino & Tileagă, 2011; Verkuyten & de Wolf, 2002a, 2002b). At some point, the historical meaning of “ethnic,” which meant “different from the majority” or the “outsider,” shifted from implying religious differences to cultural ones (Persky & Birman, 2005). For example, Aboud and Skerry (1984) use the term “ethnic group” to refer to a socially and/or psychologically defined set of people who share a common culture or cultural background, often because of similarity of “race,” nationality, or religion. Ross (1997) argues that “ethnic groups are social and political, but also cultural, groupings” (p. 300). Interestingly, “ethnic” in this context often means identification with the culture of origin, not with a new culture or society, which may be multiethnic (Phinney et al., 2001).

However, from 1975 on, the term ethnicity started to be used when referring to all groups in a society “characterized by a distinct sense of difference because of culture and descent” (Sekulić, 2008, p. 456), including majority groups. This way of defining EG also can be found in contemporary dictionaries (see, for example, Ethnic, n.d.-a). Through this evolution, the meaning of ethnicity came closer to the European concept of nationality (Schaefer, 2008; Sekulić, 2008).

The “nonminority” approach to an understanding of “ethnic group” was strongly endorsed in the 19th century by Max Weber, who focused on the subjective belief of group members that they have common descent, perceived ancestry, culture, and language. “Subjective belief in common descent can be based on a similarity of physical type and custom, but which cultural components are important varies from group to group” (Sekulić, 2008, p. 457). Adding physical features to the definition of EG made it closer to the term “race,” which for Weber belonged to one category with ethnicity (Banton, 2007; Sekulić, 2008).

EGs are, therefore, subject to change and redefinition, as the result of a social process in which people draw boundaries around themselves, producing and reproducing culture, acknowledging ancestry, and using their language as an emblem of the group (Sekulić, 2008). Also, according to Barth (1969), EGs are not fixed; instead, they are open, flexible, and often self-defined. This approach suggests that ethnicity is transmissible to other people because culture traits are learned (Smedley & Smedley, 2005).

Analyzing definitions of ethnicity in 65 sociological and anthropological studies, Isajiw (1974) identified 10 of its most common attributes, as follows (from the most common): common geographical or national roots or common ancestry; common culture, practices, religion, physical, or racial; language; we-consciousness; loyalty and community; social bond domination; common values; separate institutions; minority status; and immigration genesis.

More recently, Zelinsky (2001) examined the many ways that EG has been defined: as minority or political status, attachment to a location, sharing a common language, religion, or place of origin. He found all inadequate, as for him, EG is simply a social construction that arises in many historical circumstances and evolves constantly. Instead, he offers a “stripped-down” definition as follows: “The ethnic group is any substantial aggregation of persons who are perceived by themselves and/or others to share a unique set of cultural and historical commonalities” (Zelinsky, 2001, p. 43).

“Ethnic Group” and Cultural Context

The history of the distinctions between the terms “ethnicity,” “race,” nations, and EGs is highly complicated (Vermeulen, 2015). From American researchers’ perspective, especially in psychology and sociology, ethnicity is very much connected to “race,” with the two concepts strongly overlapping (Phinney & Ong, 2007). For example, Huynh, Devos, and Altman (2015), who examined the prototypicality of different EGs for American identity, took into consideration European American, Asian American, Latino/as, and African American EGs. Similar confusion appears in the United Kingdom, where “race is generally classified in U.K. policy documents as equivalent to ethnicity” (Evans, 2010, p. 119). However, Benet-Martínez (2008; Benet-Martínez & Oishi, 2008) calls using the terms “ethnicity” and “race” interchangeably a common mistake, as “ethnicity” usually implies a shared identity and cultural ancestry whereas “race” does not (see also Schaefer, 2008). Similar problems concern confusing “ethnicity” and “culture,” as “culture” is viewed as a broader concept (Benet-Martínez, 2008; Minkov & Hofstede, 2011).

In addition, there are many problems and misunderstandings about the term “race,” starting from doubts about its biological reality (see, for example, Banton, 1998, 2015; López Beltrán, 2000; Smedley & Smedley, 2005). A theory of permanent racial types is called “the most serious source of misunderstanding” and “an error in the science of pre-Darwinian era” (Banton, 1998, p. 3), whereas “race” is seen as “a pseudo-scientific concept” (Quraishi & Philburn, 2015, p. 122). From the perspective of genetics, the assumption of different human “races” is incorrect, as it implies the existence of “pure races.” Because all human populations have diverse genetic origins, this notion has been known for more than a century to lack scientific justification (Banton, 1998). As Fenton adds, “the degree of variation within postulated races came to be recognized as greater than the variation between them” (Fenton, 1999, p. 5). Moreover, the term “race” can be understood in many different ways—as a lineage, subspecies, class, status, or social construct (Banton, 1998; Wodak & Reisigl, 2003). Because of such confusions, and their consequences during World War II (WWII), the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) committee on “race” suggested to replace this term with “ethnic group” (UNESCO, 1952), a new term coined by Deniker (1926). As Ashley Montagu, who chaired the committee, pointed out, national, religious, linguistic, geographic, and cultural groups do not coincide with “racial group” (as cited in Vermeulen, 2015; see also UNESCO, 1952).

Thus, many researchers argue that ethnicity refers to people who, apart from “race,” also share origins or social background, a common language, a specific geographic location, religious tradition and identity, and a set of traditions and customs that distinguish their EG from others in their “racial” group, including style of speech and/or style of dress (e.g., Benet-Martínez & Hong, 2014; Senior & Bhopal, 1994).

The editors of the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, Thernstrom, Orlov, and Handlin (1980), recognizing that ethnicity is an immensely complex concept, decided to treat as “ethnic groups” any aggregate characterized by some of the 14 following features, although in combinations that vary considerably (Smith, 1982): common geographic origins; migratory status; “race”; language or dialect; religious faith or faiths; ties that transcend kinship, neighborhood, and community boundaries; shared traditions, values, symbols; literature, folklore and music; food preferences; settlement and employment patterns; special interests with regard to politics in the homeland and in the United States; institutions that specifically serve and maintain the group; an internal sense of distinctiveness; and an external perception of distinctiveness.

Their approach demonstrates the categories valid for understanding ethnicity in the United States, but would they be valid for other countries and cultures as well? Not necessarily, as an example with the term “nation” shows. According to Sekulić (2008), the evolution of the meaning of EG made the term closer to the European concept of “nationality,” present especially in some Central and Eastern European countries such as Poland. In the United States, the term “ethnicity” usually indicates cultural heritage, the experience shared by people who have a common ancestral origin, language, traditions, and often religious and geographic territory, and is used to refer to subgroups within a larger national context (e.g., Phinney et al., 2001). However, “nation” is defined similarly—as people who share common geographical origin, history, and language, with a significant addition–unification as a political entity. Thus, it seems that for some cultures, “ethnic group” is more a subgroup within “nation” (being a larger context for them), whereas in others, EG and “nation” are more closely tied, representing a similar, or even the same, level of categorization.

Moreover, according to Weber, there are no universal cultural traits characterizing EGs, as many traits can play the role of differentiating one group from others: language, religion, hairdo, clothes, food and eating habits, division of labor between group members, and so forth (Sekulić, 2008). Thus, there cannot be a universal definition of “ethnic group” except the idea of common descent and some cultural or physical markers (Sekulić, 2008).

Finally, the census’ or surveys’ format of closed-ended questions brings additional problems. “Methodological studies of census questions about ‘race’ and ethnicity, for instance, show that responses are affected, often remarkably so, by the format of questions, the listed choices, and the examples included in questionnaire instructions” (Perez & Hirschman, 2009, p. 3). In social studies, asking about belonging to an “ethnic group” usually means giving participants a set of choices, triggering only one way of understanding the term in their minds, without examining how they understand it. The present study seeks to explore the issue of lay definitions of “ethnic group,” a topic the examination of which is of growing importance.

Present Study

To date, no research has explored which categories play a crucial role in ordinary people’s understanding of the term “ethnic group,” especially in different cultures. What are the main patterns they use to define EG in different cultural contexts? The present cross-sectional study fills this gap by exploring (a) understandings of an “ethnic group” reported by U.S., U.K., Mexican, and Polish samples of nonspecialists; and (b) differences in patterns of understanding of this term in the countries studied, connected to their ethnocultural context.

Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the qualitative typology of the answers, we did not formulate specific hypotheses, but developed some guiding expectations based on the ethnic makeup, national history, geographic location, religious, and sociocultural characteristics of the four countries.

The selection of countries for the study (Mexico, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Poland) was based on their differences in the mentioned areas and the various roles they play in the global migration movements: The United States and the United Kingdom receive the most immigrants, and they often originate in Poland and/or Mexico (Hallett, 2016).

These four countries also differ on many dimensions of cultural comparisons. For example, on the two dimensions of the Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map, Poland and Mexico are more on the traditional side of the “traditional” versus “secular rational” value dimensions than are the United States and the United Kingdom, which means a higher importance of religion, higher levels of national pride, and a more nationalistic outlook for Poles and Mexicans than for U.S. and British citizens. Poland is also more on the “survival” side of the “survival” versus “self-expression” dimension than the remaining three countries, which means more emphasis on economic and physical security and a relatively ethnocentric outlook (World Values Survey, 2015).

The Inglehart–Welzel approach was expanded by Haller (2002), introducing the “deeper level-analysis” for both dimensions, which also differentiates the four countries analyzed in this article. His analysis of the “survival” versus “self-expression” dimension resulted in the concept of “nationhood”—the process of nation building and the security and pride of national identity. Moreover, following the “traditional” versus “secular-rational” values dimension, Haller (2002) differentiated general types of relations between religions/churches and states.

The characteristics of the four countries tested, which may be necessary for understanding the potential differences in “ethnic group” definitions are summarized below.

In Haller’s analysis, the United Kingdom is described as a typical example of a “state nation” in which the state created the nation by introducing comprehensive education and language, national symbols, and so forth, as a deliberate political strategy. Anyone may become a member of such a “state nation” if they are willing to learn its language and respect its laws and institutions (Haller, 2002). The United Kingdom is also an example of a country where the comprehensive state renders superfluous or replaces religious communities with a historical “state religion”; today, it is a quite well-developed welfare state, reporting a decline in religiosity. According to the 2011 census (Office for National Statistics [ONS], 2013), in England and Wales, 25% reported not being religious, 59% were Christians, and 5% Muslims. In Scotland’s Census (2011b), 32% declared membership in the Church of Scotland, 16% were Roman Catholics, other Catholics were 6%, Muslims were 1%, other religions were 1%, not stated were 7%, and not religious were 37%.

As for ethnic/“racial” groups officially recognized in the United Kingdom, the ONS (2011) combines “race” and nationality as an EG classification scheme. In the U.K. censuses, the majority of the resident population, 86% in England and Wales (a drop from 94% in 1991) and 96% in Scotland, indicated their EG as “White” (ONS, 2012; Scotland’s Census, 2011a). Within this EG, in England and Wales, White British was the largest (81%), followed by any Other White (4.4%), Indian (2.5%), and Pakistani (2%). In Scotland’s Census (2011a), 84% were White Scottish residents, 8% White Other British, 1% White Irish, 1% White Polish, 2% White Other (including gypsy/traveler), 3% of Asian–Asian Scottish, and 1% of Other EGs. The population is more diverse in some areas, especially in big cities. London was found to be the most ethnically diverse (also with a much lower proportion of English as a dominant language), whereas Wales was the least diverse.

English is the official and most frequently spoken language in the United Kingdom. In the 2011, 92% of people in England and Wales reported English as their main language (English or Welsh in Wales). The remaining 8% of the population had a main language other than English, including Polish, Penjabi, Urdu, Bengali, and others (ONS, 2011).

High immigration has influenced the British population. Migration Statistics Quarterly Report notes that immigration was estimated to be 268,000 E.U. citizens and 257,000 non-E.U. citizens in 2016 (ONS, 2017). These data allow us to suspect that, with high immigration rates, cultural factors, including religion and language, often different from traditional ones in the country, may be categories of rising importance in the social perception of the meaning of “ethnic group” in the United Kingdom. In addition, the fact that four countries in the United Kingdom occupy different territories and have separate censuses (as well as separate national assemblies, sports teams, etc.) suggests that British nationals may have a fine-grained identity. Thus, geographical and national references may be another important category among EG definitions in the United Kingdom.

Poland is considered a nationally and religiously homogeneous state, as the index of ethnic cohesion (more than 97%) sets it on one of the first places in Europe, and even in the world at large (Rykala, 2014). As a “monoracial” country (almost only “White,” as “race” is often understood in Poland as a skin color), Poland does not have official data on “racial” groupings—in the Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Poland, the word “race” is never used (Central Statistical Office, 2015). The Polish Ministry of Internal Affairs distinguishes nine national minorities (Belarusians, Czechs, Lithuanians, Germans, Ormians, Russians, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Jews), four ethnic minorities (Karaim, Lemko, Romani, Tatar), and one language minority (Kashubian; Ministerstwo Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji, 2017). However, according to the National Census from 2011, none of these exceeded 0.5% of the Polish population.

Polish is the official language in Poland, although in some communities, auxiliary official languages are allowed (German, Belarusian, Lithuanian, and Kashubian). As the National Census from 2002 showed, the Polish language was used at home by a group of people larger (97.8% of the overall population) than the group declaring Polish nationality (96.7%; Rykala, 2014). This was the first census after WWII to provide statistical data on the national identification of Poles.

In Haller’s (2002) analysis, Poland would be an example of an “ethno-nation.” In its history, the fight for national heritage, unity, and independence plays an important part. During the 18th century, Poland lost its independence for 123 years (until 1918), being occupied by Russia, Germany, and the Austro–Hungarian Empire. With restored independence for the period between the two world wars, after WWII, Poland fell under Soviet occupation until 1989. The need to preserve the identity of the nation during times of lost independence pushed Poles to fight for their language, culture, and history (e.g., organizing secret lessons for Polish children to cultivate Polish heritage). In addition to language and culture, the ethnic factor, that is, the (believed) community through common ancestry, plays an important role (Haller, 2002). Moreover, religion has been an important factor in the formation of many nations and the maintenance of national consciousness (Rykala, 2014), and this is definitely the case in Poland. The Catholic Church has historically been the institution that, for centuries, strongly preserved the idea of the Polish nation against dominant foreign nations, also in the time of lost independence. Therefore, until today, the church has played a complementary role to the state. According to the National Census from 2015, 92.4% of Poles consider themselves Catholic, and only 1.4% of Poles are members of other religions (Central Statistical Office, 2015).

On the basis of these considerations, we expected Poles to strongly refer to EG as connected to the nation, territory, common ancestry, religion, history, and language.

In Haller’s (2002) analysis, the United States, like the United Kingdom, is described as an example of a “state nation.” However, the United States is an example of the second type of religion–state relationship, a “complementary relationship,” where church membership and religious participation fulfill specific, important social functions not carried out by the state. With a wide variety of EGs and immigrants from around the world, membership in a religious denomination has always been an important element of social and cultural integration in the United States, with churches serving a significant role in social life (Haller, 2002). Moreover, some anti-Muslim sentiments, which appeared after the 9/11 terrorists attacks and growing anxiety about Islam’s (especially Islamic fundamentalism’s) compatibility with Western value of tolerance (Panagopoulos, 2006), may also be a basis for thinking that religion could be an important reference point in defining EG in the United States. However, religious liberty being a core value, expressed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, could suggest otherwise. Statistics show that 71% of Americans self-identify as Christian (25% Evangelical Protestant, 21% Catholic, 15% Mainline Protestant, 6% Black Protestant, 1.6% Mormon), 2% as Jewish, 1% as Muslim, 3% as other faiths (with Buddhist and Hindu both below 1%), and 23% “none/unaffiliated,” including 4% agnostic and 3% atheist (Pew Research center, n.d., 2015).

The United States boasts remarkable ethnic and “racial” diversity (Huynh et al., 2015). As for “racial” categories, the U.S. Bureau of the Census has changed them over the years (Phinney, 1996). Moreover, the boundaries between “racial” and EGs are becoming blurred by high rates of intermarriage and the growing number of persons with mixed ancestry (Lee & Bean, 2004; Perez & Hirschman, 2009). However, “race” is still an important category in U.S. society and is expected to appear in EG definitions in our study. In 2016, “racial” categories in the United States were White (comprising about 77% of the U.S. population), Hispanic (17.8%), Black or African American (13.3%), Asian American (5.7%), multiracial (2.6%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (1.3%), and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (0.2%; U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).

The United States is a country built and developed by immigrants. They came from all over the world, bringing their own culture, beliefs, religion, history, and values (see, for example, The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, n.d.). As a result of its highly mixed-origin society, it is common to have multiple countries of origin in one’s family tree. Hence, we did not expect references to the place of origin or ancestors to be very popular as an EG definition. Instead, “race” (as dominant), culture, and traditions might play the key roles.

There is great cultural and ethnic diversity in Mexico. According to the Mexican Ministry of Culture, it contains 68 different indigenous EGs (Milenio Digital, 2017), with striking genetic diversity caused mostly by territorial isolation from one another (Moreno-Estrada et al., 2014). Mexico’s population is composed of indigenous American Indians (Amerindians, 20%), Mexicans of European heritage (“Whites,” 20%), and those with a mixture of indigenous and European heritage—“mestizos” (50%-60%)—“via a complex blending of ethnic traditions and perceived ancestry” (Mexico. Ethnic groups, n.d.). Racial identity remains a powerful social construct in Mexico, exemplified by the special celebration day of heritage and “race” on October 12, the Día de la Raza (“Race Day”)—whether people conceive of themselves as indigenous, mestizo, or European. The identities of Mexicans as members of EGs may be additionally complicated, given that “ethnicity is a function of cultural patterns and traditions as varied as a group’s sense of linguistic, religious, and socioeconomic history” (Mexico. Ethnic groups, n.d.).

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica,

specific cultural areas have evolved in Mexico because of differences in physical environment, ethnicity, and settlement histories, and few of the regions correspond exactly with the country’s physiographic regions. Mexico traditionally has been divided between the Spanish-mestizo north and the Indian-mestizo south, corresponding roughly to the pre-Columbian boundary that separated the highly developed indigenous civilizations of the Mesa Central and the south from the less agriculturally dependent groups to the north. The country can be further divided into ten traditional cultural regions. (Mexico, n.d.)

However, the Mexican government has defined ethnicity as based on cultural standards rather than on “racial” ones. Between 1921 and 2015, it did not ask for the ethnicity or the “race” of its citizens. The number of indigenous people was defined narrowly based on the number of speakers of one of Mexico’s many indigenous languages or connections to established indigenous communities. According to the Mexican census conducted by Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI; 2010a), 24.4 million people identify themselves as indigenous (21.5% of the Mexican population) and/or Afro Mexican (1.2% of the population, both can be indicated simultaneously). No other groups (e.g., “mestizos,” “Whites,” or Asian descendants) are quantified by the government. However, the available estimates may be imprecise, as it is common for indigenous people, for various reasons, to deny their ethnic status (Sandoval Forero, 2002).

Mexico has 7 million citizens (7%) who speak indigenous languages. The National Institute of Indigenous Languages (Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indigenas, 2008) recognized 68 linguistic groups and 364 varieties of indigenous languages. There are 494 municipalities where more than 40% of inhabitants speak indigenous languages. Specific languages are often spoken in specific geographical areas, for example, Maya speakers constitute the majority in the rural Yucatán and the Chiapas Highlands, whereas Huasteco is spoken mostly in northern Veracruz (Mexico. Ethnic groups, n.d.).

Scholars in Mexico criticize national censuses for using the criterion of a linguistic and not of a socioanthropological nature. However, they admit that until now, it is the only cultural and social characteristic that has been possible to register as a statistical variable in censuses and population counts. For this reason, the question “who is an indigenous” from a socioanthropological perspective remains open (Sandoval Forero, 2002). Our study offers a first small step toward unraveling this mystery.

As for national minorities, in 2015, the foreign-born population was more than 1 million (INEGI, 2016), the majority of whom were born in the United States. The next largest immigrant groups are Guatemalans, Spaniards, and Colombians. Besides the Spanish, large immigrant-descended groups are the French, Germans, Lebanese, and Chinese.

As for religions, according to INEGI (2010b), 83% of Mexicans are Catholics, but there are also Protestants (8%), Jehovah’s Witnesses (1.4%), members of other religions (below 1%), and around 8% atheists and indefinites. Haller (2002) describes Mexico as a country of high religiosity where religious communities are partial substitutes for a weak state. This fact suggests a possible important role of religion in defining EGs. However, on the basis of the above considerations, it seems that, in Mexico, there are even more important categories for defining EG such as culture, language, “race,” and genes or “physical features,” as well as geographical references.

Research Questions

To sum up, on the basis of the above considerations, we expected various categories to be used by ordinary people from the countries tested to define “ethnic group.” Those used by official statistics in their countries and historical context should partially shape individuals’ definitions. However, other categories from popular dictionaries and other sources may also be salient in people’s minds, due perhaps to education, social discourses, media influence, immigration patterns, and other cultural factors.

In summary, given these cultural variations, we expected different patterns in characterizing “ethnic group” by ordinary individuals in four studied countries. Among the most popular definitions of the term, we expected the following:

We also wanted to check which perspective in defining “ethnic group” will be dominant: referring to all groups in a society, or the classic, old “minus one” definition (Banton, 1998). Finally, we expected that for the United States, the United Kingdom, and Mexico “ethnic group” would be more a subgroup within a nation, whereas in Poland, “ethnic group” and nation will be more closely tied, representing a similar, or even the same, level of categorization.

Method

Coding Procedure

Because most participants provided multifaceted definitions of “ethnic group,” their answers were partitioned into smaller, semantically different units. Each unit was coded separately as representing a certain category, following the procedure used by Delle Fave et al. (2016). Every answer could have from one to many codes.

The identification of categories was oriented by the research line of “ethnic group” definitions, described in the “Introduction” section, and was taken as the reference point to establish a preliminary list of codes. However, the grouping of items within coding categories and subcategories was also data driven, in line with the third type of the development of concept categories, particularly recommended for more complex answers (Popping, 2015).

The answers were grouped into the following categories, some broader than others: “race”; “nation/country”; “common culture/cultural background,” “common customs/traditions,” “heritage”; “religion”; “language”; “shared beliefs/values/morals”; “ancestors/family,” “genes,” and “physical features/looks”; geographical references such as “place of origin,” “sharing territory”; “common/shared history” and “common experience”; “similar activities/interests,” “common goal,” “bond within a group”; “common traits”; “social group,” “social class”; “minorities”; and “other than me.” Some categories may overlap, but we wanted to see the patterns in detail, that is, what categories in the broader category “common culture” are important in certain countries, for example, “religion,” “common customs/traditions,” “language,” and so forth.

To give an example, here is a quote from a 19-year-old Mexican male student:

It is a group with the same cultural background as language, race, nationality, country or city of origin. You may not know much about the other people in this group, as it could be anyone living in your country or speaking your language, but you can get to have a sense of belonging with just having something so small . . . in common. ¹

This quote was coded as understanding EG as “race,” “place of origin,” “nation/country,” “common culture/traditions,” and “language.”

For each country, two to four trained raters independently coded each answer unit into a coded item. Discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached, following the procedure used by Delle Fave and her colleagues (2016).

Results

We found various understandings of the term “ethnic group” in the countries studied. The percentage distribution of definitions, grouped into categories, is presented in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Percentages of Specific Types of Characteristics Reported by Participants From the Studied Countries to Describe Their Understanding of the Term “Ethnic Group,” and Derived Categories.

Category	Codes	Poland (%)	United States (%)	Mexico (%)	United Kingdom (%)
1. Race	Race	12.3	51.0	24.3	40.4
2. Direct references to “culture,” customs, and heritage	Common culture	47.5	22.2	32.4	34.0
	Common customs/traditions	19.7	4.4	31.1	10.6
	heritage	4.1	0.0	1.4	8.5
3. Nation/country	Nation/country	48.4	6.7	9.5	23.4
4. Temporal references	Common/shared history	34.4	6.7	6.9	8.5
	Common experience	9.0	6.7	2.7	4.3
	Common destiny	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.1
5. Religion	Religion/church	29.5	13.3	8.1	19.1
6. Language	Common language	30.3	2.2	13.5	2.1
7. Geographical references	Place of origin/born in . . . /roots	19.7	11	10.8	12.8
	Local, e.g., city X	4.9	0.0	2.7	0.0
	Shared territory	24.6	4.4	13.5	4.3
8. Biological references	Ancestors/family	1.6	13.3	6.8	4.3
	Genes	3.3	4.4	6.8	8.5
	Physical features/looks	4.9	2.2	13.5	4.3
9. Shared beliefs/values/morals	Shared beliefs/values/morals	9.0	15.6	14.9	14.9
10. “Minus one” understanding	“Different than me”	7.4	8.9	6.8	14.9
	Minorities	8.2	2.2	2.7	8.5
11. Interests and goals	Similar activities/interests	8.2	4.4	8.1	0.0
	Common goal	3.3	0.0	2.7	0.0
	Strong common bond within the group	3.3	4.4	2.7	0.0
12. Common traits	Common traits	1.6	4.4	2.7	2.1
13. Social class	Social group	1.6	2.2	2.7	0.0
	Social class/socioeconomic status	0.0	0.0	4.1	2.1
14. Other categories	Ethnic background	0.8	15.6	5.4	19.1
	“Hard to say”	0.0	0.0	1.4	2.1

Below, we present a detailed analysis of the categories used by participants to define EG, starting from the most popular. As this article aims to give voice to ordinary people and analyze their understanding of the term “ethnic group,” we present quotes as examples for all categories and countries. For anonymity, all quotes were described by the age and sex of a participant, for example, 35M means a 35-year-old male. Italicized terms point out the words from the category, which is being described.

Discussion

The issue of ethnicity is interdisciplinary, and has been studied by a range of disciplines. The definitions of an “ethnic group” or of “ethnicity” differ among scholars, across and even within disciplines. Moreover, there is much international confusion in how researchers use the term. Although there is increasing recognition that ethnicity is a complex multidimensional construct, in many cases, it continues to be treated as a categorical variable (see, for example, Phinney, 1996). In general, little is known about how ordinary people understand the term when asked for autocategorization in opinion polls or surveys. Our study was conducted to shed light on how ordinary people understand the term “ethnic group” in different countries and cultures. In a cross-sectional study, U.S., U.K., Mexican, and Polish participants were asked to describe their understandings of the term “ethnic group.”

Results indicate that it is often defined as a group with common “race,” “culture,” and “traditions/customs,” “religion,” “language,” or as “nation/country.” However, many other definitions also appeared, with some unexpected, such as a small group of people having the same goal at work, similar activities or hobbies (e.g., travelers, joggers), common social experience (e.g., going to parties together), living in the same city (e.g., Varsovians), as European community, or just family and/or friends.

As expected, we found differences in patterns of EG understanding in the four countries tested, connected with their ethnocultural context. More than half of U.S. participants understand EG as “race,” whereas half of Polish participants saw it as “nation,” and even more than half of Britons, Mexicans, and Poles interviewed defined it as broadly understood “culture.” “Language” was an important EG understanding for 30% of Polish and 14% of Mexican participants, whereas this category was hardly used in the United States and United Kingdom. “Physical features/looks” was mentioned by 13% of Mexicans, whereas this category rarely appeared in the United Kingdom, the United States, or Poland.

To sum up, detailed patterns of understanding “ethnic group” in the four countries tested can be described as follows.

“Ethnic Group” Definitions in the United States

For the United States, as expected, “race” was by far the most dominant way of defining “ethnic group.” The most likely reason is that this is a predominant view on ethnicity among U.S. scholars and in national censuses. The separation between European Americans, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans remains strong and salient, also in public discourse. Banton (2015) calls them five panethnic categories. Moreover, in many “multiracial” countries, such as the United States, there are profound and persistent “racial” differences in socioeconomic, educational, and occupational status; wealth; and political power (Smedley & Smedley, 2005), which makes “race” an important social category in these nations.

“Common culture” was the second most popular EG definition in the United States, used by about 27% of participants and “shared beliefs/values/morals”—by 16%. These results, together with U.S. respondents’ low use of “place of origin,” “common/shared history,” and “common experience” as criteria for EG are likely due to the mixed European ancestry of most European Americans (dominant in the U.S. sample). They commonly have ancestors from several European countries, as immigrants from one country commonly married immigrants from another. Thus, it is common for European Americans to have grandparents from several European countries, making it unlikely that they would use place of origin or shared history and experience to define “ethnic group.” The mixed heritage of European Americans “is now more likely to be passively acknowledged, except for occasional symbolic celebrations. It is no longer an element of everyday ethnicity, subcultural participation or minority status” (Schaefer, 2008, p. 391). It would be interesting to extend the study to the other parts of the country to have a more diverse sample. However, the ancestors category still appeared among more than 13% of U.S. participants, whereas in the United Kingdom, Poland, or Mexico, it was less than 10%.

The fact that only 13% of U.S. participants referred to religion may be due to religious liberty being a core value in the U.S. Constitution, that Americans are not prone to define EG as different branches of Christianity (e.g., Catholic vs. Protestant). The small numbers of Muslims and followers of other faiths in the United States are likely the reason that religion and shared beliefs and values were not as salient as “race,” and did not come to mind as our participants defined EG. However, anti-Muslim sentiments and the growing number of hate crimes against Muslims (Piter, 2017) might increase the use of the religion category to define EG in the future.

Genetic background or “physical features” were rarely mentioned while defining EG in the U.S. sample. Perhaps U.S. views of ethnicity are influenced by the perspective that ethnicity is a social rather than a biologically determined construct (Smedley & Smedley, 2005), and hence, these biological characteristics may not appear to U.S. respondents as essential aspects of ethnicity.

“Ethnic Group” Definitions in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, “ethnic group” was mostly described as “race” (40%) and “common culture” (more than 50% if we include common customs, traditions, and heritage). This “racial” definition of ethnicity may be explained by the fact that “race” is generally described and classified in the British policy documents as “ethnicity” (Evans, 2010), and includes the following categories: “White,” “Black,” Asian, Mixed/Multiple, and Other “more specific categories,” which are subsequently broken down into subcategories (Gov.UK, n.d.).

However, the broadly understood category of “culture” was even more popular as an EG understanding, differently than in the United States. The explanation of this pattern may be that the United Kingdom is a country of cultural and social diversity, in which different cultures follow different customs and traditions, and it may be perceived as a source of EG differentiation.

The United Kingdom was the only country in this study where heritage was mentioned by almost 9% of participants. This idiosyncratic finding can probably be explained by the fact that the United Kingdom is the only monarchy in the sample. The Royal Family is an integral part of British culture, with a majority of British citizens supporting this system (Easton, 2012).

Just 20% or less of British participants mentioned other categories, such as “nation/country,” “religion,” “shared beliefs/values/morals,” or “place of origin.” As in the United States, reference to “language” rarely appeared, which may be related to the fact that “ethnic groups” are officially connected to “race” in these two countries (Evans, 2010). However, after voting for Brexit, the number of hate crime incidents against “others” (e.g., coming from other E.U. countries) has risen, and the victims’ language, place of origin, and nation are often listed by perpetrators as “reasons” for violence (Ward, 2016). Thus, the importance of these categories as EG criteria might increase in the future.

The remaining categories were used by less than 10% of Britons, for example, “common/shared history” (including “common experience” and “common destiny”) or biological categories (“genes,” “physical features/looks,” and “ancestors/family”). The latter is similar to U.S. results on biological characteristics as unimportant for EG definition, and may stem from the same belief that ethnicity is a social construction rather than a biologically determined one (Smedley & Smedley, 2005). Britons also rarely referred to “shared territory” as a definition of EG, which was a bit surprising as it is a sovereign state consisting of four countries, each occupying different parts of the land and Britons often describe their identity in reference to that (McCrone, 2002). Perhaps because the United Kingdom is a land separated from other countries by the sea, this description of an “ethnic group” understanding was not an obvious consideration for the participants. Other categories were even less salient in the British sample.

“Ethnic Group” Definitions in Mexico

In Mexico, as expected, referring to “common culture” was the dominant way of defining “ethnic group.” For Mexicans, customs, traditions, dress, and music, including pre-Hispanic heritage, form an important part of the culture, which is clearly also reflected in the way EGs are understood and defined. Some also mentioned “ancient” customs and traditions as their association with EG, which did not appear in other countries tested. It may be probably interpreted as a result of indigenous groups history still being salient in people’s minds in Mexico (e.g., Maya).

“Ethnic group” was defined as “race” by 24% of the respondents and clearly does not play such an important role in daily discourse as it does in the United States or the United Kingdom; however, “physical features/looks” was used by 13% of Mexicans, whereas hardly used in the other three countries. The Mexican emphases on “physical features/looks” and geographical criteria (especially “shared territory”) among definitions of “ethnic group” can be understood as due to the historical territorial isolation of indigenous groups from one another, which resulted in the existence of traditional cultural regions and a striking genetic diversity of EGs (Mexico, n.d.; Moreno-Estrada et al., 2014).

“Language” and “shared beliefs/values/morals” were also mentioned, but by less than 15% of Mexican participants. It would be interesting to extend the study to the southern and central states of Mexico, where the majority of indigenous groups lives. We would expect these categories to be used more, first, because of the daily contact with the community of diverse EGs and awareness of the distinctions between them, and second, because “language” is one of the most important official criteria to distinguish indigenous groups in Mexico (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, 2015a). However, it is also possible that this result is an indication that Mexican scholars may be correct in criticizing national censuses for using a linguistic criterion rather than a socioanthropological one (Sandoval Forero, 2002), as it simply may be not of crucial importance in ordinary people’s perspective.

Surprisingly, “religion” was not popular as the definition of “ethnic group” among the Mexican sample, contrary to our expectations, perhaps because the study was conducted in the northern part of the country and religious rituals are more visible in its central and southern parts. It would be interesting to replicate this study on a nationwide sample to include the regions for which religion could be of greater importance.

“Ethnic Group” Definitions in Poland

In the case of Poland, we see a clear pattern of defining EG in a way that Haller would call an “ethno-nation”: A “nation/country” category, tightly connected to “culture” (underlining traditions such as national/religious holidays or referring to cultural heritage), “common/shared history,” “language,” “religion,” and “sharing territory” were commonly used categories to define EG. In addition, 20% of Poles referred to “place of origin” or being born in a certain place—usually Poland. This pattern reflects Poles’ ties with the land and their own nation, strengthened by the historical periods of lost sovereignty and/or independence. It also shows that Polish students, as members of a relatively homogeneous society, define “ethnic group” mostly from this historical perspective. Although having access to other cultural patterns due to travel and media in a globalization era, and being able to see people of different colors, religions, or customs, their own country’s perspective is the most salient when defining EG.

As expected, defining “ethnic group” by “race” was not popular in Poland (12%). Of course, it is impossible to say if this result is not just a reflection of views among Polish scholars (see, for example, Rykala, 2014) and national censuses, as radiated through various media. Still, the most common association in this category was skin color, probably because this is the most popular understanding of the term “race” in Poland. Interestingly, some respondents seemed to identify “race” with being Slavic. Again, Poles used their own group as point of reference.

“Shared beliefs/values/morals” was considered an aspect of the definition of “ethnic group” by just 9% of Polish students, with almost 10 other characteristics of EG mentioned more often. Interestingly, a few Poles referred to similar activities and interests as definitions of “ethnic group” (members of a club, runners, people who love travels, or another shared hobby). Some others referred to inhabitants of favorite cities as examples of EG, perhaps showing their attachment to local communities, confusion about what EG means, or perhaps attempting to override the historical “ethno-nation” discourse with a more modern perspective.

Patterns of the definitions

These differences in the patterns of defining the “ethnic group” concept in four different countries appear to confirm Weber’s notion that there are no universal traits characterizing EGs. In addition, our results showed that the idea according to which the constructs of “racial” and ethnic identities are largely overlapping (Phinney & Ong, 2007) or that “race” and ethnicity should be merged into a “race-ethnicity” construct (e.g., Fouad & Byars-Winston, 2005) would be incorrect for many cultures and nations other than the United States and the United Kingdom (see also, for example, Helms & Talleyrand, 1997). We believe that such an approach would distort the picture of the “ethnic group” construct and explain less, not more. The results of our studies conducted in cross-cultural context support this conclusion.

However, even for the United States, with increasing numbers of mixed ethnicities, such a “race-ethnicity” approach may be misleading (Benet-Martínez, 2008). “Many Americans have multiple identities that reflect complex ancestral origins, tribal and communal associations, and varied ideological outlooks on race and culture” (Perez & Hirschman, 2009, p. 2). Furthermore, people may emphasize different aspects of their ethnicities depending on the situation (Perez & Hirschman, 2009; Purkayastha, 2008; Zhang & Noels, 2013). Such a description of complex, situation-dependent ethnic identities also seems accurate for other multiethnic countries studied in this article, such as the United Kingdom or Mexico.

The results indicate that the dominant way ordinary people understand EG is connected to official frames provided by national censuses and historical discourse supporting the given perspective: In the United States and to some extent also in the United Kingdom, it is “race.” In Mexico, Poland, and the United Kingdom, specific culture and common traditions are key. In Poland, “nation” and “language” are also important, which are the official criteria to distinguish minorities in this country (Ministerstwo Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji, 2017).

However, there are other categories that ordinary people refer to, not embraced in official national categories such as “culture,” appearing in all countries, or country specific such as “physical features/looks” in Mexico (although “language”, officially used in censuses, is not very popular), “heritage” in the United Kingdom, or “common/shared history” in Poland. Moreover, it seems that participants in all countries tested mostly use their in-group and the context of their own country as reference points for defining “ethnic group.”

The results also indicate that the dominant perspective on “ethnic group” refers to all groups in a society, not to the classic, old “minus one” definition of “ethnic group” as applying to “others” (“different than me”) and/or minorities (Banton, 1998). The former was used by 15% of British and less than 10% of participants in remaining countries, whereas the “minorities” category was used by 8% of British and Polish participants, with hardly any usage in the United States or Mexico.

Limitations and Future Studies

Our research has clear limitations. As most research, especially in cross-cultural context, this study needs to be viewed within its conceptual and methodological boundaries. The study is driven mainly by psychological and sociological work on ethnicity and how individuals understand it. Methodological limitations also include the sampling: Samples were comprised of students, although they varied in age and place of residence. Although care was taken to survey comparable groups in the four countries tested, the use of students limits our ability to generalize to the general populations of these countries.

Follow-up studies should include both nationally representative samples and more countries. National samples might add greater variability to the national patterns of defining the term “ethnic group,” especially in very diverse countries such as Mexico. However, we feel confident that the main results, showing the key importance of ethnocultural and national context in the process of defining EG, would almost certainly remain.

In addition, because ethnicity is a social construct that varies across time within any society (Purkayastha, 2008; Schaefer, 2008), longitudinal research on how individuals change their understanding of EG over time would be useful. Previous analyses showed the importance of a temporal approach to “ethnic group” definitions. The case of the evolving attitudes toward Irish immigrants since they mass immigrated to the United Kingdom shows that, at the beginning, they were portrayed as “Black” and treated as inferior despite their white skin tone (Judd, 1996; Lebow, 1976). Today the word “British” refers collectively to all people of Great Britain, whereas in the 17th century, it meant only English people, as Irish and Scots were perceived as too different (Schaefer, 2008). Another example may be the changing perspective on ethnicity in the United States, where “at one point, diversity . . . was cast in biracial, almost caste-like terms as a Black-White issue with American Indians and Asian immigrants virtually ignored” (Schaefer, 2008, p. xlvii), but by the end of the 20th century, the discourse changed into talks about the triracial nature of the United States or the Latinization of America, while ignoring many other socially defined groups (e.g., Pacific Islanders or tribal groups).

Such longitudinal studies could shed more light on how changes in societal and political context relate to changes in individuals’ understanding of the term “ethnic group.” For example, it would be important to see how people change their understanding of the concept of EG with increasing numbers of ethnic intermarriages, creating more mixed populations (Schaefer, 2008), how Poles change their definitions of EG as the society becomes more multicultural due to immigration, or how the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union is related to changes in individuals’ descriptions of “ethnic group.” Moreover, given past patterns and current trends, we cannot be certain that today’s group categories will still be valid in the future (Burton et al., 2005; Schaefer, 2008; Zelinsky, 2001), so we believe that studies such as presented in this article will remain useful and should be continued.

Conclusions

In this cross-sectional and cross-cultural study, we investigated how respondents from four countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Poland, and Mexico) understand and describe the term “ethnic group.” This study provides empirical evidence that individuals from different countries perceive and describe the term in different ways. The summary of national patterns of results seems to make it clear that, in the minds of ordinary people, definitions of the term “ethnic group” are highly culture dependent, and that most participants use their own country’s ethnocultural and historical context together with official grouping used by national censuses as their basic points of reference. Respondents from the United States predominantly connected EG to “race”; British participants perceived EG as also related to “race,” but even more to “common culture” and “customs/traditions.” Mexican and Polish respondents also predominantly described EG as related to and expressed in “common culture” and “customs/traditions.” However, “nation,” “shared history,” “religion,” “language,” and “territory” were also very popular as EG understandings in Poland. Unexpected definitions of EG also appeared, for example, people having similar hobbies, work goals, or living in the same city.

In addition, our study showed that most participants used the newer definition of EG (referring to all groups in a society, including minority and majority groups). However, a few in each country used the term only to refer to minorities and people different from themselves (an older, “minus one” definition), which, in some cases, led to denying having “ethnicity” at all.

Furthermore, as our results show, in some cultures (such as in the United States, the United Kingdom, or in Mexico), “ethnic group” is more a subgroup within a nation (being a larger context for them), whereas in others, “ethnic group” and nation are perceived as more closely tied, representing a similar, or even the same, level of categorization, as is the case of Poland.

We believe that our research has shown the importance of taking ethnocultural, historical, and national contexts, as well as ordinary people’s understanding of the term into consideration when defining and studying the role of “ethnic group.” The results are of theoretical and practical importance. They can contribute to further work on the operationalization of the concept of “ethnic group” or “ethnicity.” Researchers could benefit from it when projecting the research and interpreting results of cross-cultural studies. In addition, our results have implications for diversity and cross-cultural educational initiatives, and for encouraging cross-cultural understanding and tolerance.