Can online contacts between immigrants and veterans facilitate immigrants’ social integration?

Abstract

The current study analyzes whether cross-cultural communication through online social platforms between immigrants from the Former Soviet Union and different sectors of veteran Israelis reduces social distances and facilitates immigrants’ integration. The research was conducted through an online survey of 296 Former Soviet Union immigrants who use social media sites in Hebrew. The findings show a positive impact of online contacts, only on social distances toward groups with very different cultures from Former Soviet Union immigrants: Arabs and ultra-orthodox Jews. Online contacts were found not to have a positive impact on social distances between immigrants and veteran Israelis from the dominant culture. In other words, online contact was not found to contribute to the social integration of Former Soviet Union immigrants, but the social media were found to have the potential to narrow cleavages in Israeli society by reducing stigmas and alienation.

Keywords

Social distances online contact intergroup contact theory social homophily immigrant integration

Introduction

Online environments create novel opportunities for interactions between like-minded people, but also for communication “across cleavages” between people from different ethnic, religious, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds, overcoming limitations of time and space. Do these interactions reduce social distances among people from different groups, and if so, what are their implications?

The concept of “social distance” refers to the willingness, or lack thereof, of members of a social group to communicate and maintain relationships with members of a different social group (Ziv, 2011). This broad concept is determined by affective distance, i.e. the extent of sympathy and affection members of one group have toward members of other social groups (Bogardus, 1925); the normative distance, i.e. the definition of “insider” and “outsider” and the determination of distinctions between “us” and “them”; and cultural and habitual distances, i.e. the degree of imitation that exists between groups (Bourdieu, 1990; Karakayali, 2009).

This research investigated the connection between affective social distance (hereinafter “social distance”) and online interaction frequency between immigrants and veterans in Israeli society. The study analyzed whether the many available internet-enabled social uses contribute to reducing affective social distance of Former Soviet Union (FSU) immigrants toward national, ethnic, and religious groups of veteran Israelis, or in other words, to immigrants’ social adjustment.

Theories regarding immigrant integration

The immigration literature distinguishes between four acculturation strategies that differ in terms of the extent to which the original culture is maintained and social relations with the veteran population are developed. In the assimilation strategy, immigrants disengage from the original culture and maintain daily contact with members of the dominant culture. In contrast, immigrants who adopt the separationist strategy preserve their ties with the culture of origin and avoid interaction with the veteran population. Immigrants who implement the integrative strategy preserve their ties with the culture of origin and engage in daily interactions with immigrants from their own group and with veterans. The marginalization strategy is characterized by a lack of interest in the culture of origin and a lack of interaction with either of the two groups (Berry et al., 1989).

Studies indicate that the integrative strategy is preferred by most immigrant groups and by the veteran population, while the marginalization strategy is considered less desirable (Berry, 1997; Berry et al., 1989; Lissitsa and Peres, 2011; Neto, 2002; Partridge, 1988; Roccas et al., 2000; Van Oudenhoven and Eisses, 1998). Societies marked by a multicultural approach tend more to embrace immigrants and encourage an integrative strategy, while societies that demand assimilation or that exclude immigrants cause them to adopt the three less desirable models (Castles, 2000, 2002).

The present study is the first that seeks to describe the overlap between strategies of immigrant integration and two theories that deal with social contact and proximity between the different social groups—the intergroup contact theory and the social homophily theory.

The intergroup contact theory

The intergroup contact theory is one of the leading theories dealing with the reduction of intergroup conflicts. Introduced by Allport (1954), contact theory maintains that intergroup contact eliminates stereotypes and develops friendly attitudes. An attitude change on two levels will occur when a member of one group meets a member of another group. On the first level, negative stereotypes may be replaced with a more positive opinion about a specific individual. On the second level, this positive attitude change may extend to include the individual’s group as a whole.

Allport’s contact theory has received renewed interest in recent years. After the theory was expanded and developed (Brown and Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew, 1998), its applicability was demonstrated in a variety of groups and settings (Pettigrew, 2008; Pettigrew et al., 2011). Research has shown that contact can influence perceptions, attitudes, and values in ways that minimize antagonism and prejudice (Fisher, 1990; Hewstone, 2003; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2000). Tropp and Pettigrew (2005) found that intergroup contact typically reduces the affective more than the cognitive components of prejudice and enhances positive emotions while reducing negative emotions toward the outgroup (Miller et al., 2004).

Still, contact is not a “magic bullet” against intergroup hatred. Conditions are important. To capitalize on the benefits of contact, certain conditions are necessary: equal group status, common goals, intergroup cooperation and social norms supporting intergroup contact (Allport, 1954), as well as voluntary participation and intimate contact (Amir, 1969), and an absence of anxiety and threat (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2000). In their meta-analysis of contact studies, Pettigrew and Tropp (2000) found that not all of Allport’s (1954) conditions need to be present simultaneously for bias to be reduced however, as more conditions are co-present, the more likely it is that a successful and lasting outcome will be achieved.

As a result of the rapid expansion of social media, new options have become available for providing the conditions required for effective contact: the possibilities of interacting anonymously, hiding one’s physical appearance, controlling the interaction to a great degree, and supplying opportunities for meetings with like-minded or similarly situated others from different social and ethnic groups.

Bargh et al. (2002) maintain that the anonymity created through online contacts leads to results similar to the “stranger on the train” phenomenon, in which individuals are open and ready to share intimate information with a stranger because they are certain that they will never meet again.

Internet relationships can develop closeness and intimacy significantly faster than offline relationships because of the greater ease of self-disclosure (Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2008; Mesh and Talmud, 2007). In this way social media could promote social integration of ethnic minorities and socially weak groups (Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2008; McKenna and Bargh, 2000).

According to contact theory, if immigrants maintain daily contacts through the social media with veterans as well as with members of the immigrant group, this may help to bring the two groups closer together but will not engender full integration. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that only contacts with veterans can promote the integration strategy of immigrants’ adjustment in the target society.

Our study attempts to apply intergroup contact theory as a way of explaining the effect of online contact between FSU immigrants and veterans on affective social distances between them.

Social homophily approach

Studies of the formation, development, and maintenance of close social relationships have emphasized the importance of homophily (Bramoulle et al., 2012; Hartup and Stevens, 1997; McPherson et al., 2001). Homophily refers to the tendency of people to have a higher rate of contact and form more friendships with people who are similar to themselves than with dissimilar individuals (McPherson et al., 2001). Similar others are considered to be more attractive and are rated more favorably than dissimilar others (Varma and Stroh, 2001). This tendency applies to elements of demographic status, such as education, occupation, race and ethnicity, religion, marital status, and age (e.g. Bramoulle et al., 2012), attitudes and beliefs (e.g. Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Cohen, 1983), and social behavior (Billy et al., 1984). Thus, it is clear that interpersonal similarity (what is referred to as similarity to self) can lead to more liking, and this can transcend the interpersonal level and have a positive impact on intergroup relations (Stathi and Crisp, 2010).

In attempting to combine the social homophily approach and immigrant acculturation strategies according to Berry’s (1997) classification, it can be said that immigrants who feel closer to veterans will tend to create more contact with them and as a result will tend more to the integrative or assimilationist strategy.

This study tries to apply the social homophily approach to the effect of social distance on online interactions between FSU immigrants and the various ethnic and religious groups in Israeli society.

Social uses of the internet

The social media create a platform for communications for a dynamic consortium of people utilizing social network sites, forums and discussion groups, blogs, and online games in a manner that enables individuals with a common interest to interact continually (Boyd and Ellison, 2007; Bradley, 2006; Heinlein and Kaplan, 2010). The percentage of social media users in Israel is higher among Jews, the young, the more educated, and seculars (Lev-On and Lissitsa, 2010).

Online social media represent important tools for maintaining existing bonds and establishing new social links between members of different groups (McKenna and Bargh, 2000) based on common interests and activities (Mesh and Talmud, 2007).

Studies have shown that adolescents make new friends not only in the neighborhood and school but also online, and virtual friendships sometimes progress to face-to-face meetings (Wolak et al., 2003). Some evidence has been found that these relationships may become intimate and provide social support (Joinson, 2001; McKenna et al., 2002). Mesh and Talmud (2007) found that online friendships are strong but only in the presence of similarity. When friends who met online reside in the same locality or are of the same sex, relationship quality is high.

Both adolescents and adults consider ethnic or racial differences and similarities between interacting users to be important (Nakamura, 2002; Tynes et al., 2004). In this vein, Whitaker and Hill (1998) found that individuals tend to give and ask for information about ethnicity in online interactions. Moreover, it has been found that individuals from different cultures manifest different communication styles (Kim, 1999; Oetzel, 1998) and experienced social media users may develop the ability to recognize the ethnicity of persons with whom they are having a conversation by means of their linguistic codes (Burkhalter, 1999).

Research focusing on the description of online contacts between users of different ethnicities and nations reveals the complex and ambiguous consequences of such interactions. Schumann et al. (2012) examined interactions between nine different groups on Facebook and found that in the course of time prejudices toward the “other” diminished, and mutual understanding increased, as a result of online contact. Similar results were also identified in an experiment that examined the impact of online contacts between Muslim and Christian students in Australia (White and Abu-Rayya, 2012). After 2 months of online contact between the groups, mutual prejudices and anxieties decreased, and participants tended to report that they became better acquainted with each other.

However, online contacts do not always lead to positive outcomes. Moreover, political and social conflicts often create a cyber battlefield which may consist of hackers’ attacks, propaganda duels, or hate speech (Karatzogianni, 2006). A study of narratives of conflict in the Russian-language blogosphere during Israeli warfare in Gaza in 2008–2009 found

racialized notions of otherness, hate speech and name calling, hints of sexual humiliation, accusations of crimes committed in the past and present, and threats regarding the future, directed in very similar ways to both Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians. (Kuntsman, 2010: 311)

Examining expressions of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict on Facebook, Ruesch (2011) found a polarized online scene with little social interaction. Ruesch opined that, despite the huge potential for moderating conflicts inherent in intergroup interaction, opposing groups rarely actualize its promise. Tynes et al. (2008) reported that Afro-American and White adolescents in the United States experienced racially based discrimination and exclusion on social networks, chats, virtual games, and forums, causing them depression and anxiety.

Considering its rapid growth, the internet can be expected to play a role in the integration process of immigrants. Therefore, a better understanding of the online dynamics of intergroup communication is crucial for improving strategies of intergroup understanding, diminishing mutual stereotypes between immigrants and veterans and enhancing immigrants’ sociocultural adjustment.

The current research is the first study to examine whether online contacts between immigrants and different groups of veterans assist in reducing social distances between them and facilitating immigrants’ social adjustment.

National, ethnic, and religious groups in Israeli society

Israeli society is divided along national, ethnic, and religious lines (Ben-Rafael, 2001; Peres and Ben-Rafael, 2006).

The main social divide is national. Israel’s population comprises approximately eight million inhabitants, 75% of them Jewish, 21% Arabs, and the rest defined as “Others” (CBS, 2012). The Arabs are disadvantaged compared with Jews in every aspect of social stratification, including education, occupational status, earnings, and standard of living (Cohen and Haberfeld, 2003; Lewin-Epstein and Semyonov, 1993). Most of the Arab sector resides in peripheral areas (71%), while most of the Jewish population (65%) is located in the center of the country (CBS, 2011). In other words, a geographic separation between Jews and Arabs facilitates limited contact between the two sectors.

The Jewish majority comprises mainly immigrants who arrived in Israel in various waves of immigration and their offspring. As a result, the Jewish majority is composed of a number of groups and is divided on an ethnic basis almost equally between Jews of Asian-African ancestry (Mizrahim) and Jews of European-American descent (Ashkenazim).

Socioeconomically, most Ashkenazim belong to the middle and higher strata while a majority of Mizrahim belong to the working and lower strata (Cohen et al., 2004; Semyonov and Lerenthal, 1991).

Another division in the Jewish sector is based on degrees of religiosity: secular, traditional, religious, and ultra-orthodox. Degrees of religiosity are associated with degrees of adherence to and observance of religious laws, cultural lifestyle, a tendency toward social and ecological isolation, and degree of commitment to the national cultural center (Katz-Gerro et al., 2008). Traditionalists are defined as open to, or even supportive of, religion but do not observe many of its commandments (Peres and Ben-Rafael, 2006). Yuchtman-Ya’ar and Peres (1998) found that, in matters of faith (the existence of God, reward, and punishment in the hereafter) they are closer to the religious than to the secular while in their behavior they are closer to the secular than to the religious.

Of the roughly 20% of the Jewish population considered religious, the majority are well integrated in Israeli society in terms of residential patterns, participation in military service, and in labor force participation. Approximately one-third of the religious are ultra-orthodox. Members of ultra-orthodox communities live in largely segregated neighborhoods, and their children attend schools belonging to a separate educational system whose curricula contain few or no secular subjects. Ultra-orthodox men are generally exempted from mandatory 3-year military service. Officially, their rate of participation in the labor force is officially very low and their main occupation for a substantial part of their lives is studying at a yeshiva (a post-secondary religious educational institution) (Katz-Gerro et al., 2008).

Immigrants from the FSU

An important characteristic of the wave of immigration from the FSU in the 1990s was its great size in both absolute terms (about a million people) and relative terms (17% of the entire population of Israel) (Sicron, 2012).

In addition to its quantitative mass, the qualitative weight of this wave of immigration is no less important. The quality of immigration from the FSU reflects a level of human capital not found in any other immigration wave: many of the new arrivals had academic education and were professionals (Remennick, 2013a; Sicron, 1998). The immigrants were highly motivated and made every effort to maintain their high preimmigration level status in the new country (Smooha, 2008). In the first decade of their immigration, many of the newcomers did not find work in Israel commensurate to their professional skills (Ekstein and Weiss, 2004; Friedberg, 2001; Remennick, 2013a). Many of them sank to, and remained in, low economic status, which deepened their feelings of alienation and isolation from Israeli society (Remennick, 2002; Sheperman, 2008; Yelenevskays and Fialkova, 2004). Those who found skilled work had poorer chances for tenure and/or promotion to managerial posts, more often worked on short-term contracts with fewer benefits, and had lower job security than their native co-workers (Raijman and Semyonov, 1998; Remennick, 2004; Stier and Levanon, 2003).

FSU immigrants retained the Russian language and a significant part of their culture (Ritterband, 1997). The Russian speakers’ community exhibited certain transnational features. In addition to daily viewing of Russian television broadcasts, FSU immigrants maintained strong ties with relatives and friends in the FSU through visits, telephone calls, and internet messages (Elias, 2011; Elias and Shorer-Zeltser, 2006, 2008; Lissitsa, 2006; Niznik, 2012; Remennick, 2002, 2013b; Smooha, 2008); those who immigrated after October 1991 preserved their citizenship in the country of origin in addition to Israeli citizenship and voted in Russian and Ukrainian elections (Remennick, 2013b).

The segregated culture of FSU immigrants caused friction with the local society. Surveys and reports in the Israeli media of the 1990s indicated the development of negative stereotypes among the Israeli public toward this immigration wave (Kuntsman, 2003; Stephan et al., 1998). These stereotypes intensified and served to justify the social distance maintained in intergroup relations.

Studies that examined the social distance between FSU immigrants and groups of veteran Israelis found that the attitudes of FSU immigrants to different groups of veterans were differential. As for distances from the ethnic groups, findings show that FSU immigrants felt close to Ashkenazim, because of their ethnic-cultural proximity (Lissitsa, 2006) and kept moderately separate from Mizrahim, because of their perceived cultural dissimilarity (Lomsky-Feder and Leibovitz, 2010; Remennick, 2007; Tzfadia, 2000). As for distances in terms of religious groups, the immigrants felt close to seculars, moderately separate from religious and very far from ultra-orthodox Jews (Peres and Ben-Rafael, 2006). These distances could be explained by the following factors: as a result of intense assimilation and intermarriage among Soviet Jews, about one-third of the immigrants are either partly Jewish or non-Jewish (Cohen and Susser, 2009). Moreover, after seven decades of atheistic indoctrination in the USSR, over 90% of ex-Soviets are nonreligious and their Jewish identity is mainly ethnic (Remennick, 2007).

In contrast, Jewish veterans in all the sectors felt a similar moderate distance from FSU immigrants (Al-Haj and Leshem, 2000; Lissitsa, 2006; Peres and Ben-Rafael, 2006).

However, mutual social distances between FSU immigrants and Arabs were definitely symmetric—both groups felt great distances from each other. Attitudes among Soviet Jews were based on the mass media (both Soviet and Israeli) and on limited personal contact with Arabs after immigration (Horowith, 1999). Immigrants who have had no personal contacts with Arabs perceive them as hostile Others, and transfer to them the negative stereotypes formed in the USSR (Epstein, 2006; Gitelman, 1995; Yelenevskaya and Fialkova, 2004).

Research findings about social relations between FSU immigrants and veterans indicate that FSU immigrants meet with members of the veteran sectors mainly in formal settings. Veteran Israelis do not constitute a part of their close circle of friends (Elias and Lemish, 2009; Yelenevskaya, 2005). Only a small segment of the immigrants (mainly the younger and more socially successful among them) have informal contact with veterans and include them among their close friends (Kahan-Strawczynski et al., 2012; Lissitsa and Bokek-Cohen, 2012; Peres and Ben-Rafael, 2006; Remennick, 2003, 2005).

Research findings show that social relations with veterans are more frequent among younger immigrants, those living in the target society for more years, females more than males, those with higher education and income, and more religious immigrants (Lissitsa, 2006; Peres and Ben-Rafael, 2006; Remennick, 2005).

According to the findings presented earlier, one can conclude that, although most FSU immigrants have resided in Israel for two decades or more and maintain daily contacts with veteran Israelis at work and in educational and other settings, most tend to isolate themselves from veterans at an informal level.

In keeping with contact theory, is it possible that online contact via social media can close the gap between FSU immigrants and veteran Israelis? This question hinges on whether digital contact within the social media can bring immigrants closer to veterans, or whether the social homophily theory will prevail, in which case immigrants will tend to maintain social contact only with veterans from certain groups to which they have an affinity.

On the basis of the literature review, the following alternative hypotheses can be formulated:

According to the intergroup contact theory: online contacts are negatively correlated to affective social distances; online contacts between FSU immigrants and veterans correlate with reduced social distances between immigrants and veterans.

According to the social homophily approach: social distances are negatively correlated to online contacts; immigrants who feel socially close to veterans tend to be involved more frequently in online contacts with them.

On the basis of these hypotheses the following research model was constructed:

Background variables:

Method

Participants

The study was conducted in 2012 using a representative sample of 296 immigrants from the FSU who arrived in Israel after 1989 and who use social media sites in Hebrew. This sample was selected from a larger sample of 369 FSU immigrants who surf the internet at a frequency of at least three times per week. The respondents, who use social media in Hebrew (only in Hebrew or in Russian and Hebrew) were younger, compared to those who used these sites only in Russian (average age of 36 and 50 years, respectively). There were no differences in gender, educational level, religiosity, years residing in Israel, or income between these two groups. In order to assure a representative sample, quotas were imposed according to gender, age, and area of residence. The quotas were based on the distribution of these three variables in the social survey of the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS, 2010).

Procedure

The study was conducted by means of internet survey. The research instrument was translated into Russian by the author and then examined by another Russian speaker. A letter in Russian and in Hebrew inviting interviewees was published on the Facebook, Odnoklassniki and Vkontakte social networks, and on Israeli forums by research assistants who speak both languages. The letter of invitation explained that the research involved a questionnaire about internet surfing habits. Legitimacy was given to a variety of possible responses and anonymity was assured. The request included two links to the online surveys, one in each language, and interviewees were informed that they could choose to respond in the language that was more comfortable for them. Each interviewee could complete the survey only once.

Before conducting the survey, an internet pilot was completed among 20 interviewees, who were given the opportunity to append comments to each question.

About 70% of those who opened the survey link completed the questionnaire. In order to maintain the anonymity promised to interviewees, the database did not include their email address, telephone number, or other identifying details.

Measures

The research questionnaire examined the respondents’ internet surfing habits, internet uses, social media uses, frequency of contact with members of the different social groups, and the social distance they felt toward those groups. The questionnaire contained about 70 questions. The questions measured the frequency of online interaction with members of different groups formulated, following the approach delineated in Burkhalter (1999) and Whitaker and Hill (1998) (see ``Social uses of the internet'' section). According to this measurement, it was possible to assume that participants were able to identify the group to which their online partners belonged and if the information was not clear, they could ask. The questions that measured social distance were based on the questionnaire used in the study of multiculturalism and cleavages in Israeli society carried out by Peres and Ben-Rafael (2006). Cronbach’s Alpha for the questions that measured social distances in the current research was 0.65.

Variables

Dependent variables

Frequency of online contact with different veteran sectors was measured by the six items relating to the following groups: Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, Secular Jews, Religious Jews, Ultra-orthodox Jews, and Arabs. For example: “When you participate in forums, discussion groups and social networks, what is the frequency of your contacts with Ashkenazim?” The scale was 1–5, where 1 = not at all and 5 = very high frequency.

Social distance toward veteran groups was defined by the six items relating to the following groups: Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, Secular Jews, Religious Jews, Ultra-orthodox Jews, and Arabs. For example: “To what extent do you feel far from or close to Ashkenazim?” The scale was 1–5, where 1 = very far and 5 = feel like one of them.

Independent variables

Age was asked as an ordinal measure, as follows: 1. 21–24; 2. 25–29; 3. 30–34; 4. 35–39; 5. 40–44; 5. 45–49; 6. 50–54; 7. 50–59; 8. 60–64; 9. 65 and older.

Gender (1 = male, 0 = female).

Educational level was defined by the following question: “What is your educational level?” The scale was: 1: less than secondary, 2: secondary, 3: postsecondary, 4: BA, 5: MA and PhD.

Years of residence in Israel was measured by the question: “When did you immigrate to Israel?” The year of immigration was transformed to years of residence in Israel.

Personal monthly income was measured by ordinal categories: 1: don’t work; 2: less than New Israeli Shekel (NIS) 4000 ($1 ≈ NIS3.5); 3: NIS 4000–6000; 4: NIS 6000–8000; 5: NIS 8000–10000; 6: NIS 10,000–15,000; 7: NIS 15,000–20,000; 8: NIS 20,000 and more. It should be noted that average personal income in Israel in 2012 was NIS 8784.

Extent of religiosity was defined by the following question: “What is the extent of your religiosity?” The scale was: 1: secular, 2: traditional, 3: religious, 4: ultra-orthodox. Only a few immigrants defined themselves as religious and only one respondent self-identified as ultra-orthodox (see the frequency of religiosity variable in Appendix Table 1), therefore this variable was transformed into a dichotomous variable (0 = seculars, 1 = others).

Table 1.

Predicting social distances from ethnic groups and frequency of online contacts with them. Standardized and unstandardized coefficients of trimmed structural equation model (SEM).

	Ashkenazim				Mizrahim				Arabs
	Frequency of online contact		Social distances		Frequency of online contact		Social distances		Frequency of online contact		Social distances
Dependent variables	b	β	b	β	b	β	b	β	b	β	b	β
Age	−.021	−.164	−.046**	−.489	−.030**	−.216	−.030**	−.259	−.008	−.116	−.003	−.032
Gender (females)	.288	.110	−.318**	−.164	.003	.001	.001	.000	.003	.002	.168	.099
Education	.090	.068	.358**	.363	.156	.108	.002	.002	.018	.025	−.039	−.046
Years residing in Israel	.006	.024	.057**	.301	.025	.092	082**	.356	.002	.015	−.007	−.040
Income	.000	−.034	.000	.063	.000	−.072	.000	−.040	.000	−.046	.000	−.035
Religiosity (seculars)	−.394**	−.117	.115	.046	−.429 *	−.117	.529**	.173	.031	.017	.107	.049
Frequency of online contact	–	–	−.380**	−.516	–	–	−.124	−.147	–	–	.562**	.487
Social distances	1.025**	.758	–	–	.648**	.543	–	–	−.049	−.056	–	–
	Fit Measures Chi-Square = 2.29 DF = 9 RMSEA = .066 GFI = .984 AGFI = .934 NFI = .940 RFI = .813 IFI = .965 CFI = .963				Fit Measures Chi-Square = 2.29 DF = 9 RMSEA = .066 GFI = .984 AGFI = .934 NFI = .942 RFI = .819 IFI = .966 CFI = .964				Fit Measures Chi-Square = 2.77 DF = 10 RMSEA = .077 GFI = .977 AGFI = .918 NFI = .896 RFI = .708 IFI = .991 CFI = .926

p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01.

Data analysis

To understand whether online contact reduces social distances, or alternatively, whether people tend to initiate contact with others from sectors to which they feel close, a bidirectional analysis was used. SPSS Amos was applied to construct models that tested the mutual influence between online contact and social distance while controlling for sociodemographic variables.

Descriptive overview

The following figures descriptively display the statistics for frequency of online contact of FSU immigrants with different veteran groups and the social distances from them.

According to Figure 1, FSU immigrants reported medium-frequency online contacts with Ashkenazim and seculars, medium–low frequency online contacts with Mizrahim and religious Jews, and low-frequency online contacts with Arabs and ultra-orthodox Jews.

Figure 1.

Frequency of online contact of FSU immigrants with different veteran groups.

According to Figure 2, the distance from different groups of veterans as perceived by FSU immigrants covers a very broad spectrum. They feel close to seculars and Ashkenazim (more than 40% reported that they feel like members of these groups and only 4–7% feel far or very far from these groups). They feel medium distance from Mizrahim (6% feel like them and 28% feel close to them). Medium–low distance was reported from religious (3% feel like them and 11% feel close to them). The highest distance was found from Arabs and ultra-orthodox Jews (only 1% of immigrants feel close to these groups and 70% feel very far from them).

Figure 2.

Social distances of FSU immigrants from different veteran groups.

Estimating the models

Although interesting, the descriptive data do not tell us whether, and to what extent, online contacts affect social distances or alternatively what impact social distances have on online contact with veteran groups, or the impact of background variables on these two alternatives. Thus, in the following analysis a structural equation model was estimated for each veteran group, using SPSS Amos to examine these propositions.

According to our theoretical model, the models simultaneously estimate: (1) the direct effects of demographic variables on frequency of online contacts with the veteran group, (2) the direct effects of demographic variables on social distances from the veteran group, (3) the direct effect of frequency of online contacts on social distances, and (4) the direct effects of social distances on online contacts (see Tables 1 and 2).

Table 2.

Predicting social distances from religious groups and frequency of online contacts with them. Standardized and unstandardized coefficients of trimmed structural equation model (SEM).

	Seculars				Religious				Ultra-orthodox
	Frequency of online contact		Social distances		Frequency of online contact		Social distances		Frequency of online contact		Social distances
Dependent variables	b	β	B	β	b	β	b	β	b	β	b	β
Age	−.022**	−.184	−.03**	−.346	−.019**	−.161	−.019**	−.169	.001	.014	.002	.021
Gender (females)	–	–	–	–	.124	.051	.050	.022	−.098	−.068	.213**	.134
Education	–	–	.276**	.303	.131	.106	−.016	−.014	−.028	−.038	−.028	–.034
Years residing in Israel	–	–	.048**	.276	.019	.079	.038**	.172	.009	.065	−.008	−.055
Income	–	–	–	–	.000	−.034	.000	.029	.000	.045	.000	−.041
Religiosity (seculars)	–		–.656**	−.284	−.004	−.001	1.21**	.413	.289	.157	.634**	.310
Frequency of online contact	–	–	–.731**	−.995	–	–	−.042	−.045	–	–	.301 *	.271
Social distances	1.38**	.984	–	–	.528**	.493	–	–	.032	.036	–	–
	Fit Measures Chi-Square = 1.21 DF = 7 RMSEA = .027 GFI = .991 AGFI = .933 NFI = .972 RFI = .948 IFI = .990 CFI = .990				Fit Measures Chi-Square = 2.29 DF = 9 RMSEA = .066 GFI = .984 AGFI = .933 NFI = .934 RFI = .813 IFI = .965 CFI = .963				Fit Measures Chi-Square = 2.29 DF = 9 RMSEA = .066 GFI = .984 AGFI = .934 NFI = .926 RFI = .769 IFI = .957 CFI = .954

p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Estimating the models of immigrants’ online contacts and social distances from ethnic groups

Ashkenazim

According to Table 1, the results strongly support the second hypothesis that social distances affect online contacts. According to the findings the smaller social distances from Ashkenazim led to more frequent online contacts with them (β = .758).

In contrast, the first hypothesis was rejected: the effect of frequency of online contacts on social distances from Ashkenazim was negative (β = −.51).

Mizrahim

According to Table 1, the results strongly support the second research hypothesis that social distances affect online contacts. According to the findings the smaller the social distances from Mizrahim, the more frequent are online contacts with them (β = .543).

In contrast, the first hypothesis was rejected: the effect of frequency of online contacts on social distances from Mizrahim was insignificant (β = −.147).

Arabs

According to Table 1, the results strongly support the first hypothesis that online contacts affect social distances. According to the study findings, as online contacts between FSU immigrants and Arabs are more frequent, FSU immigrants feel closer to them (β = .487). Moreover, the frequency of online contact is the only variable that affects social distances from Arabs.

In contrast, the second hypothesis was rejected: the effect of social distances from Arabs on frequency of online contacts with them was insignificant (β = −.056).

Estimating the models of immigrants’ online contacts and social distances from religious groups

Seculars

According to Table 2¹ the results strongly support the second research hypothesis that social distances affect online contacts. According to the study findings, the closer the social distances from seculars, the more frequent are FSU immigrants’ online contacts with them (β = .984).

In contrast, the first hypothesis was rejected: the effect of frequency of online contacts on social distances from seculars was negative (β = −.995).

Religious

According to Table 2, the results support the second hypothesis that social distances affect online contacts. According to the findings, the closer the social distance from the religious sector, the more frequent are online interactions with its members (β = .493).

In contrast, the first hypothesis was rejected: the effect of online contacts on social distances was insignificant (β = −0.045).

Ultra-orthodox

According to Table 2, the results strongly support the first hypothesis that online contacts affect social distances. According to the study findings, as FSU immigrants and ultra-orthodox have more frequent online contacts, the immigrants feel closer to that sector (β = .271).

In contrast, the second hypothesis was rejected: the effect of social distances from the ultra-orthodox on frequency of online contacts with them was insignificant (β = −.036).

Discussion

The present study makes two important contributions:

First, it tested whether contact theory or the social homophily approach best explained the connection between online contact between various groups and social distance between them. And second, the study integrated immigration theory and two theories that deal with contact between the groups mentioned earlier, in order to understand whether the patterns of online contact between immigrants from the FSU and various groups of veterans might assist in the social integration of the immigrants as part of the integrative strategy, which, in the immigration literature is considered the preferred pattern (Berry, 1997; Berry et al., 1989; Lissitsa and Peres, 2011; Neto, 2002; Partridge, 1988; Roccas et al., 2000; Van Oudenhoven and Eisses, 1998). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the effect of intergroup contact in the virtual world on creating closeness between immigrants and veterans.

Contact theory versus the social homophily approach

The study examined two alternative hypotheses about the direction of the effect on frequency of contact and social distances.

According to contact theory it was hypothesized that online contact at higher frequency would contribute to greater closeness between the groups. According to the social homophily approach, it was hypothesized that the closer the immigrants felt to a given veteran group, the greater would be their online contact with that group.

The results of the study provide empirical support for both theories, each in different situations:

In line with contact theory, it was found that the more FSU immigrants were in contact with Arabs and ultra-orthodox Jews, the narrower the social distance became between immigrants and those groups. It should be emphasized that contact theory was supported by findings pertaining to the two groups that are most distant from the FSU immigrants.

The conditions laid down by Allport (1954), Amir (1969), Pettigrew and Tropp (2000), and others for effective contact are hard to meet when dealing with members of culturally very different sectors whose relations also entail conflict.

FSU immigrants and Arabs. In Israeli society, FSU immigrants form part of the Jewish sector beside the Arab minority, which is characterized by a higher level of segregation in terms of areas of residence, educational system, and labor market. In these domains, conditions for daily contact are almost nonexistent. According to the study findings, the immigrants feel distant from this sector and few of the immigrants contact Arabs through the social media.

FSU immigrants and the ultra-orthodox. A similar situation exists regarding conditions for contact between immigrants and the ultra-orthodox: they are virtually segregated in terms of geography and employment, their children attend different educational systems, and their lifestyles are completely different. FSU immigrants reported distance from this sector. According to the findings, only a small percentage of immigrants made contact with ultra-orthodox through social media.

In everyday life it may be difficult for FSU immigrants to find Arabs or ultra-orthodox with shared interests in their areas of residence. When people meet face to face it generally takes time to establish the extent of any common ground. Because of its unique features, the internet makes it much easier for individuals to find others who share specialized interests. In online social media, members of groups with shared interests can progress rapidly to discover other key interests they might share (Mesh and Talmud, 2007). Such a situation ensures at least some of the conditions set down by researchers for intergroup contact: shared aims, equal status of participants, ability to control continued interaction, and closer contact by mutual consent (Allport, 1954; Amir, 1969; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2000). It is possible that, in the cases of FSU immigrants and Arabs and the ultra-orthodox, meeting people within interest groups that encourage these conditions can engender interactions more than actual physical contact can, because in many cases members of such groups do not have the option of choosing their partners. For this reason it is reasonable to suggest the option that online contacts can have more of a positive relationship with improving reciprocal relations than do offline contacts—however, this hypothesis requires further investigation.

Following the social homophily approach, it was found that as immigrants feel closer to Mizrahim and religious, they tend to have more digital contact with them. It is reasonable to assume that immigrants who feel close to these groups have a common social and cultural basis that underlies this closeness and encourages them to engage in additional interactions with them.

No correlation was found in the opposite direction according to the contact theory. It may be that as a result of ongoing meetings between FSU immigrants and Mizrahim and religious in daily life, online contact was not found to have a special effect in creating closeness between the groups. This explanation requires further investigation, controlling for the frequency of offline meetings between the groups.

Examination of the ties between online contact and various aspects of social distance, while controlling for offline contact between these groups, can be carried out as part of future studies on the subject. The findings about the connection between frequency of online contact with Ashkenazim and secular and the social distance that immigrants feel from them also support the social homophily approach and refute contact theory, but in this case a different pattern was found. A positive effect of social distance on online contact was found as well as a negative effect of online contact on social distance. The research literature reported a negative effect of contact on attitudes toward members of other groups in cases of involuntary, threatening contact (Pettigrew et al., 2011) or of intergroup anxiety, authoritarianism, and normative restraints (Pettigrew, 2008; Pettigrew et al., 2007; Stephan and Stephan, 1985). Israeli immigration literature does not support these explanations about relations between FSU immigrants and Ashkenazim and seculars. Our findings can be explained in the following way: according to the social homophily approach, FSU immigrants who feel greater closeness to Ashkenazim and seculars have online contact with them but, during contact, some negative interaction evidently occurs that pushes the immigrants away from the two groups that are closest to them in cultural terms. Apparently these findings correspond to the findings of Peres and Ben-Rafael (2006) who found that FSU immigrants feel closer to Ashkenazim and seculars but are not responded to in kind: Ashkenazim and seculars tend to remain aloof from FSU immigrants.

A deeper understanding of the processes that occur during interaction between immigrants and Ashkenazi and secular veterans is an important subject for future research. For this purpose it appears important for future research to examine the contents of between-group interactions by means of forum monitoring.

To summarize, examination of the two theories indicates that they complement rather than contradict each other: contact theory could explain connections between groups that are separated geographically, socially, and culturally, while the social homophily theory could explain the connection between social distance and contact in relation to groups that meet on a daily basis.

Implications for immigrant integration

Immigrant integration in the target society is a protracted process in which immigrants change their attitudes over time, inter alia, as a result of their positive or negative experiences during contact with the target society (Navas et al., 2005).

This study combined immigration theory with theories that deal with intergroup contact. In the Israeli context, adopting the integrative strategy recommended in the research literature would mean that immigrants from the FSU should maintain online contact with various sectors of veterans.

It can be seen that online contact reflects closer ties between FSU immigrants and groups that are on the margins of Israeli society: Arabs and ultra-orthodox. These groups have unique cultures far removed from the dominant mainstream culture in Israel and from the culture of FSU immigrants. The two groups are also relegated to the lower socioeconomic strata. Because of the high external conspicuousness of the Arabs and ultra-orthodox, their unique lifestyle and their strict adherence to boundaries—as well as the extreme cultural distance between them and FSU immigrants—closeness to these two sectors would not facilitate the integration of FSU immigrants into Israeli society.

On the other hand, the findings indicate that online contact will not lead to closeness between FSU immigrants and the “mainstream” sectors to which they have ethno-cultural proximity: the Ashkenazim and seculars.² Moreover, it was found that online contact between immigrants and seculars and Ashkenazim tended to alienate the immigrants from the two veteran sectors which were the natural sectors for them to bond with—if not immediately, then in following generations—because of the cultural similarities linking the immigrants and these veterans (see Smooha, 2008).

In other words, it appears that online contact with members of the various sectors was not found to contribute to social integration of FSU immigrants, but the potential was found for narrowing cleavages in Israeli society by reducing stigmas and alienation. This last finding is of great social importance in light of the fact that national and religious cleavages are the two deepest divisions in Israeli society (Katz-Gerro et al., 2008; Peres and Ben-Rafael, 2006). Moreover, the finding about the impact of social media contacts on social distances between FSU immigrants and Arabs is significant in light of the fact that FSU immigrants have the reputation of being anti-Arab and right-wing in issues related to the Arab–Israeli conflict (Epstein, 2006; Horowith, 1999; Kuntsman, 2010; Yelenevskaya and Fialkova, 2004).

At present, the social media are far from maximizing their potential for moderating these cleavages. If the social media expose their users to multiple opportunities for contact, a gradual improvement is possible in mutual relations between FSU immigrants in particular—and Jews in general—and Arabs, and between secular and religious Jews. Social media, which register the highest rates of use among the young generation, may open opportunities for young users to experience interactions and reciprocal acquaintanceships and thus contribute to a moderation of the conflict in coming generations. Seeking new platforms that can bridge the gap between conflicting groups is a crucial social goal. It is to be hoped that the internet will constitute a tool for deepening social relations between people from groups in conflict and in this way increase camaraderie between nations and unity within the nation.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Institute for the Study of New Media, Politics and Society, Ariel University.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Al-Haj

Leshem

(2000) Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union in Israel: Ten years later, Haifa: University of Haifa.

Allport

(1954) The Nature of Prejudice, Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Amichai-Hamburger

McKenna

KYA

Samuel-Azran

(2008) E-empowerment: Empowerment by the internet. Computers in Human Behavior 24: 1776–1789.

Amir

(1969) Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin 71: 319–342.

Bargh

McKenna

KYA

Fitzsimons

(2002) Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues 58: 33–48.

Ben-Rafael

(2001) Jewish Identities: The Answers of the Sages of Israel to Ben-Gurion, Sde Boker: Merkaz le-moreshet ben-gurion and the Ben-Gurion University Press (Hebrew).

Berry

(1997) Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review 46: 5–34.

Berry

Kim

Power

(1989) Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review 38: 185–206.

10.

Billy

Rogers

Udry

(1984) Adolescent sexual behavior and friendship choice. Social Forces 62: 653–678.

11.

Bogardus

(1925) Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology 9: 299–308.

12.

Bourdieu

(1990) Social space and symbolic power. In: Bourdieu

(eds) In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 122–139.

13.

Boyd

Ellison

(2007) Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13: 210–230.

14.

Bradley K (2006) Internet lives: Social context and moral domain in adolescent development. Available at: http://faculty.headroyce.org/∼kbradley/bradley_internet_lives.pdf (accessed 22 November 2012).

15.

Bramoulle

Currarini

Jackson

(2012) Homophily and long-run integration in social networks. Journal of Economic Theory 147: 1754–1786.

16.

Brown

Hewstone

(2005) An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 37: 255–343.

17.

Burkhalter

(1999) Reading race online. In: Smith

Kollock

(eds) Communities in Cyberspace, London: Routledge, pp. 60–75.

18.

Castles

(2000) International migration at the beginning of the 21-st century: Global issues and trends. International Social Science Journal 165: 269–281.

19.

Castles

(2002) Migration and community formation under conditions of globalization. The International Migration Review 36: 1143–1168.

20.

CBS (2010) Statistical abstract of Israel 2010. Available at: http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/shnatone_new.htm?CYear=2010&Vol=61&CSubject=30 (accessed 1 May 2013).

21.

CBS (2011) Statistical abstract of Israel 2011. Available at: www.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/shnatone_new.htm?CYear=2011&Vol=62&CSubject=30 (accessed 12 May 2013).

22.

CBS (2012) Statistical abstract of Israel 2012. Available at: www.cbs.gov.il/reader/?MIval=shnaton%2Fshnatonh_new.htm&CYear=2012&Vol=63&sa=%E4%EE%F9%EA&CSubject=8 (accessed 22 January 2014).

23.

Cohen

Susser

(2009) Jews and others: Non-Jewish Jews in Israel. Israel Affairs 15: 52–65.

24.

Cohen

(1983) Peer influence on college aspirations. American Sociological Review 48: 728–734.

25.

Cohen Y and Haberfeld Y (2003) Gender, Ethnic, and National Earnings Gaps in Israel: The Role of Rising Inequality. Tel-Aviv University, Discussion Paper No. 5-2003.

26.

Cohen Y, Haberfeld Y and Kristal T (2004) Ethnicity and Mixed Ethnicity: Educational Gaps among Israeli-Born Jews. Tel-Aviv University, Discussion Paper No. 5-2004.

27.

Ekstein

Weiss

(2004) On the wage growth of immigrants: Israel 1990–2000. Journal of the European Economic Association 2: 665–695.

28.

Elias

(2011) Russian-speaking Immigrants and their Media: Still Together? Special issue “Twenty years together: the ‘Great Aliya’ and Russian Israelis in the mirror of social research”. Israel Affairs 17: 73–89.

29.

Elias

Lemish

(2009) Spinning the web of identity: Internet’s roles in immigrant adolescents’ search of identity. New Media and Society 11: 533–551.

30.

Elias

Shorer-Zeltser

(2006) Immigrants of the world unite? A virtual community of Russian-speaking immigrants on the web. Journal of International Communication 12: 70–90.

31.

Elias

Shorer-Zeltser

(2008) “My address is not a building, nor a street”: The Russian-speaking diaspora on the web. Diasporas 2: 178–194. in Russian).

32.

Epstein

(2006) The impact of the Arab-Israeli conflict on the political behavior of the “Russian” Israelis. Social Issues in Israel 1: 94–115.

33.

Fisher

(1990) The Social Psychology of Intergroup and International Conflict Resolution, New York: Springer.

34.

Friedberg

(2001) The impact of mass migration on the Israeli labour market. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116: 1373–1408.

35.

Gitelman

(1995) Immigration and Identity. The Resettlement and Impact of Soviet Immigrants on Israeli Politics and Society, Report. Los Angeles: Wilstein Jewish Policy Institute.

36.

Hartup

Stevens

(1997) Friendships and adaptation in the life course. Psychological Bulletin 121: 355–370.

37.

Heinlein

Kaplan

(2010) Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons 53: 59–68.

38.

Hewstone

(2003) Intergroup contact: Panacea for prejudice? The Psychologist 16: 352–355.

39.

Horowith

(1999) Ideology, identity and frustration as factors which affected FSU immigrants’ voting patterns. In: Arian

Shamir

(eds) Elections in Israel, 1996, Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute, pp. 149–170. (Hebrew).

40.

Joinson

(2001) Self disclosure in CMC: The role of self awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology 31: 177–192.

41.

Kahan-Strawczynski

Amiel

Levi

(2012) First and Second Generations of Immigrant Youth from Ethiopia and the Former Soviet Union – Similarities and Differences, Jerusalem: Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute, Engelberg Center for Children and Youth.

42.

Karakayali

(2009) Social distance and affective orientation. Sociological Forum 24: 538–562.

43.

Karatzogianni

(2006) The Politics of Cyberconflict, London: Routledge.

44.

Katz-Gerro

Raz

Yaish

(2008) How do class, status, ethnicity, and religiosity shape cultural omnivorousness in Israel? Journal of Cultural Economy 33: 1–17.

45.

Kim

(1999) Cross-cultural perspectives on motivations of verbal communication: Review, critique, and a theoretical framework. Communication Yearbook 22: 51–90.

46.

Kuntsman

(2003) Double homecoming: Sexuality, ethnicity and place in immigration stories of Russian lesbians in Israel. Women’s Studies International Forum 26: 299–311.

47.

Kuntsman

(2010) Webs of hate in diasporic cyberspaces: The Gaza War in the Russian-language blogosphere. Media, War and Conflict 3: 299–313.

48.

Lev-On A and Lissitsa S (2010) “Digital divide, Israel 2008” MCIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper 54. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2010/54/ (accessed 12 June 2013).

49.

Lewin-Epstein

Semyonov

(1993) Arabs in Israel’s Economy: Patterns of Ethnic Inequality, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

50.

Lissitsa S (2006) Integration of immigrants from the CIS in Israel: The emergence of a transnational diaspora. PhD Thesis, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.

51.

Lissitsa

Bokek-Cohen

(2012) Segmentation of FSU immigrants according to their socio-cultural adjustment patterns for communication and marketing objectives. In: Lissitsa

Bokek-Cohen

(eds) Old Roots in New Soil. The Adjustment of FSU Immigrants in Israel in the New Millennium, Ariel: Ariel University Center of Samaria, pp. 223–239. (Hebrew).

52.

Lissitsa

Peres

(2011) Criteria of socio-cultural adjustment: The case of the Russian community in Israel since 1989. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35: 205–212.

53.

Lomsky-Feder

Leibovitz

(2010) Inter-ethnic encounters within the family: Competing cultural models and social exchange. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36: 107–124.

54.

McKenna

Bargh

(2000) Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4: 57–75.

55.

McKenna

Green

Gleason

MEG

(2002) Relationship formation on the Internet: What is the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues 58: 9–31.

56.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Cook

(2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review Sociology 27: 415–444.

57.

Mesh

Talmud

(2007) Homophily and quality of online and offline social relationships among adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescents 17: 455–466.

58.

Miller

Smith

Mackie

(2004) Effects of intergroup contact and political predispositions on prejudice: The role of intergroup emotions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 7: 221–237.

59.

Nakamura

(2002) Cybertypes: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet, New York: Routledge.

60.

Navas

Garcia

Sanchez

(2005) Relative Acculturation Extended Model (RAEM): New contributions with regard to the study of acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29: 21–37.

61.

Neto

(2002) Acculturation strategies among adolescents from immigrant families in Portugal. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26: 17–38.

62.

Niznik

(2012) Russian Language in Israel – Is it in a process of decline. In: Lissitsa

Bokek-Cohen

(eds) Old Roots in New Soil. The Adjustment of FSU Immigrants in Israel in the New Millennium, Ariel: Ariel University Center publishing, pp. 187–198. (Hebrew).

63.

Oetzel

(1998) Explaining individual communication processes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups through individualism-collectivism and self-construal. Human Communication Research 25: 202–224.

64.

Partridge

(1988) Acculturation attitudes and stress of Westerners living in Japan. In: Berry

Annis

(eds) Ethnic Psychology, Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger, pp. 105–113.

65.

Peres

Ben-Rafael

(2006) Cleavages in Israeli Society, Tel-Aviv: Am Oved (Hebrew).

66.

Pettigrew

(1998) Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology 49: 65–85.

67.

Pettigrew

(2008) Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32: 187–199.

68.

Pettigrew

Christ

Wagner

(2007) Direct and indirect intergroup contact effects on prejudice: A normative interpretation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 31: 425–441.

69.

Pettigrew

Tropp

(2000) Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In: Oskamp

(eds) Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination, The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 93–114.

70.

Pettigrew

Tropp

Wagner

(2011) Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35: 271–280.

71.

Raijman

Semyonov

(1998) Best of times, worst of times and the occupational mobility of Soviet immigrants to Israel. International Migration 36: 291–312.

72.

Remennick

(2002) Transnational Community in the Making: Russian-Jewish Immigrants of the 1990s in Israel. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 28: 515–530.

73.

Remennick

(2003) The 1.5-generation of Russian Immigrants in Israel between integration and socio-cultural retention. Diaspora 12: 39–66.

74.

Remennick

(2004) Work relations between immigrants and old-timers in an Israeli organization: Social interactions and inter-group attitudes. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 45: 43–69.

75.

Remennick

(2005) Cross-cultural dating patterns on an Israeli campus: Why are Russian immigrant women more popular than men? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22: 435–454.

76.

Remennick

(2007) Russian Jews on Three Continents: Identity, Integration, and Conflict, Edison: Transaction.

77.

Remennick

(2013a) Professional identities in transit: Factors shaping immigrant labour market success. International Migration 51: 152–168.

78.

Remennick

(2013b) Transnational lifestyles among Russian Israelis: A follow-up study. Global Networks 13: 478–497.

79.

Ritterband

(1997) Jewish identity among Russian immigrants in the US. In: Lewin-Epstein

Roi

Ritterband

(eds) Russian Jews on Three Continents, London: Frank Cass, pp. 325–343.

80.

Roccas

Horenczyk

Schwartz

(2000) Acculturation discrepancies and well-being: The moderating role of conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology 30: 323–334.

81.

Ruesch M (2011) A peaceful net? Intergroup contact and communicative conflict resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict on Facebook. In: Paper presented at the first global conference on communication and conflict, Prague, 2011. Available at: http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/rueschccpaper.pdf (accessed 20 February 2013).

82.

Schumann

van der Linden

Klein

(2012) Bridging the gap on Facebook: Assessing intergroup contact and its effects for intergroup relations. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 15: 411–416.

83.

Semyonov

Lerenthal

(1991) Country of origin, gender, and the attainment of economic status: A study of stratification in the Jewish population in Israel. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 10: 325–343.

84.

Sheperman

(2008) Israeli Society – A Society of Immigrants, Jerusalem: The Israeli Institute for Democracy.

85.

Sicron

(1998) The Immigrants’ human capital and their integration in the labor force. In: Sicron

Leshem

(eds) Profile of an Immigration Wave: The Absorption Process of Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union, 1990–1995, Jerusalem: the Magnes Press, the Hebrew University, pp. 127–174. (Hebrew).

86.

Sicron

(2012) The demographic characteristics and patterns of FSU immigrants in Israel: A demographic-statistical overview. In: Lissitsa

Bokek-Cohen

(eds) Old Roots in New Soil. The Adjustment of FSU Immigrants in Israel in the New Millennium, Ariel: Ariel University Center publishing, pp. 9–36 (Hebrew).

87.

Smooha

(2008) The mass immigrations to Israel: A comparison of the failure of the Mizrahi immigrants of the 1950s with the success of the Russian immigrants of the 1990s. The Journal of Israeli History 27: 1–27.

88.

Stathi

Crisp

(2010) Intergroup contact and the projection of positivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 3: 580–591.

89.

Stephan

(1985) Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues 41: 157–175.

90.

Stephan

Ybarra

Martinez

(1998) Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29: 559–576.

91.

Stier

Levanon

(2003) Finding an adequate job: Employment and income of recent immigrants in Israel. International Migration 41: 81–105.

92.

Tropp

Pettigrew

(2005) Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31: 1145–1158.

93.

Tynes

Giang

Williams

(2008) Online racial discrimination and psychological adjustment among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 43: 565–569.

94.

Tynes

Reynolds

Greenfield

(2004) Adolescence, race, and ethnicity on the Internet: A comparison of discourse in monitored vs. unmonitored chat rooms. Applied Developmental Psychology 25: 667–684.

95.

Tzfadia

(2000) Immigrant dispersal in settler societies: Mizrahim and Russians in Israel under the press of hegemony. Geography Research Forum 20: 52–69.

96.

Van Oudenhoven

Eisses

(1998) Integration and assimilation of Moroccan immigrants in Israel and the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22: 293–307.

97.

Varma

Stroh

(2001) The impact of same-sex LMX dyads on performance evaluations. Human Resource Management 40: 309–320.

98.

Whitaker

Hill

(1998) Virtual voices in “Letters Across Cultures”: Listening for race, class, and gender. Computers and Composition 15: 331–346.

99.

White

Abu-Rayya

(2012) A dual identity-electronic contact (DIEC) experiment promoting short- and long-term intergroup harmony. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48: 597–608.

100.

Wolak

Mitchell

Finkelhor

(2003) Escaping or connecting? Characteristics of youth who form close online relationships. Journal of Adolescence 26: 105–119.

101.

Yelenevskaya

(2005) A cultural diaspora in the making: Former Soviets in Israel and in Germany. In: Moskovich

Nikolova

(eds) Jews and Slavs: Judaeo-Bulgarica, Judaeo-Russica et Paleoslavica Vol. 15Jerusalem: Center for Slavic Languages and Literatures, pp. 265–279.

102.

Yelenevskaya

Fialkova

(2004) My poor cousin, my feared enemy: The image of an Arab in the personal narratives of Former Soviets in Israel. Folklore 115: 77–98.

103.

Yuchtman-Ya’ar

Peres

(1998) Between Consent and Dissent: Democracy and Peace in the Israeli Mind, New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

104.

Ziv

(2011) Women employers and female foreign workers in Israel: Stereotypical attitudes and social distance. Hamishpat 16: 399–410. Hebrew).