Julian J. Meimban III
Zaldy D. Petorio
Melencio G. Marcos, Jr.
How to Cite:
Meimban III, J. J., Petorio, Z. D., & Marcos, M. G., Jr. (2024). Attitude of Filipinos residing in Quezon City, Philippines towards Russians. NEU Likha Journal: A Refereed Journal of the New Era University School of Graduate Studies, 1(1), 71-84. https://doi.org/10.64303/n3u-Lailj24Hk0un2o-r_a0FrizqpCh-trs
Abstract
Attitude (sense of intimacy/affinity or antipathy) of Filipinos living in Quezon City, Philippines toward Russians was determined using an enhanced 7-item Bogardus’ Social Distance Scale. Based on power analysis for a 2 x 3 x 3 ANOVA design, 209 respondents were required and randomly selected to analyze the main effects and interaction effects of three independent variables (gender, age, and social class) on one dependent variable (a composite attitude score). Gender was categorized into Male and Female; Age into Generation X, Baby Boomer, and Millennial; and Social Class into Class A, Class B, and Class C. The average attitude of respondents was intimacy/affinity. All first order effects and second order effect were found not statistically significant at α = .05. Only the main effect of social class was statistically significant (p = .005) where Class A (those who live in high-end subdivision) rated Russians more favorably than did Class C (those who are unemployed, tricycle drivers, sidewalk vendors, and the like) although both classes were found on the intimacy/affinity side of the scale. Further tests revealed that on items 2 to 7 of the scale (ITEM2 – Close friend, ITEM3 – Neighbor on my street, ITEM4 – Co-worker, ITEM5 – Citizen in my country, ITEM6 – Visitor in my country, ITEM7 – Disallow to enter the country), Filipinos expressed statistically significant intimacy/affinity. But on ITEM1 (Close relative marriage), they were ambivalent or undecided.
Keywords: Bogardus’ Social Distance Scale, 2 x 3 x 3 ANOVA, Russian-Philippine relations
Introduction
Russian-Philippine relations enter a new era. Among the features of this era include the promotion of Russian culture and language in the Philippines, through a joint effort between a Russian University (i.e., MGIMO University) and a Philippine university (i.e., New Era University).
Expectedly, more Russians are coming soon, which would eventually result in more interactions between the two nationalities. It is vital to assess the attitude of the citizens of the host country towards their visitors. As such, this study was conducted. Quezon City was the site of the study because it is the prime venue of the language program, and is the country’s most populous city with 2.2 million residents.
This study aimed to answer the following research questions and test the subsequent null hypotheses. All alternative hypotheses are non-directional.
- What is the overall attitude (in terms of affinity/intimacy and antipathy) of Filipinos living in Quezon City towards Russians?
Ho: Mean attitude is equal to the mean of the scale, which corresponds to the dividing point between sense of intimacy/affinity and sense of antipathy (or an ambivalent or undecided response). - Does gender make difference in the attitude of Filipinos living in Quezon City towards Russians?
Ho: Average attitude of male and of female is the same. - Does age make difference in the attitude Filipinos living in Quezon City towards Russians?
Ho: Age groups have equal mean attitude. - Does social class make difference in the attitude of Filipinos living in Quezon City towards Russians?
Ho: Social classes have the same attitude. - Is there an interaction effect of age and gender?
Ho: There is no age and gender interaction. - Is there an interaction effect of age and social class?
Ho: There is no age and social class interaction. - Is there and interaction effect of gender and social class?
Ho: There is no gender and social class interaction. - Is there an interaction effect of age, gender, and social class?
Ho: There is no age, gender, social class interaction. - What is the overall attitude of Filipinos living in Quezon City towards Russians on each item of the survey questionnaire?
Ho: Mean attitude is equal to the mean of the scale, which corresponds to the dividing point between sense of intimacy/affinity and sense of antipathy (or an ambivalent or undecided response).
Methods
Respondents
The respondents of the study were Filipinos residing in Quezon City, Philippines. They were categorized into gender, age, and social class. Gender was further differentiated into male and female. Age was classified into (1) Baby boomers – those born between 1946 and 1964, (2) Generation X – those born between 1965 and 1981, and (3) Millennial – those born between 1982 and 1996. Social class was divided into (1) Class A – those who live in the high-end subdivisions, (2) Class B – those who are professionals (teacher, government employees, and private company office employees, and their children) and who are not included in Class A, and (3) Class C – those who are unemployed, tricycle drivers, sidewalk vendors, and the like.
Survey Instrument
The researchers used, with permission, an enhanced Bogardus’ Social Distance scale, developed by Mather et al. (2017), wherein the original seven-item indicators of social distance were re-calibrated through integration of a 7-point Likert scale. Respondents were asked how much they agree on the following items: (1) To have a family member to marry a Russian; (2) To have a close friend who is Russian; (3) To have a Russian neighbor; (4) To have a co-worker who is Russian; (5) To have Russian as resident in the country; (6) To have Russian as only visitors in the country; and (7) To exclude Russian from the country.
The instrument underwent content and face validity assessment. It was also checked for and able to meet internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha = .82).
Sample Size
This study was analyzed using factorial ANOVA design. A total sample of 209 was needed to achieve desired precision for statistical evaluation of main effects and interaction effects. The required sample size was estimated based on power analysis for 2 x 3 x 3 ANOVA design with the following specifications: (1) level of significance, α = .05; (2) effect size (ES) = 0.25 (medium) for all main and interaction effects; and (3) power = .80. The main effects were SEX (gender), AGEGROUP (age), and SCLASS (social class). The first order interactions were SEX x AGEGROUP, SEX x SCLASS, and AGEGROUP x SCLASS; second order interaction, SEX x AGEGROUP x SCLASS (Cohen, 1988).
Survey Procedure
The research was carried out by the authors with the help of 72 students who were instructed and trained by the researchers on how to properly conduct varied forms of survey. Twelve (12) interviewers were deployed to each of the administrative districts of Quezon City on September 2, 2018. The interviewers presented to the randomly selected respondents the questionnaire, reminding them that their participation was voluntary. To document and authenticate the actual survey, the interviewers took photos of themselves with the interviewees along with landmarks in the area where the survey took place (e.g., police station, barangay office, and bus station).
Data Analysis
The dependent variable was the variable TOTAL, the sum of iscores of a respondent in each of the seven items in the survey questionnaire. An iscore is a product of a Likert point (the number which a respondent selected in a 7-point Likert scale to express his/her attitude) and the number of an item in the social distance scale. The independent variables were SEX, AGEGROUP, and SCLASS. The interaction effects (from the highest order to the lowest order) were analyzed first before considering the main effects.
Homogeneity of variance assumption was checked using Levene’s test. Where homogeneity of variance test was not met, Games-Howell test was used for multiple comparisons following a significant main effect. All hypotheses testing were made at α = .05. Statistical software used was SPSS v.24.
Results and Discussion
Respondents
The survey yielded 100% response rate. The frequency of respondents is generally proportionately distributed among various combinations of the independent variables (Table 1).
The means and standard deviations of the dependent variable TOTAL for the variable SEX at various combination of SCLASS-AGEGROUP are apparently generally different for CLASS A from those for CLASS B and for CLASS C (Table 2). However, further statistical tests were required to reveal real significant differences.
Research Question 1
What is the overall average attitude of Filipinos living in Quezon City towards Russians?
Ho: Mean attitude is equal to the mean of the scale, which corresponds to the dividing point between sense of intimacy/affinity and sense of antipathy (or an ambivalent or undecided response)
On the average, respondents expressed attitude of intimacy/affinity toward Russians. The mean of the variable TOTAL (M = 72.30) is far less than the hypothesized mean of the scale (μ = 112), t(208) = -17.37, p < .001 (Table 3). Had the mean of TOTAL been greater than 112, a sense of antipathy would have been expressed by respondents. Analyses by items were discussed under subsection Research Question 9.
Research Question 2 – Research Question 8
Hypotheses tested were stated under RESEARCH QUESTIONS. Omnibus test for the 2 x 3 x 3 ANOVA showed that the second order interaction effect (SEX x AGEGROUP x SCLASS) was not statistically significant, p = .663 (Table 4). Moreover, the three first order interaction effects (SEX x AGEGROUP, SEX x SCLASS, AGEGROUP x SCLASS) were also found not statistically significant, p = .806, p = .227, and p = .833, respectively.
On the other hand, test for the main effects showed that SCLASS was highly statistically significant, F(2,191) = 5.367, p = .005, ES (partial eta) = 0.23 (medium), observed power = .84. Also, SEX was statistically significant, F(1,191) = 4.237, p = .041, ES (partial eta) = 0.10 (small), observed power = .54. AGEGROUP, however, was not statistically significant, p = .305. Non-significant results suggest that the independent variables tested have no significant influence on the dependent variable (attitude toward Russians). For instance, the three age groups (Baby Boomer, Gen X, and Millennial) expressed similar attitude of intimacy/affinity toward Russians (Mather et al., 2017).
Multiple comparisons for SCLASS revealed that CLASS A and CLASS C were statistically significant, p = .005 (based on Games-Howell test, recommended when Levene’s test is significant) (Table 5). This finding agrees with the results using Tukey HSD where equal variances were assumed, p = .003. Apparently, on the average, CLASS A residents (those who live in high-end subdivisions) (M = 63.16, SD = 25.72) (Table 2) rated Russians more favorably than did CLASS C residents (those who are unemployed, tricycle drivers, sidewalk vendors, and the like) (M = 81.69, SD = 39.78), although both classes were found on the intimacy/affinity side of the scale.
On the other hand, SEX was statistically significant, F = 4.237, p = .041, although rather close to the designated α = .05 (Table 4). This result suggests that, on the average, male residents (M = 68.34, SD = 32.78) rated Russians more favorably than did female residents (M = 76.23, SD = 32.97), with both groups found on the intimacy/affinity side of the scale (Table 2).
Research Question 9
What is the average attitude of Filipinos living in Quezon City towards Russians on each of the seven items of the social distance scale?
Ho: Mean attitude is equal to the mean of the scale, which corresponds to the dividing point between sense of intimacy/affinity and sense of antipathy (or an ambivalent or undecided response)
For ITEM2 to ITEM6, respondents expressed sense of intimacy/affinity toward Russians as evidenced by the highly significant one-sample t-test, p < .001 for each of the items at Bonferroni adjusted α = .006 (Table 3). However, test for ITEM1 (Close relative marriage) was not significant, p = .134. This finding indicates that the mean of ITEM1 (3.89) is not statistically significantly different from the mean value of the scale (4.0), which corresponds to an ambivalent or undecided response (Neither Agree nor Disagree).
References
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Mather, D. M., Jones, S. W., & Moats, S. (2017). Improving upon Bogardus: Creating a More Sensitive and Dynamic Social Distance Scale. Survey Practice, 10(4).
https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2017-0026.
