The smallest social distance to Ukrainian-speaking and Russian-speaking Ukrainians (index 2.2 and 2.8 respectively), the majority of respondents are ready to allow representatives of these groups as members of their family and close friends. Then there are Belarusians (3.3), followed by Russians with some margin (3.8) and Poles (4.1). Then there are Crimean Tatars, Canadians, Jews, Germans and Americans with approximately the same social distance of 4.4-4.5. The Chinese  (5,3), the Africans (5,4) and Arabs (5,5) complete the hierarchy of social distances. The last are  Gypsies (5.7).

To interpret these results, it should be taken into account that some groups live only outside Ukraine (for example, Americans, Chinese), some mainly in Ukraine (Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars), and some in Ukraine and beyond (for example, Russians, Byelorussians). In the latter case, some respondents are referring to citizens of Ukraine, some of them to citizens of another state, which complicates the interpretation of data. Thus, the attitude towards Russians is polarized, 40% of those polled are ready to allow Russians to be members of their family and close friends, and 42% would not want them to be Ukrainian citizens and ready to allow them only as guests of Ukraine or even not allowed to enter Ukraine. One can express the hypothesis that in the first case the respondents meant Russians - the inhabitants of Ukraine, and in the second - the citizens of Russia.

Dynamics of xenophobia

On the graph 2, the dynamics of the xenophobic index, which is calculated as the average social distance to 13 ethnic and lingua-ethnic groups (all groups except Crimean Tatars, Arabs and Chinese). The index name is conditional, we regard this index as an indicator that is related to the level of xenophobia (in general, xenophobia is a complex multidimensional phenomenon and can not be characterized by one indicator).

Chart 2. The dynamics of xenophobia in Ukraine from 1994 to 2018 (index of xenophobia).

As we can see, the level of xenophobia in Ukraine has increased with some fluctuations from 1994 to 2007; it has grown from 3.5 to 4.3 points in this period (this is the highest level for all time observations). From 2008 to 2013, the index fell to 4.0 points. In 2014, we conducted two surveys - in February (score 4.16) and in October (score 4.01), the average score of 4.09 (ie about 4.1). Further, the index of xenophobia with some fluctuations increased slightly (from 4.1 to 4.2 partly due to the growth of social distance to Russians) and returned to the level of 2011

Factors of xenophobia

Gender has virtually no effect on the level of xenophobia, men have a slightly lower level of xenophobia (4.15) than women (4.24), this difference is statistically significant at 5% but very small. In addition, women live longer, and with age, the level of xenophobia increases (among men, 22% are over 60, and among women - 32%). Therefore, this difference may be due to age, not gender. Indeed, among respondents, the difference between the male and female younger than 60 xenophobic index is negligible..

Age has some influence on the level of xenophobia - the higher the age - the higher the level of xenophobia (see Chart 3).

Chart 3. Age and level of xenophobia (xenophobia index)

The type of settlement has a significant impact on the level of xenophobia, those living in the city have a significantly lower level of xenophobia (index 4.05) compared to those living in the village (index 4.51).

The region of residence also has a significant impact on the level of xenophobia (Graph 4), the highest level of xenophobia in the West (4.74), the lowest in the South (3.61). Partly, this dependence is explained by the fact that in the West there is more rural population with a higher level of xenophobia. But the region of residence affects also regardless of the type of settlement, because if we select only the population of large cities with a population of more than 100 thousand, then we obtain approximately the same ratio of levels of xenophobia as in Graph 4.

 

Chart 4. The region of residence and the level of xenophobia (xenophobic index)

Education has one of the greatest impacts on the level of xenophobia from the factors we are investigating (see Chart 5). If for persons without secondary education the index of xenophobia is 4.64, then for those with higher education it is 4.02.

Chart 5. Education and level of xenophobia (xenophobic index)

The financial status also has an impact on the level of xenophobia (see graph 6) - the higher the level of well-being - the lower the level of xenophobia

Chart 6. Financial status and level of xenophobia (xenophobic index)

However, here education can influence instead of financial status, because they are interconnected, people with a higher level of education have a better financial position. For example, among those who do not have enough food, only 15% of respondents are with higher education, and among those who can buy expensive things - 56%.

Annex

Table 1.

2. Characteristics of samples from 2014 to 2018

Omn Feb. 2014

KIIS conducted the Omnibus public opinion poll from February 8 to 18, 2014. By the method of personal interview were interviewed  2,032 respondents living in all regions of Ukraine (including the city of Kyiv) and in the Crimea by a stochastic sample representative of the population of Ukraine 18 years and older.

Omn-Oct2014

From October 9-19, 2014, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) conducted an all-Ukrainian public opinion poll. By the method of personal interview were interviewed 2025 respondents who live in 110 settlements of all regions of Ukraine (except for Luhansk region and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea) according to a stochastic sample representative for the population of Ukraine, age from 18 years and older.

Omn-Sept2015

From September 9 to 24, 2015, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) conducted an all-Ukrainian public opinion poll. By method of personal interviewing, 2041 respondents who lived in 110 settlements of all regions of Ukraine (except the Crimea) were interviewed according to a stochastic sample that is representative for the population of Ukraine from the age 18. In Luhansk and Donetsk regions, the poll was conducted only on the territory controlled by the Ukrainian authorities.

Omn-Sept2016

From September 16 to 26, 2016, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) conducted an all-Ukrainian public opinion poll. By the method of personal interviewing, 2040 respondents who lived in 110 settlements of all regions of Ukraine (except the Crimea) were interviewed according to a stochastic sample that is representative for the population of Ukraine from the age 18. In Luhansk and Donetsk regions, the poll was conducted only on the territory controlled by the Ukrainian authorities.

Omn_May2017

From May 20 to 29, 2017, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) conducted an all-Ukrainian public opinion poll. By the method of personal interviewing, 2040 respondents who lived in 108 settlements of all regions of Ukraine (except the Crimea) were interviewed according to a stochastic sample representative for the population of Ukraine from the age of 18. In Luhansk and Donetsk regions, polls were conducted only in territories controlled by Ukraine.

Omn-Sept2018

From September 8 till September 23, 2018, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) conducted its own all-Ukrainian public opinion poll with the use of tablets. By the method of personal interview, 2026 respondents living in 109 settlements of all regions of Ukraine (except Crimea) were interviewed in a 4-step stochastic sample that is representative for the population of Ukraine from the age of 18. In Luhansk and Donetsk regions, the poll was conducted only on the territory controlled by the Ukrainian authorities.