Anticipated future of Latvia and Russia during a global economic crisis: A mixed methods perspective

Abstract

This cross-cultural study explored subjective predictors of more positive evaluation of the future of the country during a global socioeconomic crisis. A sequential mixed-method design was chosen for an exploration of students? expectations in Russia and Latvia as countries contrasting in macro-contextual conditions. In 2009, Study 1 was designed as a thematic analysis of essays on topic ?The Future of Latvia/Russia?. The results demonstrated that the future of a country is anticipated by taking into account external influences, the present of the country, and its perceived power and stability. In 2011, Study 2 involved these themes as independent variables in a multiple regression model. The results demonstrated that positive evaluation of the present and higher perceived power of the country are individuallevel predictors of more positive evaluation of its future. Observed concordance of models indicates relatively high importance of subjective view of the country in the changing world.

Sense of belonging to Latvia in Latvian- and Russian-speaking residents of Latvia

“…The view of Latvia was a significant predictor for the sense of belonging in the Latvian-speaking group. This finding confirms that the assessment of the situation, perceived control over it, and the power of the country are topical in individual perception of the country (Kolesovs & Kashirsky, 2014). It also matches with findings on predictors of belonging to a community (Arcidiacono et al, 2007;Pretty et al, 2003;Tartaglia, 2006).…”

“…A community and the country form the spatial frame of belonging while the present and near and distant future represent its temporal frame. Dividing the future into two categories was based on theoretical considerations on temporal distance (Trope & Liberman, 2003) and empirical findings on the perceived future of the country (Kolesovs & Kashirsky, 2014). Participants used a seven-point scale to rate their answers.…”

“…The power of the country was assessed by a seven-point semantic differential scale, anchored by three pairs of adjectives: powerless-powerful, unstable-stable, and weakstrong. The last pair extended the original subscale of the FCQ, which demonstrated internal consistency ranging from Cronbach's alpha of .66 to .68 (Kolesovs & Kashirsky, 2014).…”

“…By analogy with the community level, the view of the country involved personal control and evaluation of the situation at the macro level. Perceived power and stability of Latvia were also added to the view of the country, as associated with an evaluation of its present and future (Kolesovs & Kashirsky, 2014). Therefore, the model extended the scope of perceived characteristics of a community and the country.…”

“…The pursuit of opportunities is also among the main drivers of migration processes worldwide (World Bank, 2018). A study on the perceived future of Latvia demonstrated that insufficient perceived opportunities form a reason for changing life prospects and emigration of people from Latvia (Kolesovs & Kashirsky, 2014). The later currently forms the main factor of depopulation in the country (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2016).…”