The article presents the initial results of applying a multidimensional methodology to the sociological measurement of the level of Russian identity. The multidimensional approach to measuring the level of Russian identity was constructed based on a five-component model of in-group identification developed by K. Leach and colleagues. This methodology allows for the quantitative measurement of the degree of formation of components such as cohesion (psychological connection with other members of the community), emotional satisfaction with belonging to the community, salience (the significance of belonging to a particular community in the structure of a person's self-concept or "I-concept"), self-stereotyping (conviction of one's similarity to other members of the same community), and homogeneity (perception of the community as a whole). The empirical basis of the study was the data from a survey of residents of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) conducted in 2021-2022, that included a block of multidimensional measurements of the level of Russian identity.

Based on the analysis conducted, the author draws several conclusions:

1. The profile of Russian identity, in its republican variation, is characterised by relatively high levels of satisfaction and cohesion, and low levels of salience, self-stereotyping, and homogeneity. In other words, when considering these components together, it reflects the formation of perceptions of the Russian community as a whole, a collective, rather than a simple collection of people with Russian citizenship.

2. The multidimensional approach has significantly expanded existing notions of the prevalence of identity-based foundations of Russian consolidation by providing insights into the contribution of each identifier to the overall level of Russian identity. The hierarchy of identity foundations based on their contribution to the formation of the profile of Russian identity does not align with the hierarchy of the same foundations based on their importance in the self-categorisation process.

3. Comparing data on the profile of Russian identity in 2021 and 2022 allowed for the identification of changes in the level of Russian identity following the start of the Special Military Operation (SVO). There was a slight decrease in cohesion indicators, alongside a significant increase in satisfaction and salience indicators, while self-stereotyping and homogeneity indicators remained unchanged.

In conclusion, it is shown that the use of a multidimensional approach to the study of Russian identity allows for a detailed examination of the structure and dynamics of Russian identity, formulated based on "classic" monomeric measurements.

All-Russian identity profile, multidimensional approach, multicomponent model of intragroup identification, hierarchy of identification bases, identity configuration

1. Agadullina E. R., Lovakov A. V. Measurement Model of In-group Identification: Validation in Russian Samples. Psyhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, 2013: 10(4): 139–153 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17323/1813-8918-2013-4-143-157; EDN: SHGALR.
2. Barash R. E. Family Memory of the Russia's Citizens in the Context of Actual Social Challenges. Socialno-politicheskie nauki, 2021: 11(5): 13–26 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.33693/2223-0092-2021-11-5-13-26; EDN: TMNFNQ.
3. Weber M. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Transl. from German by M. Levina. Moscow. AST, 2021: 352 (in Russ.).
4. Drobizheva L. M., Ryzhova S. V. All-Russian identity in the sociological dimension. Vestnik rossijskoj nacii, 2021: 1-2(77-78): 39–52 (in Russ.). EDN: HAGVQK.
5. Durkheim E. O razdelenii obshchestvennogo truda [The division of labor in society]. Transl. from French by A. B. Gofman. Moscow, Kanon, 1996: 430 (in Russ.).
6. Inglehart R., Welzel Ch. Modernizatsiya, kul'turnyye izmeneniya i demokratiya. Posledovatel'nost' chelovecheskogo razvitiya [Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy. The Human Development Sequence]. Transl. from Eng. by M. Korobochkin. Moscow, Novoe izdatel'stvo, 2011: 464 (in Russ.).
7. Information and Analytical Bulletin (INAB). Interethnic relations and Russian identity in the complex conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2021: 1: 58. Accessed 25.05.2023. URL: https://www.fnisc.ru/index.php?page_id=1198&id=9453 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.19181/INAB.2021.1.
8. Kuznetsov I. M. The Balance of Interethnic Attitudes as an Indicator of State of Interethnic Relations. Mir Russii, 2017: 26(1): 58–80 (in Russ.). EDN: YHTCBL.
9. Ryzhova S. V. The Ethno-sociological School of L. Drobizheva: Developing Approaches towards the Study of all-Russian Identity. Sotsiologicheskiy zhurnal, 2023: 29(1): 36–54 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.19181/socjour.2023.29.1.2; EDN: DZDDQP.
10. Ryzhova S. V. Emotional component of the all-russian identity: positive and negative contexts Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2022: 4: 21–32 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.31857/S013216250019609-2; EDN: OCUXPT.
11. Ryzhova S. V. Russian Identity in Regional Diversity: The Role of Trust. Vestnik instituta sotziologii, 2022: 13(3): 13–31 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.19181/vis.2022.13.3.828; EDN: TPBYIX.
12. The substantial foundations of Russian identity. Regional and ethnocultural contexts. Ed. by E. M. Arutyunova, S. V. Ryzhova. Mоscow, FNISC RAN, 2021: 288 (in Russ.). EDN: AOEBHB.
13. Khukhlaev O. Ye., Aleksandrova E. A., Gritsenko V. V. et al. Religious Group Identification and Ethno-National Attitudes in Buddhist, Muslim and Orthodox Youth. Кul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya, 2019: 15(3): 71–82 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17759/chp.2019150308; EDN: XDSAIG.
14. Erikson E. H. Identity: Youth and crisis. Ed by. A. V. Tolstyh, Transl. from Eng. Moscow, Progress, 1996: 340 (in Russ.).
15. Ashmore R. D., Deaux K., McLaughlin-Volpe T. An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin. 2004: 130: 1: 80–114. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80.
16. David O., Bar-Tal D. A Sociopsychological Conception of Collective Identity: The Case of National Identity as an Example. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2009: 13: 3: 354–379. DOI:10.1177/1088868309344412.
17. Ellemers N., Kortekaas P., Ouwerkerk J. W. Self-categorization, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1999: 29: 371–389. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/33.3.CO;2-L.
18. Gaertner S. L., Dovidio J. F., Bachman B. A. et al. The Common Ingroup Identity Model: Recategorization and the Reduction of Intergroup Bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 1993: 4: 1: 1–26. DOI: 10.1080/14792779343000004.
19. Giddens A. Modernity and Self Identity, Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge, Polity Press, 1991: 264.
20. Leach C. W., van Zomeren M., Zebel S. et al. Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multi-component) model of ingroup identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008: 95: 1: 144–165. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144.
21. Lickel B., Hamilton D. L., Wieczorkowska G., Lewis A. et al. Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2000: 78: 2: 223–246. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.223.
22. Luhtanen R., Crocker J. A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1992: 18: 3: 302–318. DOI: 10.1177/0146167292183006.
23. Tajfel H. Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1981: 369.
24. The Invention of tradition. Ed. by E. Hobsbawm, T. Ranger. Cambridge, Cambridge univ. press, 1983: 320.