This project created by ''Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV-Turkey)'' and ''Sociological and Marketing Research Center (HASA-Armenia)'' by funding provided of Center for Global Peace in 2004.

1. TURKISH ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STUDIES FOUNDATION –TESEV
SOCIOLOGICAL AND MARKETING RESEARCH CENTER -HASA
(ARMENIA)
Armenian-Turkish Citizens’ Mutual
Perceptions and Dialogue Project
Project directors:
Dr. Ferhat Kentel, Dr. Gevorg Poghosyan
Editing:
Volkan Aytar (TESEV)
Co-Editing and Translations:
Derya Demirler, Sinan Erensü, Defne Över (TESEV)
Yerevan-Istanbul, 2004
Funding Provided by:
Center for Global Peace
American University ♦ Washington, D C
Special Thanks to:
Open Society Institute, Turkey & High Consultative Council of TESEV
1

2. Center for Global Peace
American University ♦ Washington, D C
In keeping with American University’s mandate for global education, the university-wide Center for Global Peace was
established in 1996 to provide a framework for programs and initiatives that advance the study and understanding of
world peace within a sustainable world order. By seeking to better understand local, national and global linkages among
social, political, cultural, economic, and civic structures whose deterioration can lead to violence and social upheaval, the
Center provides a forum for analysis of a wide range of multi-disciplinary and cross-cultural approaches to peace and
conflict resolution and sustainable development.
Drawing from talents across the university, and in conjunction with American University’s International Peace and
Conflict Resolution Division, the Center is committed to innovation in scholarship, teaching, policy analysis and
community service. Our activities include:
 Track Two Program in Turkey and the Caucasus – a multi-year project to promote improved relations
between Armenians and Turks and between Armenians and Azeris. Track two engages civil society in order to
enable contact; advance mutual understanding; and promote practical areas of cooperation to create an
atmosphere conducive to the success of official diplomatic efforts. AU-CGP’s role involves cultivation of 40
partner NGOs in the region, including capacity building, project development and facilitation.
4400 MASSACHUSETTS AVE, NW WASHİNGTON, DC 20016-8123 202-885-5988/895-1328 FAX: 202-885 5989
http://www.american.edu/cgp
2

3. TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 4
Objectives of the research 6
Methodology 6
I. DEMOGRAPHY 9
II. KNOWLEDGE 11
Geography 11
Political order/religion 12
History 15
Foreign relations 16
Achievements 17
III. ATTITUDES 21
Relations 21
Democratic development 28
Images and stereotypes 29
IV. PRIORITIES 37
V. CONCLUSION 41
ANNEX 1: Questionnaire – Armenia 48
ANNEX 2: Questionnaire – Turkey 61
3

4. TURKISH-ARMENIAN CITIZENS MUTUAL PERCEPTION AND
DIALOGUE PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
The debates surrounding historical relations between Armenians and Turks or the
“Armenian question,” have become an important issue in various European countries and the
USA in recent years. This increasing international attention to the question of Armenian-Turkish
relations has made it clear that the sound discussion of this issue in Turkey and Armenia is both
necessary and obligatory.
In Turkey, the “Armenian question” has generated two interrelated sets of issues. The
first aspect is the demand for greater transparency by some segments of Turkish society. Among
intellectuals, this demand has spurred initiatives for a re-evaluation of Turkey’s accepted history,
as well as a drive to foster dialogue between Turkish and Armenian communities. The second
issue, seen in both countries, is that the increasing prominence of the Armenian question has also
triggered reactionary tendencies feeding into the reaffirmation of national identity and the
formation of an inward-looking national polity.
The “Armenian question” in Turkey and in Armenia is of course rooted in the particular
historical and social dynamics of each country. However this issue has not developed over the
last many decades completely independent of relationship between Turkey and Armenia and the
phases of national identity formation that Armenia and Turkey have undergone throughout their
history. In other words, the “Turkish” and “Armenian” questions that exist in both countries are
mutually constituted and fed from each side. Due to the lack of dialogue and resulting prejudices,
the two countries have failed to develop a mutually beneficial relationship of cooperation,
including normal travel and trade relations.
The end if the bi-polar world order, symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, led
to massive restructuring in Eastern Europe and the republics of the former Soviet Union. The
ensuing period of reconstruction and reformation had created effects that reverberated well
beyond the former communist countries. Placing the Turkish-Armenian question within the
larger context of geopolitical and economic transition reveals the complexity and multi-
dimensionality of the issues at stake.
Armenia’s economic transition and the Karabagh conflict between Armenians and
neighboring Azeris intersect with Turkey’s domestic and international problems and policies. As
Turkish society continues to struggle with issues of national identity and social memory, the
question of geo-strategic balance in the region contributes to the myriad obstacles to the
development of friendship, trust and trade between Turkey and Armenia.
Despite the numerous interests and conflicts that divide these two countries, dialogue
remains the most important first step towards a solution to these problems. Although each
country is very much concerned with the other, the level of knowledge and information that
passes between Turkey and Armenia is minimal. And the information that does cross the
physical and political borders is often distorted by mutual prejudices. Such prejudices are further
reproduced and exacerbated through indirect channels outside the societies of the two countries;
that is to say, third party groups that are outside of the local realities effectively perpetuate the
misunderstandings between these societies.
4

5. If a comfortable relationship between these two countries is to be established, the first
step will be to combat the perpetuation of prejudices through promotion of greater transparency.
To achieve these aims, both parties must work to better understand the other. It is important that
both sides communicate with each other directly, without the intervention of outside groups/
As these international ties become established, the phases of “acceptance” and
“recognition” will become more possible at the societal level. Dialogue between Turkish and
Armenian communities within Turkey has the potential to reverberate in positive ways at the
international level. The establishment of dialogue at multiple levels is an important step in
combating the mushrooming of mutual prejudices.
In line with the goal of increased understanding explained above, and as an initiative
coming from Turkish and Armenian researchers, we carried out this exploratory project focusing
specifically on mutual perceptions in Turkey and Armenia.
We know that the findings of our research are far from giving a complete image of these
perceptions. We know also that, in order to understand deeply the historical reasons of the
conflict and move toward reconciliation we must take first steps together towards our goal. The
results of this study do not point to any answers; the information we gathered may not be
pleasing to all readers or easy to incorporate into political discussions of the issue. But in doing
this research we have remained true to the principles of science and trust that the results will
more fully inform the ongoing dialogue between the people of Turkey and Armenia. Despite the
challenges of this project, the joint effort made by the Turkish and Armenian teams testifies to
the fact that cooperation between the nations is possible.
5

6. OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH
The project has been simultaneously carried out in Turkey and Armenia, in order to
investigate on the following points:
 The levels of knowledge/lack of knowledge and the prejudices that the both societies
have about each other,
 The mutual perception of two societies and their ‘differences’ (negative and positive),
 Common denominators (cultural and political values),
 The expectations of Armenian and Turkish citizens from each other and from the state,
the society and the media.
METHODOLOGY
Data collection have been achieved by quantitative (face-to-face interview mediated
through a questionnaire) method between December 2002 and January 2003.
The questionnaire study have been carried out throughout Turkey and Armenia. In order
to allow for comparison, the survey included the same questions (adapted to local context), as
well as different questions designed to reflect local issues.
The infrastructure of the research (design and publishing of the questionnaires, the
interviews and the quantitative analysis using SPSS) was carried out by S.A.M. Research &
Consulting Center in Turkey and by HASA (Sociological and Marketing Research Center) in
Armenia.
In Turkey, a sample of 1200 respondents were selected through a method of multi-stage
stratified random sampling. The standard error of such a sample is calculated at ± 2.8 percent
with a confidence interval of 95 percent.
The sample represents Turkey’s urban population at or above 18 years of age and is based
on two criteria of stratification:
1. Distribution by geographical regions
2. Distribution by urban and metropolitan areas
The primary sampling unit is the “neighbourhood” for metropolitan areas (the three large
cities of Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir) and the “district” for the remaining urban areas of the seven
geographic regions. These units were selected through sampling with probabilities proportionate
to size (PPS). The same method (PPS) is also used in the next step to select “neighbourhoods” in
non-metropolitan areas. This is followed by simple random sampling to select streets in each
neighbourhood and systematic sampling to select households at each street. Complying with
criteria of randomness at all stages, an overall congruence is obtained between the general
population and the sample with respect to demography and geography.
Distribution of the sample (at or above 18 years of age) is based on the number of
registered voters in 1999 elections, published by the State Institute of Statistics (DIE). The
number of districts to be selected in each category is calculated on the basis of around 10
interviews per neighborhood and 20 interviews per district. Thus, two neighborhoods are
selected per district.
6

7. Fieldwork was conducted through 34 provinces and 68 districts. Final verification at the
SAM head office resulted in the approval of 1219 interviews for analysis.
Region Cities Sample
Size
Metropoles İstanbul 290
Ankara 102
İzmir 70
Mediterranean Adana 41
Antalya 41
İçel 39
Maraş 20
Eastern Anatolia Erzurum 25
Malatya 23
Elazığ 19
Bitlis 9
Aegean (except Izmir) İzmir 40
Manisa 19
Aydın 20
Denizli 20
South-east Anatolia Gaziantep 18
Adıyaman 17
Urfa 20
Diyarbakır 20
Central Anatolia (except Konya 39
Ankara) Yozgat 19
Karaman 20
Eskişehir 19
Kayseri 19
Black Sea Samsun 20
Trabzon 21
Kastamonu 19
Zonguldak 18
Tokat 20
Bolu 10
Marmara (except Bursa 60
Istanbul) Kocaeli 20
Sakarya 20
Bilecik 21
Tekirdağ 21
TOTAL 1.219
In Armenia the nation-wide sociological survey was done using ramdomized territorial
proportional sample, based on official data of 2001 Census. (Available on www.armstat.am).
7

8. National sample for Armenia includes all 10 marzes (districts) plus Yerevan-marz,
according to a new administrative-territorial division. The Republic has 972 localities: 48 urban
and 924 country settlements.
Respondents were selected through a multi-stage stratification sampling design. Armenia
was stratified by region (marz) urban residence. There were eleven Primary Sampling Areas,
distributing the 1000 interviews proportional to the distribution of the population in every marz.
Armenian Urban Representative Sample
1000 respondents
Region City Sample size Interviews were
Yerevan 1. Yerevan city 329 conducted at a total of
2. Gyimri 75 85 sampling points.
Shirak 3. Artik 25
Lori 4. Vanadzor 96 Households were
Armavir 5. Echmiadzin 25 selected via random
6. Metzamor 50 route technique
7. Hrazdan 25
(according to the “star
Kotajk 8. Charentsavan 25
9. Egvard 25 principle” from
10. Ararat 25 started point).
Ararat 11. Artashat 25 Within each
12. Vedi 25
Aragatzotn 13. Ashtarak 25
household only one
14. Talin 25 adult respondent (18
15. Gavar 25 years of age or older)
Gegharkunik 16. Vardenis 50 were selected at
17. Chambarak 25 random, according to
Sjunik 18. Kapan 25 the Kish method.
19. Dilijan 25
Interviewers were
20. Idjevan 25
Vayots Dzor 21. Ygegnadzor 25 instructed to make
Total 1000 three callbacks (at
different times of day
and different days of week) in order to complete the interview with the designated respondent.
All interviews were conducted face-to-face in the respondent ’s house. All respondents
were citizens of Armenia and the resident of the house/apartment, where they were interviewed.
The interviewer’s work was controlled by randomly selecting of 15% of the respondents,
and vising them at their addresses or calling them to check whether the interviews were indeed
conducted (addresses and phone numbers were writtendown by the interviewer after completing
an interview).
The margin of error for the sample of this size is (+ -) 3%.
8

9. I. DEMOGRAPHY
Gender Turkey Armenia
Frequency % Frequency %
Male 629 51,6 456 45,6
Female 590 48,4 544 54,4
Total 1219 100,0 1000 100
How old are you? Turkey Armenia
Frequency % Frequency %
18-29 years 425 34,9 237 23,7
30-44 years 503 41,3 301 30,1
45-59 years 218 17,9 264 26,4
60 and over years 73 6,0 198 19,8
Total 1219 100,0 1000 100,0
The average age of Turkish sample is 36,4 and younger than the Armenian average which
was 43,5.
What level of education did you Turkey Armenia
complete? Frequency % Frequency %
Illiterate 28 2,3 2 0,2
Literate (did not complete any school) 37 3,0
Primary school 472 38,7 33 3,3
Middle school 170 13,9 395 39,5
High school 336 27,6
Secondary professional school 25 2,1 245 24,5
University 144 11,8 319 31,9
Master’s/doctoral degree 7 0,6 6 0,6
Total 1219 100,0 1000 100,0
The average level of education of Armenian sample is higher than that of Turkey. Thus
the proportion of those who finished at most the primary school (5 years) in Turkey is 44%, in
Armenia the relative figure is 3,5,%. The percentage of those who have obtained university
degree in Turkey is 11,8%, while in Armenia it is 31,9%.
9

10. What is your occupation or profession? Turkey Armenia
Frequency % Frequency %
Public or private sector manager, administrator,
expert, (including teacher and academic in 53 4,3 6 0,6
Turkey)
Public sector white collar employee 37 3,0 71 7,1
Private sector white collar employee 52 4,3 43 4,3
Public or private sector worker 160 13,1 71 7,1
Professional (lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc.) 12 1,0 57 5,7
Shopkeeper/craftsman 161 13,2 47 4,7
Teacher (Armenia) 62 6,2
Intellectual/Lecturer (Armenia) 11 1,1
Housewife, house-daughter 428 35,1 150 15,0
Student 74 6,1 67 6,7
Retired, pensioner 118 9,7 175 17,5
Non-employed with income (landlord/landlady,
4 0,3 40 4,0
investor, etc.)
Irregular jobs 43 3,5 32 3,2
Unemployed 56 4,6 168 16,8
Other 21 1,7
Total 1219 100,0 1000 100,0
In Armenia, the proportions of public sector employees, pensioners and unemployed are
more important. In Turkey, shopkeepers and housewifes are relatively important groups.
What is your total monthly Turkey
Armenia
household income?
Frequency % Frequency %
Do not have any income - - 99 9,9
Less than USD 50 - - 447 44,7
Less than USD 100 128 10,5 272 27,2
USD 100-200 415 34,0 113 11,3
USD 201-350 357 29,3 20 2,0
USD 351-500 171 14,0 9 0,9
USD 501-750 84 6,9 3 0,3
USD 751-1000 28 2,3 - -
More than USD 1000 23 1,9 - -
Total 1206 98,9 963 96,3
Difficult to answer 13 1,1 37 3,7
Total 1219 100,0 1000 100,0
The level of income is much lower in Armenia than in Turkey.
10

11. II. KNOWLEDGE
This chapter addresses the awareness of Turkish and Armenian respondents about each
other’s countries in general terms, mainly meaning the respondents’ knowledge of basic
geography, political order, foreign relations as well as the achievements of the neighboring
country.
Geography
Table and charts below demonstrate respondents’ estimates of territory and population of
the countries.
Table 1. How would you describe contemporary Turkey/Armenia in terms of territory?
Turkey Armenia
It is a large country 52,4 7,2
It is a small country 4,2 39,8
It is neither a large nor a small country 41,0 18,5
Do not know 2,4 34,5
As Table 1 shows, majority of Armenian respondents (52,4%) view Turkey as a large
country, and in the opinion of 41% of the respondents it is neither large nor small. While a
significant number of Turkish respondents (34,5% ) had difficulty to express any opinion
regarding the territory of contemporary Armenia, majority of the remaining 65,5% think of
Armenia as a small country. One could expect such estimate, since, when answering this
question, respondents have more likely used the territory of their own country as a basis for
comparison.
Chart 1. Approximate population of contemporary
1.1 Turkey 1.2. Armenia
30% 60%
27,0%
51,3%
25% 50%
19,9%
20% 40%
15,9%
15% 30%
13,0%
11,9%
10% 20% 14,0%
7,8% 11,6%
8,1%
10% 4,4% 5,7% 4,8%
5%
2,3% 2,0%
0,2% 0%
0%
Less than 2-3 million 4-5 million 6-7 million 8-10 More than Do not
Less 5-10 10-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 More Do not 2 million million 10 million know
than 5 million million million million million million than know
million 100
million
Charts 1.1 and 1.2 testify that both Armenian and Turkish respondents have a very vague
idea about population of each other’s countries. Thus, even though most of the answers of
Armenian respondents regarding population of Turkey are concentrated around the correct
interval of 40-60 million, the dispersion is still very big. At the same time, majority of Turkish
respondents (51,3%) had difficulty to give any approximate estimate to population of Armenia
and only 11,6% gave the correct answer.
11

12. Respondents’ lack of knowledge of each other’s countries is reflected in a number of
questions that have been addressed in the survey.
Table 2. Does Turkey/Armenia have an access to a sea (seas)?
Turkey Armenia
Yes 95,9 15,6
No 0,9 44,1
Do not know 3,2 40,3
Table 3. To which sea(s)?
Turkey Armenia
Black Sea 82,7 45,4
The Mediterranean 71,3 2,1
Aegean Sea 21,9 5,2
Caspian Sea 6,6 29,4
Marmara sea 1,3 0,0
Do not know 3,0 17,0
Thus, although an overwhelming majority of Armenian respondents (95,9%) know that
Turkey has access to seas, a small percent of them could correctly name all those seas (see
Tables 2, 3).
A very small percent of Armenian respondents know that Turkey has access to Aegean and
Marmara seas (21,9% and 1,3% respectively). The tables show that Turkish respondents possess
even less information: 40,3% of them does not know whether Armenia has a sea border, and
approximately each sixth Turkish respondent is sure Armenia has an access to either Black or
Caspian Sea.
Political order/religion
Chart 2. Who dominates the government in Armenia?
17,8% President
Prime minister
44,8% 9,8%
Communist Party
Clergy
13,5% Other
1,5% 12,7% Do not know
As we see, nearly half of the Turkish respondents are not aware of the type of Armenian
government. At the same time, majority from the respondents who answered this question have
given the correct answer (17,8%). It is interesting that second largest group of respondents
(13,5%) is sure that Armenian government is still dominated by the Communist Party that is not
12

13. even actually represented in the National Assembly. However, such a result was predictable,
considering the lasting influence of the Soviet era on the image of former Soviet republics.
Chart 3. Who dominates the government in Turkey?
7,2%
6,2%
6,4% President
Prime minister
Sultan
16,6% Islamic clergy
63,0%
Do not know
According to the survey results, Armenian respondents also have no precise knowledge
about political order in Turkey: majority of the respondents (63%), as Chart 3 shows, think that
President dominates the Government in Turkey. Analysis of relationships has shown that
Armenian respondents’ knowledge of this issue does not strongly depend on the level of their
education.
30,6% of Turkish respondents with higher education have answered the question correctly,
whereas the percentage of the correct answer of respondents with primary, middle or high school
education is around 16-17%. The percentage of respondents who have no idea about the political
order in Armenia reaches 62,2% in the group of people without formal education.
Compared to the other issues addressed by the survey, respondents have been most
confident in terms of their knowledge of each other’s religious affiliation.
Table 4. What is the religious affiliation of the majority of Turks/Armenians?
Turks Armenians
Buddhism 0,0 1,2
Christianity 0,0 54,6
Islam 99,2 1,3
Judaism 0,0 16,8
Other 0,0 25,5
Do not know 0,8 0,6
As we see, majority of respondents in both Turkey and Armenia have given correct
answers to the question. (It is however interesting, that approximately each sixth Turkish
respondent believes that the religious affiliation of Armenians is Judaism.)
13

14. Chart 4. Is there an official religion in Turkey/Armenia?
70%
68,5%
60%
50% in Turkey
40,5%
40% in Armenia
40,4%
30%
20% 19,1% 16,8%
10% 14,7%
0%
Yes No Do not know
In contrast, respondents in both countries have failed to answer correctly whether the
neighboring country has an official religion or not. Majority of the respondents in Armenia
(68,5%) and 40,4% of respondents in Turkey have, in fact, stated their belief that the neighboring
country is not secular (see Chart 4). Turkey has a much more “religious” image among
Armenian respondents than Armenia has in the eyes of Turkish respondents.
It is interesting that the higher the level of respondents’ education, the more they tend to
give the incorrect answer: 70,5% of Armenian respondents with higher education and 67,1% of
those with secondary education, think Turkey has an official religion.
It is possible to observe a quite similar tendency in Turkey, but the ratios are much more
inferior. In Turkey the percentage of those who believe Armenia has an official religion among
the secondary education is 47%, and 46,5% among the respondents of higher eductaion. 22,9%
of Turkish respondents with higher education gave the correct answer. We should add that in
Turkey those who don’t know whether Armenia is secular or not reaches 64,9% among the
respondents with low level of education.
Table 5. Which is the official religion of Turkey/Armenia?
Turkey Armenia
Buddhism 0,0 1,8
Christianity 0,3 67,9
Islam 99,1 1,0
Judaism 0,3 21,5
Other 0,0 7,5
Do not know 0,3 0,2
The respondents who gave positive answers to the above-mentioned question were then
requested to specify the religion. The answers have mostly repeated those already mentioned
(see Table 5).
14

15. History
Overwhelming majority of Armenian respondents (94,6%) are sure Armenians have been
first to appear on the historical scene, whereas majority of Turkish respondents (60,4%) claim
Turks are a more ancient nation. At the same time, quite high percent of Turkish respondents
(28,6%) has been more neutral in this question stating that both Armenians and the Turks are
ancient peoples.
Table 6. Which one, the Armenians or the Turks, appeared on the historical scene first?
Armenia Turkey
Armenians 94,6 7,6
Turks 0,7 60,4
They are both ancient peoples 4,7 28,6
Such outcome, in our opinion, was conditioned by at least two factors: a) objective – that
is, different views on world history, reflected in public education, and b) subjective – that is,
tendency of people to perceive and transmit certain facts in a manner that is most favorable to
them.
Table 6. Do you tend to agree or disagree with the following statements?
Agree Disagree Don’t know
Armenia Turkey Armenia Turkey Armenia Turkey
Turkish and Armenian peoples have 74,2 42,7 22,4 39,7 3,4 17,6
common elements of culture such as
music, folklore and gastronomy.
There was no conflict between the Turks 0,6 37,7 97,7 34,4 1,7 28,0
and the Armenians until the early 20th
century.
Parts of nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) 97,3 61,3 0,5 15,3 2,2 23,4
were inhabited by the Armenians before
the Turks arrived.
Armenians who now live in Turkey came 0,4 30,3 98,0 40,1 1,6 29,6
to Turkey after dissolution of the Soviet
Union.
During World War I, much of the 97,9 47,5 1,3 27,8 0,8 24,7
Armenian population living in nowadays
Turkey (Anatolia) was forced to migrate
to other places.
In the second half of 1910s, hundreds of 99,9 N/A 0,0 N/A 0,1 N/A
thousands Armenians were killed in
nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) and deported
out of country
In the second half of 1910s, the clashes in N/A 72,1 N/A 11,6 N/A 16,3
Anatolia claimed many Armenian and
Turkish lives.
There are Armenian churches and works 97,4 80,3 1,1 6,2 1,5 13,5
of art in several places in Turkey.
Analysis of data obtained from Table 6 shows that Armenian respondents have been much
more consolidated regarding their views on the historical relations between the two
15

16. nations, while Turkish respondents seem to take a rather more neutral stand vis à vis the
issue.
Based upon Table 6, the following conclusions could be drawn:
a) Majority of Armenian and Turkish respondents believe that Turkish and Armenian
peoples have common elements of culture such as music, folklore and gastronomy. At
the same time, quite a large percentage of Turkish respondents (39,7%) disagrees with
the statement.
b) Overwhelming majority of Armenian respondents (97,7%) disagrees with the statement
that there was no conflict between the Turks and the Armenians until the early 20th
century. Only one third of the Turkish respondents disagree with the statement, while
28% does not have a clear idea about the subject.
c) Majority of respondents in both countries agree that parts of nowadays Turkey
(Anatolia) were inhabited by the Armenians before the Turks arrived and disagrees
with the statement that Armenians who now live in Turkey came to Turkey after
dissolution of the Soviet Union.
d) Armenian respondents are absolutelly convinced that during World War I, much of the
Armenian population living in nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) was forced to migrate to
other places. Nearly half of the Turkish respondents also agree with the statement,
while more than one fourth of them reject the idea.
e) Almost all the Armenian respondents agree that “in the second half of 1910s, hundreds
of thousands Armenians were killed in nowadays Turkey (Anatolia) and deported out
of country.” As for the Turkish respondents (although the statement was formulated
differently in Armenian and Turkish versions of the questionnaire as explained below,
under the conclusion), the picture seems to be different: Majority of them think that the
clashes during that period in Anatolia claimed many Armenian and Turkish lives from
both communities.
Both parties agree that there are Armenian churches and works of art in several places
in Turkey.
Foreign relations
In order to reveal the respondents’ perceptions about basic foreign relations of the
neighboring country we have requested to characterize the relations of Turkey/Armenia with
several countries using the scale of bad-neutral-good.
Table 7. How would you describe Turkey’s/Armenia’s relations with the following
countries?
Bad relations Neither good, nor Good relations Don’t know
bad
Turkey Armenia Turkey Armenia Turkey Armenia Turkey Armenia
Armenia 82,8 N/A 15,3 N/A 0,3 N/A 1,6 N/A
Azerbaijan 1,4 35,3 3,3 15,8 95,0 15,5 0,3 33,5
Bulgaria 19,0 7,0 38,2 19,6 20,8 28,6 22,0 44,8
16

17. France 45,4 3,9 34,3 10,5 9,9 49,1 10,4 36,5
Georgia 2,1 17,3 29,3 17,7 64,3 21,0 4,3 44,0
Germany 5,0 5,9 31,4 13,8 51,6 41,4 12,0 38,9
Greece 48,6 5,7 27,4 10,9 9,8 46,5 14,2 36,8
Iran 28,0 27,5 35,2 16,5 27,8 12,9 9,0 43,2
Israel 13,1 11,3 38,4 13,0 33,2 34,7 15,3 40,9
Russia 16,4 7,9 62,8 14,4 16,6 40,4 4,2 37,3
Turkey N/A 40,1 N/A 42,2 N/A 11,5 N/A 6,2
USA 5,4 7,1 12,3 11,2 78,7 47,4 3,6 34,4
According to Armenian respondents, Turkey has the worst relations with Armenia, Greece
and France, mostly neutral relations – with Russia, Israel and Bulgaria, and best relations – with
Azerbaijan, USA and Georgia.
According to Turkish respondents, Armenia is in worst relations with Azerbaijan and Iran,
in neutral relations – with Bulgaria and Georgia, and in best relations – with France, USA and
Greece. One should note, that nearly equal percent of Turkish respondents characterize
Armenian’s relations with Turkey as bad and neutral (40,1% and 42,2% accordingly). It is also
worth mentioning that according to the Turkish respondents, Armenia’s relations with Turkey
are worse than with Azerbaijan.
In our opinion, answers to this question were shaped not by the respondents’ actual
knowledge of foreign relation of the neighboring country but rather by a) their knowledge of
foreign relations of their own country and b) their mutual prejudice. The former (a) means that
the respondents tend to think that the better relations of a certain country are with Turkey the
worse they are with Armenia and vice versa. The latter (b) mainly refers to respondents’ belief
that the religious belonging is the most decisive factor in foreign policy. Turkish respondents
have shown an obvious manifestation of this form of prejudice believing Armenian-Iranian
relations to be nearly as bad as Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. Despite the fact that among
other neighboring countries Armenia actually has the best relations with Iran, each fourth
Turkish respondent thinks the relations are bad.
Achievements
In the opinion of Armenian respondents, top five fields that the Turks have been most
successful are: trade/business, diplomacy, agriculture, sports/wrestling and light industry.
Table 8. What are the professions or fields that the Turks have been most prominent or
successful?
Trade/Business 23,8
Diplomacy 22,3
Agriculture 14,6
Sport – wrestling 9,8
Light industry 9,6
Eastern music/art 6,9
Tourism 6,9
Industry/economy 5,3
Cruelty 6,4
17

18. Other 4,6
No sphere 3,4
Don’t know/diff. to answer 14,8
According to Turkish respondents, Armenians have been most prominent in the following
fields: commerce, art, goldsmithery and artisanry.
Table 9. What are the professions or fields that the Armenians have been most prominent
or successful?
Commerce 16,7
Art 7,9
Goldsmithery 5,7
Artisanry 5,7
Business, industry 2,0
Medicine 1,2
Architecture 1,1
No profession 0,4
All professions 0,7
Negative expressions 0,8
Other 5,5
Do not know 52,3
Can you name a prominent Turkish person or institution? (Armenian respondents)
Frequency Valid
Percent
Atatürk – Enemy of Armenian people 178 17,8
Talat – Enemy of Armenian people 137 13,7
Enver – Enemy of Armenian people 98 9,8
Sultan Hamid – Enemy of Armenian 66 6,6
people
Young Turks - Enemy of Armenian 25 2,5
people
Demirel 86 8,6
Turgut Özal 69 6,9
Ecevit 40 4,0
Hasan Şaş 44 4,4
Tansu Çiller 29 2,9
Tarkan 13 1,3
Other 84 8,4
There aren’t any 31 3,1
Don’t know/diff. to answer 390 39,0
Top three prominent Turkish persons, in the eyes of Armenian respondents, are Atatürk
(17,8%), Talat (13,7%) and Enver (9,8%) all of whom have been mentioned as “enemies of
Armenian people”. Overwhelming majority of Turkish respondents (81,9%) could not name any
prominent person of Armenian nationality.
18

19. Let us conclude this chapter with the respondents’ evaluation of their knowledge of
neighboring countries.
Table 10. How well do you think you know the neighboring countries?
Well Somewhat Not at all
Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur.
Azerbaijan 21,5 12,4 78,4 63,7 0,1 24,0
Armenia/Turkey 10,8 4,7 88,8 51,4 0,4 44,0
Georgia 25,1 5,3 74,8 47,7 0,1 46,9
Iran 11,3 11,2 84,9 59,8 3,8 29,0
Iraq N/A 11,6 N/A 61,3 N/A 27,1
Syria N/A 10,2 N/A 55,9 N/A 33,9
Bulgaria N/A 9,7 N/A 55,4 N/A 34,9
Greece N/A 12,5 N/A 57,3 N/A 30,2
As we see, respondents in both countries have been quite modest in their self-evaluation.
The table shows that most of the answers are concentrated at the middle of the scale.
Two questions are, however, interesting for analysis: a) which of the neighboring countries
the respondents think they know best and worst and b) how respondents evaluate their
knowledge of each other’s countries.
According to the table, Armenian respondents evaluate their knowledge of Georgia to be
the best (25,1%). The list continues with Azerbaijan (21,5%) and Iran (11,3%) and concludes
with Turkey (10,8%). Turkish respondents who are more modest about their level of knowledge
think they know Greece and Azerbaijan the best (12,5% and 12,4%) and the percentages of those
confessing they don’t know at all the cited neighbouring countries are far higher than the relative
percentages of Armenian respondents. Georgia (46,9%) and Armenia (44%) appear to be the
countries Turkish respondents are least aware of.
Such evaluation is very interesting, since judging from the answers of the respondents to
all questions of the “Knowledge” block, Turkish respondents are far less aware of Armenia as a
country than Armenians are about Turkey. The fact that Turkish respondents acknowledge their
lack of knowledge about Armenia, gives them much less clear and consolidated idea about
Armenia.
Table 11. What are your sources of information about the neighboring countries that you
know?
Azerbaijan Turkey/ Georgia Iran Iraq Syria Bul Gree
Armenia g ce
Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Tur. Tur. Tur. Tur.
History books 49,1 22,0 71,5 24,3 48,9 23,5 54,6 22,7 21,5 23,1 23,0 24,3
Media/TV 95,5 48,0 92,7 48,0 93,9 52,8 91,6 50,0 51,4 51,7 48,6 45,4
Older 27,5 5,9 58,1 7,2 28,6 4,7 18,0 4,9 4,3 4,7 7,0 7,0
generations/
family members
Friends / 27,2 10,0 18,8 8,2 34,2 7,1 16,8 7,7 7,5 7,8 9,2 7,7
19

20. relatives
Politicians 17,0 6,4 8,5 5,7 12,1 5,4 4,6 5,5 8,5 5,5 5,4 8,2
Clergy / Church 2,0 2,2 2,4 2,1 3,3 2,0 1,1 4,5 3,0 2,9 2,0 2,3
Art/Literature 18,5 4,0 20,1 3,7 22,1 3,3 19,0 3,6 2,5 2,6 2,7 3,6
Personal visits 6,1 0,0 3,9 0,0 9,0 0,0 0,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
and contacts
Other 2,1 1,5 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 1,2 0,2 1,7 2,1 1,5
Most popular sources of information about all of the neighboring countries for both
Armenian and Turkish respondents are Media/TV and history books. Older generations and
family members are also important sources for Armenian respondents to get information about
Turkey and Georgia.
Such outcome once again speaks for the crucial influence that Mass Media currently have
on forming the attitudes of people. It also proves that spreading fair and unbiased information
can be a huge contribution both to raise the awareness of nations about each other and to
eliminate the existing negative stereotypes.
20

21. III. ATTITUDES
This chapter generally addresses mutual perceptions and attitudes of Armenian and
Turkish citizens. Answers to a number of direct and indirect questions help uncovering the
opinion of the respondents about past, present and future state of Armenian-Turkish relations, as
well as revealing the images and stereotypes that Armenians and Turks have of each other.
Relations
Table 12. How would you describe contemporary Armenian-Turkish relations in general?
Very bad Bad Neither good Good Very good Difficult to
nor bad answer
Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk.
18,9 6,6 60,4 30,8 17,9 45,4 0,5 10,9 0,0 0,2 2,3 6,2
As the table shows, majority of Armenian respondents characterize Armenian-Turkish
relations as bad, while nearly half of the Turkish respondents think the relations as neither good
nor bad. One should also note that only 5 out of 1000 of Armenian respondents have evaluated
the relations between Armenia and Turkey as good and none of them – as very good. At the
same time, in the opinion of each fifth Armenian respondent, the relations are very bad, while
each tenth Turkish respondent believes they are good.
Table 13. Which of the following statements in your opinion best describes the relations
between Armenian and Turkish peoples today?
Armenia Turkey
Turks/Armenians generally get along well with 0,9 14,2
Armenian/Turkish people
Turks/Armenians generally feel threatened by Armenian/Turkish 14,0 14,9
people.
Turks/Armenians generally dislike Armenian/Turkish people. 51,3 33,6
Prejudice on both sides prevents the improvement of relations 30,0 24,4
between Armenian and Turkish peoples
Difficult to answer 3,8 12,8
The feeling that “Turks generally get along well with Armenian people” is almost absent
among Armenian respondents, whereas for 14,2% of Turkish respondents “Armenians generally
get along well with Turkish people”. Similarly, majority of the respondents (51,3%) in Armenia
think that Turks generally dislike Armenian people, whereas in the Turkish side this stereotype is
weaker (33,6%). But among the Armenian respondents, the percentage of people who accept that
prejudice on both sides prevents the improvement of relations between Armenian and Turkish
peoples is higher (30% vs 24,4%) (see Table 13).
It is interesting that majority of female respondents in Armenian survey have been
supportive of the idea that the Turks generally dislike Armenians, and in contrast, higher percent
of male respondents tend to agree that prejudice is an obstacle on the way of improvement of
Armenian-Turkish relations. The differences of attitude are lower among Turkish respondents
and male respondents have been slightly more supportive of the idea that the Armenians
generally dislike Turks, but also their percentage to agree that prejudice is an obstacle on the way
of improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations is higher. (see Chart 5).
21

22. Chart 5. Relationship between the respondents’ gender and their opinion of the
relations between Armenian and Turkish peoples
Armenian respondents:
60%
50% 54,6% Female
47,4% Male
40%
30% 32,2%
28,1%
20%
10%
0%
Turks generally Prejudice prevents
dislike Armenians improvement of the
relations
Turkish respondents:
60%
50% Female
40% Male
30% 32,0%35,1%
20% 23,6% 25,3%
10%
0%
Arm enians Prejudice
generally dislike prevents
Turks im provem ent of
the relations
We also have to note that in the two countries older respondents are more inclined to agree
that “dislike” best describes relations between Armenians and Turks. But should be noted also
that the respondents above 45 in Turkey think more than the others that Armenians get along well
with Turkish people. Whereas in Armenia 32,2%, and in Turkey 28,7% of respondents aged 18-
29 think it is prejudice that is characteristic of the relations.
Another fact worth mentioning is that in Armenia, majority of state employees (56,3%),
housewives (54,7%) and pensioners (57,7%) think Turks dislike Armenians, while majority of
intellectuals (36,4%) and professionals (40,4%) thinks prejudice prevents the improvement of
relations. (Although to a lesser extent) in Turkey as well, pensioners (39,8%), workers (40%),
housewives (37,1%) think Turks dislike Armenians, while majority of students (48,6%) and
shopkeepers / craftsmen (32,3%) think prejudice prevents the improvement of relations. (See
Chart 6)
Chart 6. Relationship between the respondents’ occupation and their opinion of the
relations between Armenian and Turkish peoples
Armenian respondents:
22

23. 60% 54,7%
57,7% 56,3%
50%
40% 40,4% Turks generally
36,4% dislike Armenians
30% 35,2% 33,3% Prejudice prevents
23,4% 23,9% 25,3% improvement of the
20%
10%
0%
Pensioners State Housewives Academicians Professionals
employees
Turkish respondents:
60%
50% 48,6%
40% 40,0% 37,1% Arm enians
39,8% generally dislike
32,3% Turks
30% 30,4% Prejudice prevents
im provem ent of the
23,8%
20% 23,0%
16,1% 15,4%
10%
0% Pensioners Workers Housewives Students Shopkeepers
Among the Turkish respondents, the most significant relationship can be found in relation
with the level of education. The percentage of respondents thinking that Armenians dislike Turks
is 16,7% among the people with lower education, whereas this percentage decreases to 9,7%
among university graduates. There is also a drastic difference concerning the opinion “prejudice
prevents the improvement of relations”. 46,5% of the university graduates share this opinion.
(See Chart 7)
Chart 7. Relationship between the respondents’ education and their opinion of the
relations between Armenian and Turkish peoples
Turkish respondents:
23

24. 60%
50%
46,5%
40% Armenians generally
dislike Turks
30% 30,7% Prejudice prevents
25,9% improvement of the
20%
16,7% 13,4%
14,4% 12,4%
10%
9,7%
0%
Primary school Middle school High school University
Opinions of Armenian and Turkish respondents coincide also in terms of evaluation of the
Armenian-Turkish state relations.
Table 14. Which of the following statements in your opinion best describes the relations
between contemporary Armenian and Turkish states?
Armenia Turkey
Turkey/Armenia considers Armenia/Turkey as a friendly 0,4 12,7
neighboring state.
Turkey/Armenia is a bordering country, with which 36,0 23,5
Armenia/Turkey has no diplomatic relations.
Turkey/Armenia is a potential danger for Armenia/Turkey. 27,6 20,6
Turkey/Armenia is a country hostile to Armenia/Turkey. 33,6 23,4
Difficult to answer. 2,4 19,8
As the table shows, the main difference between Armenian and Turkish respondents lies in
the fact that among Turkish respondents there is a non-negligeable percentage of people who
think that “Armenia considers Turkey as a friendly neighboring state” (12,7%); but also another
important percentage of people who has no clear idea on the question (19,8%).
Besides this, two opinions, shared by respondents come to the fore both in Armenia and
Turkey: a) Turkey and Armenia are bordering countries with no diplomatic relations and b)
Turkey and Armenia are countries hostile to each other. But it has to be mentioned that
Armenian respondents evaluate Turkey as “a country hostile to Armenia” (33,6%) more than
Turkish respondents do reciprocally (23,4%).
In Armenia, a relationship between the answers of the respondents and their gender, age
and occupation is similar to the one presented above with respect to relations between Armenian
and Turkish peoples. Thus, male respondents are more inclined to the neutral position, while
female respondents tend to have a relatively more aggressive approach. Depending on their age,
respondents have been more or less inclined to think Turkey is a country hostile to Armenia:
36,4% of respondents aged 60 and above think the statement is most suitable, while only 25,1%
of those aged 18-29 do so. It is interesting that in this question as well, quite similar to the
24

25. previous one, state employees, pensioners and housewives tend to have a negative, while
academicians and teachers – rather neutral position (see Chart 8).
In Turkey, the case of state relations present a different reflection on gender. Even if male
respondents are more inclined to the neutral position comparing female respondents, especially
for the third option (“Armenia is a country hostile to Turkey”) male respondents stressed more
importance (25,9%) compared to female respondents (20,7%). But one also needs to notice that
among female respondents, the proportion of those who have no idea about the issue is very high
(25,4%). As for the age groups, among the older respondents the proportion of those who are
more inclined to think “Armenia is a country hostile to Turkey” is higher: 28% of those aged 45-
59 and 41,1% of respondents aged 60 and above agree with this statement. Only 20,9% of those
aged 18-29 share this idea while they mostly opt for the relatively neutral position (26,6%). In
Turkey, pensioners (34,7%), workers (26,9%), housewives (21,5%) chose to think “Armenia is a
country hostile to Turkey”. As in the previous observation, majority of students (41,9%) and a
slightly higher percentage of shopkeepers (27,3%) have opted for the neutral position. (See Chart
8)
Chart 8. Relationship between the respondents’ occupation and their opinion of the
relations between Armenian and Turkish states
Armenian respondents:
60%
Turkey is a bordering
50% 54,5% 53,2% country, with which
Armenia has no
diplomatic relations
40% 38,9% 39,4% 40,7%
36,7% Turkey is a potential
36,0% 35,2%
danger for Armenia
30%
25,4% 24,2%
21,7% 20,7%
20% 18,2% 22,6%
Turkey is a country
hostile to Armenia
10% 9,1%
0%
Pensioners State Housewives Academicians Teachers
employees
Turkish respondents:
25

26. 60%
Armenia is a bordering
country, with which
50% Turkey has no
diplomatic relations
40% 41,9% Armenia is a potential
34,7% danger for Turkey
30%
26,9% 25,5%
22,5% 21,3%21,5% 23,0% 27,3%
20% 19,5% 20,6% 17,3% 20,3% Armenia is a country
17,8% hostile to Turkey
16,1%
10%
0%
Pensioners Workers Housewives Students Shopkeepers
In the Turkish case, at the level of education, it seems that there is a quite significant
difference between the attitudes towards the Armenian people and state. For example the attitude
of the university graduates who were clearly more positive towards the Armenian people,
becomes more uncertain about the Armenian state. These respondents think that “Armenia is a
potential danger for Turkey” more (31,9%) than the others, but also think that “Armenia is a
country hostile to Turkey” less (17,4%) than the others. (See Chart 9)
Chart 9. Relationship between the respondents’ education and their opinion of the
relations between Armenian and Turkish states
Turkish respondents:
60%
Armenia is a bordering
country, with which
50% Turkey has no
diplomatic relations
40%
Armenia is a potential
31,0% danger for Turkey
31,9%
30%
24,2% 25,9%
21,4%
20% 18,6% 18,8% 17,4% Armenia is a country
15,9% 11,9% hostile to Turkey
14,6%
10%
10,4%
0%
Primary school Middle school High school University
Finally we can add that there is one detail worth mentioning. Judging from the percentage
of Turkish respondents, who chose the first options (positive attitude) of the answers to both of
the questions, it appears that they have been more tolerant in their evaluation than Armenian
respondents have, especially concerning the attitude towards the Armenian people. On the
26

27. contrary, the Turkish respondents’ lack of trust vis-à-vis the Armenian state is seen in the chart
below. Overwhelming majority of Turkish respondents think that, given an opportunity, Armenia
would press for territorial claims from Turkey. (See Chart 10)
Chart 10. Do you feel that, given an opportunity today, Armenia would press for territorial
claims from Turkey? (Question was asked only to Turkish respondents.)
10,8%
10,5%
Yes
No
Do not know
78,7%
The respondents' opinion concerning the past and future of Armenian–Turkish state
relations is quite interesting. Majority of Armenian respondents think the relations remained
unchanged in the last 10 years and will remain unchanged in the next 10 years. In contrast,
Turkish respondents tend to think the relations have changed for the worse and will remain
unchanged in the future (see Table 15, 16).
Table 15. Relations in last 10 years Table 16. Relations in next 10 years
Armenia Turkey Armenia Turkey
Changed for the better 22,6 14,4 Will change for the better 14,7 24,7
Remained unchanged 52,5 31,3 Will remain unchanged 37,4 30,8
Changed for the worse 21,0 35,0 Will change for the worse 25,3 17,6
Don’t know 3,8 19,3 Don’t know 22,6 26,9
However, with a more detailed glance on the distribution of the answers other interesting
facts are revealed. It appears that while Armenian respondents are to a certain degree more
satisfied with the past progress of Armenian-Turkish relations, Turkish respondents are to the
same degree more optimistic about the future of these relations.
Answers of the respondents to the following question help explain the above-mentioned
difference of opinions.
Chart 11. Do you feel that there is an important obstacle preventing the normalization of
relations between Armenia and Turkey?
27

28. 100%
Armenia
95,5%
80% Turkey
60%
40%
36,8%
33,8% 29,5%
20%
1,6% 2,9%
0%
Yes No Do not know
As we see, overwhelming majority of Armenian respondents is sure there is an important
obstacle on the way of improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations, whereas Turkish
respondents remain quite undecided in this respect. Still one should note that less than 40% of
the Turkish respondents believe that there is an important obstacle preventing the normalization
of relations between the two countries.
It is now quite clear that Turkish respondents have been more optimistic about the future of
Armenian-Turkish relations and why Armenians believe no change will occur. The fact that a
portion of Armenian respondents thinks the relations have improved can also be explained in this
frames: some improvement (most probably speaking of economic cooperation) has been
achieved.
To the request to name the most important obstacle preventing the improvement of
Armenian-Turkish relations the following answers were given by Armenian respondents:
a) Armenian question/Genocide – 81,7%
b) Armenian/Azerbaijani relationships/Problem of Artsakh - 9,8%
c) Different religions - 2,8%
d) Aggressive Pan-Turkism – 1,4%
e) Other – 3,7%
f) Don’t know/diff. to answer -0,6%
According to the Turkish respondents those obstacles are:
a) “Genocide” claims on the Armenian side – 19%
b) Land – 12,1%
c) Religious difference – 11,2%
d) History – 9,4 %
e) Foreign powers – 7,8 %
f) Armenia's territorial claims from Azerbaijan – 6%
g) Politics – 5,1%
h) Prejudice – 4,5%
(Note: The questions have been formulated in multi-reponse form in Turkey; so the sum of
the answers is higher than 100%.)
Democratic development
It can be argued that the democratic or non-democratic image of the country can be an
important factor to nourish the stereotypes. In this perspective, respondents were asked their
opinion on the level of democracy in both countries. As the table below shows, generally
28

29. speaking, Armenian and Turkish respondents don’t think that the level of democratic
development in both countries is high. For the respondents, as an average figure, the level of
democracy (especially in their country) is medium (46%); but it can be stated also that Armenian
respondents are more pessimistic about the democracy in both countries. Whereas among
Armenian respondents those who think that “the level of Turkish democracy is very low”
(12,5%) is relatively higher, 22,8 % of Turkish respondents believe that the level of democracy
in Turkey is high. In Turkish survey, one also notes that there is an important rate (30,5%) of
respondents who have no idea about the level of democratic development in Armenia.
Table 27. What is the level of democratic development in Armenia and Turkey?
Armenia Turkey
Democratic in Turkey in Armenia in Turkey in Armenia
development..
Very low 12,5 9,7 4,9 5,0
Low 27,3 29,8 18,9 19,1
Medium 36,8 46,0 46,1 34,8
High 9,2 10,6 22,8 9,9
Very high 1,2 2,1 3,0 0,7
Don’t know 13,0 1,8 4,3 30,5
Images and stereotypes
Respondents were asked to describe their feeling or opinion about each other using the
following five-grade scale: very negative (1), negative (2), neutral (3), positive (4), very positive
(5).
Calculating the mean estimate, it appears that Armenian respondents’ opinion about the
Turks in general is rather negative (1,96), whereas Turkish respondents’ attitude is close to
neutral (2,73).
Table 17. Your opinion about the Turks/Armenians Table 18. Their opinion about you
Mean Mean
Armenia 1,96 Armenia 1,73
Turkey 2,73 Turkey 2,33
Such results, as subsequent reverse question revealed, did not match the expectations of the
respondents on each other’s attitudes. Thus, Armenian respondents think Turks in general have
negative opinion on Armenians (1,73 on the same five-grade scale) and the Turkish respondents
believe Armenians’ attitude towards the Turks is somewhat better than it actually is (2,33).
We have to emphasize that answers to this question as vary depending on the respondents’
occupation as well. Thus, according to mean estimates, in Armenia, state employees and
pensioners have the worst, while professionals, teachers, and intellectuals have the better attitude
towards the Turks. Whereas in Turkey, comparing to housewives and workers, students,
pensioners and shopkeepers have better attitudes towards Armenians (see Chart 12).
29

30. Chart 12. Relationship between the Armenian respondents’ occupation and their opinion
about the Turks
2,1 2,08 2,09
2,07
2,05
2
1,95
1,9 1,88
1,87
1,85
1,8
1,75
State Pensioners Professionals Teachers Intellectuals
employees
Relationship between the Turkish respondents’ occupation and their opinion about the
Armenians
2,9 2,88
2,85
2,8
2,75
2,75
2,7
2,7 2,68
2,65 2,62
2,6
2,55
2,5
2,45
Pensioners Workers Housew ifes Students Shopkeepers
Another important relationship can be found in relation with the education level. Turkish
respondents’ opinion about the Armenians become clearly much more positive at the level of
university graduates (3,03). (See Chart 13).
Relationship between the Turkish respondents’ education and their opinion about the
Armenians
30

31. 3,1
3,03
3
2,9
2,8 2,76
2,73
2,7
2,63
2,6
2,5
2,4
Primary school Middle School High Scool University
In order to uncover the images and stereotypes that Armenians and Turks have of each
other, we have asked the respondents to find one word characteristic of each other's peoples.
Tables below incorporate characteristics most frequently mentioned by the respondents. As we
can see, 2/3 of the characteristics for Turkish people presented by Armenian respondents are
negative; whereas only 1/3 of the chracteristics for Armenian people presented by Turkish
respondents are negative.
Table 19. If you were asked to characterize the Turkish people in one word, what would it
be?
Negative characteristics 68,7
- Blood-thirsty 6,4
- Enemies 10,1
- Barbarians 9,1
- Killers 6,4
- Invaders 2,6
- Savage 3,6
- Other 30,5
Positive characteristics 6,0
Neutral characteristics 9,5
Do not know 15,8
Table 20. If you were asked to characterize the Armenian people in one word, what would
it be?
Negative characteristics 34,3
Enemy 7,8
Negative prejudices 7,2
Evil 7,0
Egoist, selfish, prejudiced 4,5
Other 7,8
Positive characteristics 10,8
Good person 4,2
Friendly nation 1,4
31

32. Diligent, hard working 1,2
Very intelligent 0,9
Other 3,1
Neutral characteristics 13,6
Human 5,7
Christian 2,0
Armenian 1,6
Other 4,3
Do not know 41,0
It is worth mentioning that respondents of age 18-29 in Armenia have most frequently
ascribed negative characteristics to Turks (70,9% of the respondents of the given age group),
whereas age group 30-44 was the one to chose neutral and positive traits more than the other age
groups (18,3% of the respondents mentioned neutral or positive characteristic).
The most significant characteristic about this question for Turkish respondents lies in the
fact that an important part of young generations couldn’t answer it. Whereas 46,6% of 18-29 age
didn’t express an opinion, only 28,8% of the respondents above 60 years failed to answer. This
“awareness” of older respondents has been reflected in their answer and they were those who
attributed most negative (41,1%), positive (12,3%) and neutral (17,8%) traits to Armenians. It
should also be added that compared to the other age groups the respondents of age 18-29,
attributed negative characteristics to Armenians (32,5%) to a lesser extent.
With an aim to get a fuller picture of how Armenian and Turkish respondents see each
other the following questions have been addressed:
Table 21. How similar do you feel the Turks are to the citizens of the following countries?
Not similar at all Somewhat similar Very similar Don’t know
Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur.
Azerbaijan 2,0 7,7 19,6 49,9 78,0 31,7 0,4 10,7
Bulgaria 36,8 41,7 37,7 36,9 9,3 5,3 16,2 16,2
Georgia 39,4 26,8 44,4 44,8 12,8 8,8 3,4 19,6
Iraq 15,1 39,0 43,1 40,1 30,4 4,8 11,4 16,1
Iran 16,7 38,6 47,9 40,3 29,5 5,0 5,9 16,2
Russia 92,5 70,2 4,7 11,1 1,2 1,5 1,6 17,2
Syria 23,9 46,4 47,7 31,8 16,0 3,3 12,4 18,5
Greece 60,4 52,8 27,9 26,2 2,4 4,0 9,3 17,0
Armenia 68,9 59,8 28,5 25,1 1,7 1,8 0,9 13,3
Table 22. How similar do you feel the Armenians are to the citizens of the following
countries?
Not similar at all Somewhat similar Very similar Don’t know
Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur. Arm. Tur.
Azerbaijan 71,8 48,8 25,9 20,2 2,1 2,1 0,2 29,0
32

33. Bulgaria 34,5 29,4 49,2 32,0 7,4 3,7 8,9 34,9
Georgia 28,7 32,7 61,1 28,1 9,1 3,4 1,1 35,7
Iraq 75,9 54,0 14,7 10,5 1,6 1,8 7,8 33,7
Iran 62,2 53,2 32,4 11,5 2,7 1,7 2,7 33,6
Russia 67,9 18,4 29,4 38,1 2,3 11,9 0,4 31,7
Syria 62,9 40,9 27,5 20,9 1,8 3,8 7,8 34,5
Greece 23,4 20,8 49,7 34,5 23,1 13,0 3,8 31,6
Turkey 68,7 59,8 28,7 25,1 1,7 1,8 0,7 13,3
As Table 21 shows, there is almost total coincidence of opinions of Turkish and Armenian
respondents regarding the question. According to both Turkish and Armenian respondents, the
Turks are not similar at all to Russians, Armenians and Greeks, and are somewhat similar to
Georgians, Iraqis and Iranians. According to Armenian respondents, the Turks are also
somewhat similar to Syrians and very similar to Azerbaijanis, while in the opinion of Turkish
respondents the Turks are only somewhat similar to Azerbaijanis.
According to Table 22, both Turkish and Armenian respondents think Armenians are
somewhat similar to Greeks and Bulgarians. Turkish respondents also feel Armenians are
somewhat similar to Russians, whereas majority of Armenian respondents deny this. The
respondents agree that Armenians are not similar at all to Turks, Azerbaijanis, Iraqis and
Iranians.
In order to get a clearer understanding of the attitudes of respondents towards each other,
we have asked them to describe their attitude to several possible situations.
Table 23. What would your attitude be to the following?
Negative Neutral Positive Don’t know
Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk Arm. Turk.
.
Finding out that a Turkish/Armenian family 37,1 19,7 52,9 55,9 8,4 20,7 1,6 3,7
settled in your city
A Turk/Armenian living in your apartment 44,8 26,4 46,0 50,4 8,1 20,2 1,1 3,0
bloc or neighborhood
A Turk/Armenian working in your workplace 43,9 25,8 47,0 49,7 7,8 19,9 1,3 4,5
A Turkish/Armenian doctor attending to you 66,9 22,9 22,8 46,4 6,1 27,2 4,2 3,5
in hospital
Your son marrying a Turk/Armenian 92,9 63,6 4,6 19,7 1,2 10,3 1,3 6,5
Your daughter marrying a Turk/Armenian 94,1 68,1 3,6 17,4 1,1 8,6 1,2 5,9
As the table shows, we can primarily say that both Turkish and Armenian respondents
have mostly neutral attitude to the fact of a possible, somewhat distant presence in their lives of
people of the other’s nationality. However, a possibility of a closer relationship is favorable
neither for Armenians nor for Turks, especially for the children marrying a Turk or an Armenian.
It could to be stated that Turkish respondents have less prejudice than Armenian respondents.
This can be seen for the case of a “doctor attending”; majority of Armenian respondents (66,9%)
would negatively react to being attended by a Turkish doctor in the hospital, while 73,6 % of
Turkish respondents would show neutral or positive attitude in case Armenian doctor takes care
of their health.
33

34. In order to try to reveal the sources of the respondents’ attitude towards each other, several
questions have been asked.
It appeared that half of the Turkish respondents (51,2%) have/had an Armenian friend,
associate or acquaintance, and only 28% of Armenian respondents stated they do/did have a
Turkish acquaintance. This might help explaining the fact that Turkish respondents have been
more positive in their evaluation of Armenians than Armenians have been of Turks.
Following chart proves the fact that the respondents’ attitude depends on whether or not
they have personal contacts with the Turks: those Armenian respondents, who have Turkish
acquaintances, have a better attitude towards the Turks than those who do not.
34

35. Chart 14. Opinion of respondents about the Turks depending on whether or not they
have acquaintances
50%
49,0%
Have Turkish
40% 39,7% 36,2% acquaintances
30%
29,5%
Do not have
20%
Turkish
15,4% acquaintances
10% 17,2%
6,9% 6,0%
0%
Very Negative Neutral Positive
negative
Chart 15. Opinion of respondents about the Armenians depending on whether or not
they have acquaintances
50%
Have Armenian
40% 39,1% acquaintances
34,8%
38,1%
30% 30,5%
23,0% Do not have
20% 21,9%
Armenian
acquaintances
10% 8,4%
4,3%
0%
Very Negative Neutral Positive
negative
The difference in attitudes becomes clearer when we calculate the mean estimates: for
those who have Turkish acquaintances it is 2,32, whereas for those who don’t 1,97. The relative
figures for Turkish respondents are 3,13 and 2,69.
Members of families of 24,5% of the Armenian respondents have been born in Turkey and
subsequently came to settle in Armenia, which means the attitudes of these respondents towards
the Turks have been formed mostly according to the opinion of their relatives.
Only 3,8% of Armenian respondents have personally visited Turkey and only 0,4% of
Turkish respondents have been in Armenia, which means that personal experience did not
influence the formation of the respondents’ attitudes towards each other’s countries in frames of
the survey. However, we have to note that those Armenian respondents who had been in Turkey
have better attitude towards the Turks than those who had not (see Chart 16).
35

36. Chart 16. Opinion of respondents about the Turks depending on whether or not they
have been in Turkey
50%
47,4%
45% 47,2% Have been in
40% Turkey
35% 31,6%
30%
28,5% Have not been
25% in Turkey
20%
15% 19,3%
10,5%
10%
5% 10,5% 3,2%
0%
Very Negative Neutral Positive
negative
As the chart shows, each third respondent who visited Turkey has neutral opinion about the
Turks and each tenth has positive opinion, whereas only 19,3% of the respondents who have not
been in Turkey have neutral attitude and 3,2% have positive attitude.
36

37. IV. PRIORITIES
This chapter presents the priorities that the respondents have in certain aspects of economic
and political relations between Armenia and Turkey.
As the survey has shown, majority of Armenian respondents would buy products made in
Turkey and 60,3% of Turkish respondents would buy goods produced in Armenia.
Chart 17. Would you buy products made in Turkey/Armenia?
80%
70% 73,7%
60%
60,3%
50%
40% Made in Turkey
38,6%
30% Made in Armenia
26,3%
20%
10%
0%
Yes No
Armenian and Turkish surveys have shown that readiness to buy Turkish / Armenian
products depends on the respondents’ age and on their opinion on the Turks/Armenians in
general. Thus, quite logically, those respondents who have better attitude towards the Turks /
Armenians are more likely to buy Armenian / Turkish products. Positive answer was given by
100% of those who have very positive opinion, 91,4% of those who have positive opinion,
88,9% of those with neutral opinion, 72,0% of those with negative opinion, and only 62,2% of
those whose opinion is very negative are ready to buy Turkish products. In Turkey, 85% of those
who have positive opinion, 71,6% of those with neutral opinion, 43,7% of those with negative
opinion, and only 22,2% of those with very negative opinion are ready to buy Armenian
products. Within age groups, also expectedly, older respondents are less willing to buy Turks /
Armenians products than the younger respondents are (see Table 24).
Table 24. Would you buy products made in Turkey / Armenia?
Armenia Turkey
Yes No Yes No
18-29 years old 78,5 21,5 66,8 33,2
30-44 years old 77,7 22,3 63,3 36,7
45-59 years old 73,1 26,9 48,4 51,6
60 and above 62,6 37,4 49,3 50,7
Majority of Armenian respondents expressed their willingness to go to Turkey for tourism
and vacation (73,5%) and overwhelming majority of them (94,8%) would like to visit Turkey to
see the land of their ancestors. Majority of Turkish respondents (50,4%) would go to Armenia
for business and trade.
37

38. Table 24. Would you go to Turkey/Armenia for the following?
Yes, I would go No, I wouldn’t Don’t know
go
Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk. Arm. Turk.
Tourism, vacation 73,5 43,6 25,2 51,8 1,3 4,6
Business, trade 31,5 50,4 66,2 45,2 2,3 4,4
To work 17,4 38,8 79,7 56,6 2,9 4,6
School, education 5,0 33,7 93,2 60,9 1,8 5,4
Medical treatment 5,7 45,4 90,6 49,4 3,7 5,2
To see the land of my ancestors 94,8 0,0 5,2 0,0 0,0 0,0
Other 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
As the table shows, Armenian respondents would definitely not go to Turkey to study, pass
a medical treatment or to work, whereas they consider Turkey as a tourism/vacation country
(73,5%). Turkish respondents would rather not choose Armenia for education, work and tourism.
But parallel to this, it is also possible to read the table from another perspective: 45,4% of
Turkish respondents are ready to trust “Armenian medical treatment” and 33,7% of them are
ready to go Armenia for school/education, whereas in Armenia these figures are 5,7% and 5%
respectively.
Although majority (77,7%) of Armenian respondents do not speak Turkish and only 18,5%
of them know just few words, most of them (73,7%) gave positive answer to the question of
whether or not they watch Turkish movies, TV channels or read Turkish magazines. This speaks
for the fact that the respondents mainly meant Turkish sports programs, which are quite popular
in Armenia.
The survey shows that overwhelming majority of Armenian respondents approve
establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey, whereas on the Turkish side, the
approvals are diminishing, reflecting an important rate of undecided respondents.
Table 25. Do you approve or disapprove of the following?
Armenian respondents Approve Disapprove Don’t
know
Opening border entries between Armenia and Turkey 62,7 31,1 6,2
Establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey 87,7 8,1 4,2
Developing economic collaboration between the two countries without 60,1 33,1 6,8
waiting for the resolution of political and historical problems
Turkish respondents Don’t
Approve Disapprove
know
Opening border entries between Armenia and Turkey 50,9 32,2 16,9
Establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey 64,6 20,6 14,8
Developing economic collaboration between the two countries without 54,0 29,0 17,1
waiting for the resolution of political and historical problems
38