HKU POP releases latest survey on Hong Kong people’s ethnic identityBack

Press Release on June 18, 2013

Special Announcements

(1) Preliminary Report and video clips of “OCLP Deliberation Series” DDay1 now released

The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at the University of Hong Kong yesterday released the Preliminary Report of the “OCLP Deliberation Series” DDay1. Members of public and media are welcome to read the Chinese report at the “OCLP Deliberation Series” Feature Page of the “HKU POP Site” (http://hkupop.pori.hk) and also at the “PopCon” e-platform (http://popcon.hk). The video clips of the plenary sessions and some small group discussions are also available at the feature page, while the video clips of all the remaining small group discussions will be available in due course.

(2) Reference materials on “Survey on Hong Kong people’s Ethnic Identity”

Today’s release concerning the “survey on Hong Kong people’s ethnic identity” includes a large amount of reference material, readers should click on the “What’s New” at “POP SITE” (website: http://hkupop.pori.hk) and read in detail, in order to understand the background and controversy related to this survey series.

Abstract

The latest survey conducted by POP shows that if we use a dichotomy of “Hongkonger” versus “Chinese” to measure Hong Kong people’s ethnic identity, the proportion of people identifying themselves as ‘Hongkongers” outnumbers that of “Chinese” both in their narrow and broad senses by 15 to 27 percentage points. For the overall sample, the percentage of those identifying themselves as “Hongkongers” have gone up significantly by 11 percentage points, those identifying themselves as “Chinese” have gone up slightly, while those opting for the mixed identities of “Hongkongers in China” or “Chinese in Hong Kong” have dropped significantly. In terms of absolute rating, except that of “Asians”, people’s identification with the other five identities have all dropped significantly compared to 6 months ago. Among them, the strength of “Chinese” identity has dropped most, down to a new low since June 1999. Moreover, if we use “identity indices” ranging between 0 and 100 to measure the strengths of people’s identities (the higher the index, the stronger the identity), Hong Kong people’s feeling is strongest as “Hongkongers”, followed by “Asians”, then “members of the Chinese race”, “Chinese”, “global citizens”, and finally “citizens of the PRC”. All in all, Hong Kong people feel the strongest as “Hongkongers”, then followed by a number of cultural identities. The feeling of being “citizens of the PRC” is the weakest among all identities tested. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figures needs another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 68%.

Points to note：
[1] The address of the “HKU POP SITE” is http://hkupop.pori.hk, journalists can check out the details of the survey there.

[2] The sample size is 1,055 successful interviews, not 1,055 x 67.9% response rates. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[3] The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figure needs another calculation. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. When quoting these figures, journalists can state "sampling error of various ratings not more than +/-0.24, sampling error of identity indices not more than +/-2.3, and sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4% at 95% confidence level”.
[4] Because of sampling errors in conducting the survey, and rounding procedures in collating the figures, when quoting percentages of this survey, journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places, but when quoting the rating figures, one decimal place can be used, in order to match the precision level of the figures.
[5] The data of this survey is collected by means of random telephone interviews conducted by real interviewers, not by any interactive voice system (IVS). If a research organization uses “computerized random telephone survey” to camouflage its IVS operation, it should be considered unprofessional.
[6] Starting from 18 June 2013, in light of their popular usage, the following translations are used in reports and releases: 香港人 = Hongkonger, 中國的香港人 = Hongkonger in China, 中國人 = Chinese, 香港的中國人 = Chinese in Hong Kong.

Latest Figures

POP today releases via the POP Site the latest survey on people’s ethnic identity. All the figures have been weighted according to provisional figures obtained from the Census and Statistics Department regarding the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population in 2012 year-end. Herewith the latest contact information:

Date of survey	Sample base	Overall response rate	Maximum sampling error of percentages [7]	Maximum sampling error of ethnicity indices^[7]
10-13/6/2013	1,055	67.9%	+/-3%	+/-2.3

[7] Errors are calculated at 95% confidence level using full sample size. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Questions using only sub-samples would have bigger sample error. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.

Recent figures on Hong Kong people’s ratings on separate identities are tabulated as follows:

Date of survey		12-20/12/11		13-20/6/12		14-17/12/12		10-13/6/13		Latest change
Sample base^[11]		534-551		527-601		669-696		657-684		--
Finding		Finding		Finding		Finding		Finding and error^[8]		--
Strength rating of being “Hongkongers”	Identity index of being “Hong- kongers” ^[10]	8.23^[9]	79.1^[9]	8.11	77.4	8.43^[9]	81.7^[9]	8.13 +/-0.16	78.2 +/-1.6	-0.30^[9]	-3.5^[9]
Importance rating of being “Hongkongers” ^[10]		7.78^[9]		7.64		8.12^[9]		7.71 +/-0.17		-0.41^[9]
Strength rating of being “Asians”	Identity index of being “Asians” ^[10]	7.65	72.1	7.45	69.2^[9]	7.74^[9]	72.7^[9]	7.71 +/-0.18	71.1 +/-1.9	-0.03	-1.6
Importance rating of being “Asians” ^[10]		6.96		6.69^[9]		7.01^[9]		6.82+/-0.20		-0.19
Strength rating of being “Members of the Chinese race”	Identity index of being “Members of the Chinese race” ^[10]	7.46	72.5	7.26	69.5^[9]	7.71^[9]	75.6^[9]	7.38 +/-0.21	71.0 +/-2.1	-0.33^[9]	-4.6^[9]
Importance rating of being “Members of the Chinese race” ^[10]		7.18		6.82^[9]		7.52^[9]		6.99 +/-0.22		-0.53^[9]
Strength rating of being “Chinese”	Identity index of being “Chinese citizens” ^[10]	7.01	67.9^[9]	6.99	67.0	7.47^[9]	72.4^[9]	6.80+/-0.22	65.9 +/-2.2	-0.67^[9]	-6.5^[9]
Importance rating of being “Chinese” ^[10]		6.80^[9]		6.66		7.20^[9]		6.59 +/-0.23		-0.61^[9]
Strength rating of being “global citizens”	Identity index of being “global citizens” ^[10]	6.91	67.0	6.61^[9]	63.6^[9]	7.06^[9]	67.4^[9]	6.83 +/-0.21	65.0 +/-1.8	-0.23^[9]	-2.4^[9]
Importance rating of being “global citizens” ^[10]		6.68		6.35		6.68^[9]		6.38 +/-0.21		-0.30^[9]
Strength rating of being “citizens of PRC”	Identity index of being “citizens of PRC” ^[10]	6.28	61.1	6.12	59.0	6.39^[9]	62.4^[9]	6.11 +/-0.24	59.0 +/-2.3	-0.28^[9]	-3.4^[9]
Importance rating of being “citizens of PRC” ^[10]		6.12		5.85^[9]		6.29^[9]		5.90 +/-0.24		-0.39^[9]

[8] All error figures in the table are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Media can state “sampling error of ratings not more than +/-0.24 and sampling error of identity indices not more than +/-2.3 at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[9] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
[10] New items since December 2008. “Identity index” is calculated for each identity of a respondent by taking the geometric mean of the strength and importance ratings of a certain identity, multiply by 10. If either the strength or importance rating of a respondent is missing, it is substituted by the sample mean of that identity.
[11] Since December 2008, the sub-sample size of the series of questions is controlled at slightly over 500 cases.

The above figures were collected from independent rating questions, but not involving the dichotomy issue of “Hongkongers” and “Chinese”. Latest findings showed that the identity ratings for “Hongkongers”, “Asians” and “members of the Chinese race” were 8.13, 7.71 and 7.38 marks respectively. Using the same rating method, the strength of people’s identity as “global citizens”, “Chinese” and “citizens of PRC” were 6.83, 6.80 and 6.11 marks respectively. As for the importance ratings, “Hongkongers” and “members of the Chinese race” scored 7.71 and 6.99 marks respectively, while those for “Asians”, “Chinese”, “global citizens” and “citizens of PRC” were 6.82, 6.59, 6.38 and 5.90 marks respectively.

Taking the geometric mean of the strength and importance ratings of each respondent and then multiply it by 10, we have an “identity index” for the respondent for a certain identity between 0 and 100, with 0 meaning no feeling, 100 meaning extremely strong feeling, and 50 meaning half and half. Using these identity indices, the rank order of Hong Kong people’s six identities was “Hongkongers”, “Asians”, “members of the Chinese race”, “Chinese”, “global citizens” and “citizens of PRC”. Their scores were 78.2, 71.1, 71.0, 65.9, 65.0 and 59.0 marks respectively.

As for the results from the survey mode used for long on Hong Kong people’s sense of ethnic identity, recent figures are tabulated as follows:

Date of survey	12-20/12/11	13-20/6/12	14-17/12/12	10-13/6/13	Latest Change
Sample base^[15]	541^[15]	560^[15]	687^[15]	677 ^[15]	--
Overall response rate	66.4%	68.0%	67.5%	67.9%	--
Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding and error^[12]	--
Identified themselves as “Hongkongers”	38%^[14]	46%^[14]	27%^[14]	38+/-4%	+11%^[14]
Identified themselves as “Chinese”	17%^[14]	18%	21%	23+/-3%	+2%
Identified themselves with a mixed identity of “Hongkongers” plus “Chinese” ^[13]	43%^[14]	34%^[14]	49%^[14]	36+/-4%	-13%^[14]
Identified themselves as “Hongkongers” in broad sense	63%	68%^[14]	60%^[14]	62+/-4%	+2%
Identified themselves as “Chinese” in broad sense	34%	30%	37%^[14]	35+/-4%	-2%

[12] All error figures in the table are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Media can state “sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[13] This means the percentage of “Hongkongers in China” plus “Chinese in Hong Kong”.
[14] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
[15] Starting from June 2011, this question only uses sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sub-sample size of this survey is 677, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.

When asked to make a choice among 4 given identities, namely, “Hongkongers”, “Hongkongers in China”, “Chinese” and “Chinese in Hong Kong”, 38% of the respondents identified themselves as “Hongkongers”, 23% as “Chinese”, 24% as “Hongkongers in China”, while 12% identified themselves as “Chinese in Hong Kong”. In other words, 62% of the respondents identified themselves as “Hongkongers” in the broader sense (i.e. either as “Hongkongers” or “Hongkongers in China”), whereas 35% identified themselves as “Chinese” in the broader sense (i.e. either as “Chinese” or “Chinese in Hong Kong”), 36% chose a mixed identity of “Hongkongers plus Chinese” (i.e. either as “Hongkongers in China” or “Chinese in Hong Kong”).

Because the concepts of “Hongkongers”, “Hongkongers in China”, “Chinese” and “Chinese in Hong Kong” may overlap with each other, and making a one-in-four choice may not reflect the actual strengths of one’s ethnic identities, POP has right from the beginning conducted parallel tests on the strengths of people’s separate identities as “Hongkongers” and “Chinese” using a scale of 0-10, to study ethnic identity in different levels. In June 2007, POP has already expanded its study to include four new identities for strength rating, namely, “citizens of PRC”, “members of the Chinese race”, “Asians” and “global citizens”. In December 2008, the study was further expanded by including separate importance ratings for different identities, and the compilation of a separate index for each identity using geometric means. Though they may not be perfect, the complex studies adopted by POP were already very comprehensive.

Opinion Daily

In January 2007, POP opened a feature page called "Opinion Daily" at the "POP Site", to record significant events and selected polling figures on a day-to-day basis, in order to let readers judge by themselves the reasons for the ups and downs of different opinion figures. In July 2007, POP collaborated with Wisers Information Limited whereby Wisers supplies to POP each day starting from July 24, a record of significant events of that day, according to the research method designed by POP. These daily entries would be uploaded to "Opinion Daily" as soon as they are verified by POP.

For some of the polling items covered in this press release, the previous survey was conducted from December 14 to 17, 2012 while this survey was conducted from June 10 to 13, 2013. During this period, herewith the significant events selected from counting newspaper headlines and commentaries on a daily basis and covered by at least 25% of the local newspaper articles. Readers can make their own judgment if these significant events have any impacts to different polling figures.

11/6/13	Shenzhou X blasts off.
10/6/13	Snowden, whistle-blower of US massive surveillance programme flees to Hong Kong.
8/6/13	China and US build new type of power relationship.
4/6/13	150,000 people participate in the June Fourth candlelight vigil.
23/4/13	The government requests Legco for a $100 million donation to Sichuan government to aid quake victims.
20/4/13	A magnitude-7 shallow earthquake hits Lushan country of Ya' an city in Sichuan province.
24/3/13	The central government commits to achieve universal suffrage in Hong Kong by 2017.
17/3/13	China's president Xi Jinping invokes his concept of the “China dream”.
15/3/13	Li Keqiang is formal elected as China's premier.
14/3/13	Xi Jinping is formally elected as China's president.

Commentary

Robert Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, observed, “Our latest survey shows that if we use a dichotomy of ‘Hongkonger’ versus ‘Chinese’ to measure Hong Kong people’s ethnic identity, the proportion of people identifying themselves as ‘Hongkongers’ outnumbers that of ‘Chinese’ both in their narrow and broad senses by 15 to 27 percentage points. For the overall sample, the percentage of those identifying themselves as ‘Hongkongers’ have gone up significantly by 11 percentage points, those identifying themselves as ‘Chinese’ have gone up slightly, while those opting for the mixed identities of ‘Hongkongers in China’ or ‘Chinese in Hong Kong’ have dropped significantly. In terms of absolute rating, except that of ‘Asians’, people’s identification with the other five identities have all dropped significantly compared to 6 months ago. Among them, the strength of ‘Chinese’ identity has dropped most, down to a new low since June 1999. Moreover, if we use ‘identity indices’ ranging between 0 and 100 to measure the strengths of people’s identities (the higher the index, the stronger the identity), Hong Kong people’s feeling is strongest as ‘Hongkongers’, followed by ‘Asians’, then ‘members of the Chinese race’, ‘Chinese’, ‘global citizens’, and finally ‘citizens of the PRC’. All in all, Hong Kong people feel the strongest as ‘Hongkongers’, then followed by a number of cultural identities. The feeling of being ‘citizens of the PRC’ is the weakest among all identities tested. As for the reasons behind the ups and downs of these figures, we will leave it to our readers to form their own judgment using the detailed records displayed in our ‘Opinion Daily’.”

Future Releases (Tentative)

June 20, 2013 (Thursday) 1pm to 2pm: Latest trust and confidence indicators
June 25, 2013 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: People’s appraisal of society's conditions

Reference materials on survey on Hong Kong people’s ethnic identity

POP Resources: Full questionnaire of “survey on Hong Kong people’s ethnic identity”
Online Chart 1: Strength of “Hong Kong citizen” identity (per poll, by age group)
Online Chart 2: Strength of “Chinese citizen” identity (per poll, by age group)
Online Chart 3: Identity Indices of Hong Kong People
Online Chart 4 : Ethnic Identity – Hong Kong Citizen (per poll, by age group)
Online Chart 5 : Ethnic Identity – Chinese Citizen (per poll, by age group)
Online Chart 6 : Ethnic Identity – Mixed Identity (per poll, by age group)
Online Chart 7 : Ethnic Identity – “Hong Kong People” in broad sense (per poll, by age group)
Online Chart 8 : Ethnic Identity – “Chinese People” in broad sense (per poll, by age group)
POP Resources: Article “Survey on Ethnic Identity of Hong Kong People” by Robert Chung
POP Resources: Full set of documents submitted to Panel on Education of Legislation Council in March 2012 by Robert Chung