American Patriotism, National Identity, and Political Involvement
Author(s): Leonie Huddy and Nadia Khatib
Source: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Jan., 2007), pp. 63-77
Published by: Midwest Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4122906
Accessed: 13/05/2010 16:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsa.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Political Science.
http://www.jstor.org
American
and
Political
Patriotism,
Identity,
National
Involvement
LeonieHuddy StonyBrookUniversity
NadiaKhatib Universityof Arizona
Researchersdisagree over the definition, measurement, and expectedpolitical consequencesof American patriotism, a
situation that isfueled by the absenceof a strongtheoreticalresearchfoundation. Wedevelopand evaluate a new measureof
national attachmentthat is groundedin social identity theory(Tajfeland Turner1979), drawingon datafrom threedistinct
sources:two studies of undergraduatestudents and the 1996 General Social Survey (GSS). Confirmatoryfactor analyses
provide clear evidence that national identity is distinctfrom other measuresof national attachment including symbolic,
constructive,and uncritical patriotism, and nationalism. National identity has a number of other good measurement
propertieswhen comparedto existing measures:it receivesequal endorsementfrom conservativesand liberals(unlike most
other measureswhich exhibit an ideologicalbias), developswith time spent in the United States among immigrants,and
most importantlyis the only measureof national attachmentto predictpolitical interestand voter turnout in both student
and adult samples, consistent with the predictions of social identity theory.In that sense, the national identity measure
outperformsall othermeasuresof national attachmentand providesunambiguousevidencethat a strongAmericanidentity
promotescivic involvement.
esearch on patriotism has been marred by a confusing array of terms, definitions, and expected
consequences in which patriotism is variously defined as a sense of national loyalty,a love of national symbols, specific beliefs about a country's superiority, and
as a crucial ingredient in the development of civic ties
to a mature nation (Hurwitz and Peffley 1999; SpinnerHalev and Theiss-Morse 2003; Sullivan, Fried, and Dietz
1992). Patriotism researchers have reached some (although far from uniform) consensus that a sense of superiority and need for foreign dominance better reflect
nationalism than patriotism (De Figueiredo and Elkins
2003; Karasawa 2002; Kosterman and Feshbach 1989;
Mummendey, Klink, and Brown 2001; Sidanius et al.
1997), clarifyingwhat patriotism is not. But this still leaves
considerable disagreement over what exactly it is.
Diverse Forms of Patriotism
There is broad agreement on the meaning of patriotism as
"adeeply felt affectiveattachmentto the nation" (Conover
and Feldman 1987, 1) or the "degreeof love for and pride
in one's nation" (Kosterman and Feshbach 1989, 271).
More pronounced disagreement emerges, however, over
the way in which patriotism is measured. Patriotism items
are commonly tinged with political ideology in the United
States,resulting in greaterapparentpatriotism among political conservatives than liberals. Consider the symbolic
patriotismscale in the American National Election Studies
(ANES), which combines pride in being American with
pride in the flag and anthem (Conover and Feldman 1987;
Hurwitz and Peffley 1999; Karasawa 2002; Kosterman
and Feshbach 1989; Sidanius et al. 1997). Ideological bias
Nadia
LeonieHuddy is professorof politicalscience, StonyBrookUniversity,StonyBrook,NY 11794-4392([email protected]).
Khatib is a lecturerin political science, Universityof Arizona, 315 Social Sciences Building, PO Box 210027, Tucson, AZ 85721-0027
([email protected]).
An earlierversion of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest PoliticalScience Association.We wish to thank
the National Opinion ResearchCouncil for use of the 1996 GSS data. We also wish to thank Stanley Feldman,JennyBoldero,Wendy
Rahn,ElizabethTheiss-Morse,ChristopherParker,and membersof the StonyBrookPoliticalPsychologyseminar,and severalanonymous
reviewersfor their helpful comments and insights on an earlierdraftof this article.
AmericanJournal of Political Science,Vol. 51, No. 1, January2007, Pp. 63-77
?2007, MidwestPoliticalScienceAssociation
ISSN0092-5853
63
64
LEONIEHUDDYAND NADIAKHATIB
entersintothescalebecauseliberalsexpresssomereserve
aboutnationalsymbolsas a lingeringhistoricalconsequenceof oppositionto theVietnamWar,in whichflag
withliberal,antiwarsenburningbecamesynonymous
timent.As a consequence,
supportfor symbolicpatriotismis strongeramongconservatives
thanliberals,raisneeded
ing
questionsaboutitsutilityasa broadmeasure
of patriotism
(ConoverandFeldman1987;Hurwitzand
effortsatpositivechange."
bysupporting
Despiteexpectationsthatitwouldgainstronger
endorsement
fromlibis empirically
unrelated
erals,constructive
to
patriotism
its
as
a
measure
of
politicalideology,increasing potential
broad,nondivisive
(Schatz,Staub,andLavine
patriotism
thereareseveralproblems
withthe
1999).Unfortunately,
scalethatlimititsempirical
utility.
scaleare
First,itemsin the constructive
patriotism
De
and
Elkins
1999).'
Peffley
Figueiredo
(2003) analyze complex,mixinga loveof countrywithpoliticalefforts
the politicaleffects of nationalpride, a concept closely directed
atachangeinthestatusquo.Scaleitemsmayprialignedwithsymbolicpatriotismsincebothmeasuresref- marilydetectloveofcountry
andthusreflectabroadsense
erencea senseof pride.Nationalpridehas an ideological of nationalattachment,
buttheymayalsoconfoundpabasisin Europe,butthislinkhasnot yetbeentestedin the triotismwithpoliticalinterest,involvement,
andactivity
UnitedStates(Elkinsand Sides2003).
andChryssochoou
2005;Schatz,
Staub,and
(Rothi,Lyons,
dealwithideological Lavine1999).Schatzandcolleagues
Schatz,Staub,and colleagues
finda clearlinkbeasymmetryin the measurementof patriotismby distin- tweenpoliticalinvolvement
andconstructive
patriotism,
thewaters.Isconstructive
guishingbetweenconstructiveandblindpatriotism.This butthisfurthermuddies
patridistinctionis designedto differentiatea conservativeas- otismprimarily
a measureof patriotism?
Orof political
interestandinvolvement?
Current
pect of patriotism(blind)fromone thatis morelikelyto
research
failsto clearly
be endorsedby liberalsor perhapsthoseon both sidesof
resolvethisissue.Second,allof theagree-disagree
itemsin
the ideologicaldivide (constructive).Blind,or what we theconstructive
scalearewordedin a positivedirection,
referto as uncriticalpatriotism(to get aroundthe nor- introducing
bias(Schuman
and
acquiescence
problematic
mativeimplicationsof the term blind),is definedas "an
unwillingnessbothto criticizeandacceptcriticism"of the
nationandis indexedby itemssuchas "mycountryright
orwrong"(SchatzandStaub1997,231;Schatz,Staub,and
Lavine1999).Uncriticalpatriotismis linkedto authoriin turn,by a tendency
tarianism,whichis characterized,
to defer to authorityfiguresand supportthem unconditionally.And authoritariansare typicallyconservative
(althoughnot all conservativesare authoritarians),producinghigherlevelsof uncriticalpatriotismamongpolitical conservatives,on average(Schatz,Staub,and Lavine
1999).Uncriticalpatriotismis, therefore,not a goodmeasureof broadpatriotismbecauseit is both ideologically
divisiveand closelyalignedwith nationalismand ethnocentrism,blurringthedistinctionbetweenpatriotismand
nationalism.
Schatzand Staubdevelopeda scale of constructive
patriotismthat encapsulatesa form of patriotismmore
acceptableto liberals.Constructivepatriotismis defined
Presser1981).Thisproblemis difficultto fix becausethe
compoundnatureof constructivepatriotismitemsmakes
scaleitems difficultto reverse.Shoulditemsbe reversed
by statingthat one's effortsat changedo not arisefrom
a love of country?Or that Americansshould not work
towardspositivechange?
Third,the empiricalmeasureof constructivepatriotismis not clearlydifferentiated
fromthatof blindpatriotism,blurringthemeaningof bothconcepts.Considerthe
followingexample.The blind patriotismscale contains
the followingreverse-worded
item: "Forthe most part,
who
people
protestand demonstrateagainstU.S. policy
aregood,upstanding,intelligentpeople."Thisseemsconceptuallysimilarto the followingitemfromthe constructive patriotismscale:"If you love America,you should
notice its problemsand workto correctthem."But the
two scales(blindandconstructive)areunrelated(Schatz,
Staub,and Lavine1999).
All four patriotismscales(symbolic,nationalpride,
as "anattachment to country characterizedby criticalloyalty" and "questioning and criticism"driven by "a desire
for positive change"(Schatz,Staub,and Lavine 1999, 153).
Constructive patriots agree with items such as "I oppose
some U.S. policies because I care about my country and
want to improve it" and "I express my love for America
uncritical, and constructive) are thus open to criticism
as general measures of national attachment. At least two
measures (symbolic and uncritical patriotism and possibly national pride) are conflated with a conservative ideology, leading to fractious debate over who is "truly"patriotic. And a third measure (constructive patriotism) is
defined as support for activepolitical change, which could
easily exclude patriotic individuals who have no interest
in altering the status quo. In our view, a strong theoretical framework is needed to guide the measurement of
patriotism and account for its political consequences.
is moretypically
withpolitical
ide'Symbolic
patriotism
aligned
in the UnitedStatesbecausebothparties
ologythanpartisanship
withthe flagand
varyin howvigorouslytheyidentifythemselves
othernationalsymbols.
AMERICANPATRIOTISM,
NATIONAL
AND POLITICAL
INVOLVEMENT
IDENTITY,
65
as the normamongfellowgroupmembers(Terryand
Hogg 1996;Terry,Hogg,and White1999).Theyhave
National Attachments
andobalsomanipulated
groupnormsexperimentally
normsamong
to manipulated
adherence
servedstronger
Wedrawon socialidentitytheoryto developa theoretHogg,andDuck1999;Wellen,
(Terry,
groupidentifiers
icallygroundedmeasureof nationalidentitywithclear
andTerry1998).Moreover,highlyidentifiedgroup
forintergroup
behavior(Tajfel1981;Tajfel Hogg, are
implications
members mostlikelyto conformto idealorprescripandTurner1979).Socialidentitytheoryrepresents
a rich tivenorms
shouldvote)rather
(e.g.,allgoodAmericans
of
and
on
the
and
consebody thought findings
origins
acAmericans
some
norms
thandescriptive
(e.g.,only
quencesof a strongsocialidentitythathashadgrowing
more
behaviorandto experience
of
influence
onpoliticalresearch
inrecentyears(Gibsonand tuallyvote) group
them
to
after
emotions
(Christensen
conforming
Gouws2000;Sniderman,
andPrior2004).A positive
Hagendoorn,
et al.2004).
socialidentityistypically
definedasanawareness
of one's
We extendthesefindingsfromself-categorization
in
the
and
a
objectivemembership
group
psychological theorytoAmerican
are
Actsofcivicparticipation
identity.
senseof groupattachment
with viewed
(Tajfel1981).Consistent
idennational
to
as
central
theorists
by political
thisdefinition,
wedefinenationalidentityasa subjective
whatis seenas
andconstitute
countries
indemocratic
tity
orinternalized
senseof belonging
to thenationandmea- normative
Searbehaviorfora "good"citizen(Conover,
sureitwithquestions
thattypically
assesssocialidentities
idennational
of
This
Crewe
and
2004).
conception
ing,
(Huddy2001,2003).
endorsedin theUnitedStates.Whenasked
is
Socialidentitytheorygeneratesnumerouspredic- tity widelythemselves
asa "particularly
rate
good,""good,"
tionsaboutthe consequences
of nationalloyalties.We whythey or
what
and
so
"not
citizen"
theycould
good
"ordinary,"
centralexpectations
in thisre- do
exploreseveralpolitically
to becomea bettercitizen,a majorityof Americans
search.First,nationalidentityis expectedto be nonideconductedby Conoverand
mentionvotingin research
a pervasive
sense
ologicalin flavorbecauseit represents
to votingweremorenuReferences
of subjective
attachment
to thenation.FeelingAmerican colleagues(2004).
in
merousamongAmericanthanBritishparticipants,
doesnot hingeon the endorsement
of a specificpolitiit
as
mention
of
Americans
number
a
because
higher
calideology(HuddyandKhatibin press).Research
on part
But
citizen.
better
a
to
become
somethingtheycoulddo
American
identityamongmembersof ethnicandracial overa thirdof Americans
alsolistvotingasthebasisfor
minoritygroupsprovidesevidenceof the nonideologi- theircurrentsenseof citizenship.
Votingthusconstitutes
calnatureof American
identity(Citrin,Wong,andDuff a prescriptive,
idennormative
componentof American
American
2001).Inthisresearch,
identityis definedas a tity(seealsoDevosandBanaji2005).Asa consequence,
senseofbeingorfeelingAmerican
andisempirically
unre- we
political
identityto increase
expecta strongAmerican
latedto self-described
orconservatism
liberalism
(Citrin, interestandinvolvement,
turnout.
voter
including
Wong,andDuff2001;Sidaniuset al. 1997;Sniderman
An expectedpositivelink betweennationalidenet al.2004).Incontrast,otherformsof patriotism
hinge
standsin markedconand politicalinvolvement
on beliefsaboutthespecificmeaningof Americanidentity tity
trastto the predictedeffectsof otherformsof patriandcanbe endorsedmorenarrowly.Forexample,uncritotism.Considerfirstuncriticalpatriotism.Schatzand
ical patriotismis an especiallycontentious,ideologically
colleagues(1999)find lowerlevelsof politicalinvolvetingedform of patriotismthat involvesunwaveringsup- ment and interestamonguncriticalpatriots.Theydo
portof politicalleaders(Schatz,Staub,andLavine1999). not
basisfor this observed
providea cleartheoretical
Uncriticalpatriotsare very likelyto identifyas Ameributtheydo finda linkbetweenauthoritarrelationship,
A SocialIdentityApproachto
cans, but not all American identifiers endorse uncritical
patriotism.
Second, a strong national identity is expected to increase political involvement. Turner and colleagues' selfcategorization theory, an offshoot of social identity theory, predicts that individuals with a strong group identity
are most likely to conform to group norms (Turneret al.
1987; Terry,Hogg, and White 1999). Self-categorization
researchersfind, for example, that the intention to practice protectivehealth behaviors among strong group identifiers depends on whether or not these behaviors are seen
ianism and uncriticalpatriotismthat could explainthe
connection.Authoritarians
typicallyexhibitlowerlevels
of politicalinformation,interest,and involvementthat
can be traced to their reducedscores on openness to
experience,a key personalitytrait (Huddy et al. 2005;
McFarlandand Mathews2005;McRae1996;Oesterreich
2005;Peterson,Duncan,andPang2002).As a result,authoritariansarelesslikelythanothersto exposethemselves
to newexperiencesor challenginginformation(Altmeyer
1996; Feather,Boeckman, and McKee 2001, Lavine,
Lodge,and Freitas2005). Moreover,a generalpolitical
66
LEONIEHUDDYAND NADIAKHATIB
passivityamongauthoritariansis consistentwith one of
theirdefiningattributes-a greaterdeferenceto authority
figures(Adornoet al. 1950;Altmeyer1998).Thus,we expectto findlowerlevelsof politicalinvolvementandinterest amonguncriticalpatriotsdue, in part,to theirgreater
authoritarianism.
Constructivepatriotismhas been linked to participationand interestin Schatzand colleagues'(1999) research,butthetheoreticalreasonforthislinkalsoremains
unclear.It could be a reflectionof constructivepatriots'
desireto participatein Americanpoliticsthatis independent of the politicaleffectsof nationalidentity.It could
conveysupportfor Americannormsof politicalinvolvementandthusoverlapwith nationalidentity.Or it could
be a measurementartifact,as noted earlier,that arises
becausepoliticalinvolvementis explicitlymentionedin
scaleitems.Todate,therehasbeenno directempiricaltest
of the relativeimpactof nationalidentityand constructive patriotismon politicalinvolvement.Finally,thereis
no empiricalevidenceof, or theoreticalbasisfor,a direct
link betweensymbolicpatriotismand politicalinvolvementor nationalprideand involvement.
Research Expectations Concerning
National Identity
Severalpropositionsderived from social identity theory are tested in this research.First,a strong national
identityshouldbe relatedto but distinctfrom symbolic
patriotism,nationalpride, constructivepatriotism,and
uncriticalpatriotism.Second, national identity should
be less ideologicallydivisivethan otherpatriotismmeasures. Third, national identity should increaseadherence to group norms which heighten political interest and involvement.In contrast,uncriticalpatriotism
shouldlowerpoliticalinvolvement,symbolicpatriotism
shouldhaveno impacton it, andthe effectsof constructive patriotismremainunclear.Constructivepatriotism
could have a directimpacton politicalinterestand involvementor its effectsmight be conveyedby national
identity.
Methods
Sample
To test our hypotheses,we draw data from three distinct sources:a 2002studentstudy,a 2004 studentstudy,
and the 1996GeneralSocialSurvey(GSS).The two stu-
dent surveysaffordan opportunityto developand test
a new measureof nationalidentity,examineits impact
on variousmeasuresof politicalinvolvementand interest, and contrastits effects with competingpatriotism
measures.The GSSprovidesa nationallyrepresentative
sampleof Americanson whichto testthe predictionthat
a strongnationalidentityleadsto higherlevelsof political
involvement.
StudentStudies
Both studentstudies includedresponsesfrom students
at StonyBrookUniversitywho wereenrolledin political
science classesand participatedin the studieseitheras
a courserequirementor for extracredit.The first study
wasconductedovera two-weekperiodin November2002
(N = 341);the secondoccurredin February2004 (N =
300). Studentsin bothstudieshadverysimilarcharacteristics.Bothsampleswerealmostevenlysplitbetweenmen
and women (53%male in 2002 and 50%male in 2004)
andwereequallydiversein termsof studentraceandethnicity.In 2002, 58%of studentswerewhite, 19%Asian,
15%black,and 7%Latino.In 2004,the numberof white
studentshad decreasedslightlyto 48%,and the number
of minoritystudentshadincreasedoverallto include25%
Asian,13%black,and 10%Latino.
In additionto being ethnicallydiverse,the university'sstudentbodyattractsa largenumberof immigrants.
In 2002,23%of participantswerefirst-generation
immigrants(bornoutsidetheUnitedStates),and25%weresecond generation(bornintheUnitedStatesbutbothparents
born outsidethe country).The 2004 sampleis similarly
and 24%seconddiverse,including26%first-generation
generationimmigrants.Amongimmigrantstudents,time
in the UnitedStatesrangedfroma fewmonthsto 23 years
with a medianof 12 yearsin 2002 and 13 yearsin 2004.
The bulkof immigrantsreportedtheirbackgroundas eitherwhite(35%in 2002and 31%in 2004) or Asian(32%
in 2002 and 36%in 2004). The majorityof participants
in bothstudiesarebetweenthe agesof 18and22 (median
age = 20). Wecapitalizeon the immigrantnatureof the
sampleto examinethe impactof immigrantstatuson the
strengthof differentnationalattachments.
1996 GeneralSocial Survey (GSS)
The 1996 GeneralSocial Survey(GSS) includes 2,904
respondentsdrawn from the adult household population of the United States.The sampleis split into two
halves,with each split half randomlyassignedto one
AMERICANPATRIOTISM,
NATIONAL
AND POLITICAL
INVOLVEMENT
IDENTITY,
of threequestionnaire"ballots"resultingin six different
conditions.The surveyincludeda specialnationalidentity module developedby the InternationalSocial Survey Programme(ISSP).Roughlyhalf (1,367) of all individualsansweredquestionsrelatedto patriotismand nationalidentity,of whom 1,285arecitizens.Oureffective
subsampleis furtherreducedto 680 citizenswho were
asked a number of added national identity questions,
includinga criticalcomponentof the nationalidentity
scale.We referto this throughoutas "theGSSsubsample."This GSSsubsampleincluded283 (42%)male,397
(58%)female,96 (14%)black,and 555 (82%)white respondents.Their median age is 44 with an averageof
13yearsof education.
AnalyticStrategy
Weemploystructural
equationmodeling(SEM)to inthe
structure
of
nationalattachments
andtheir
vestigate
with
various
of
relationships
aspects politicalinvolvement.Therehasbeena proliferation
of nationalattachmentmeasures,
of
which
are
interrelated
anddemany
on
similar
or
use
formats.
The
pend
questions question
of SEMidentifiesthe underlying
structureof opinions
measurement
modelsin
by incorporating
well-specified
of
traditional
summed
scales
or
mean
and
scores
place
controlsformeasurement
error.WhendealingwithLikert agree-disagree
responseitems,all itemsareloaded
on both a commonmethodcovarianceor style factor (withall loadingsset to 1) anda substantive
factor
to correctfor acquiescence
bias(withthe exceptionof
the constructive
patriotismscalein whichall itemsare
in the samedirectionandcannotbe loadedon a style
factor).
All analysesare conductedusing maximumlikelihood
estimation,
exceptfortwomodelswithdiscrete
variables
that
wereestimatedwithweighted
dependent
leastsquares
andnotedinthetext.2Wereportrobuststandarderrorsforallparameter
estimates.
Allmodelswere
the
estimated
statistical
whichprousing Mplus?
package,
videsmore robustestimationfor limitedand categorical
latentdependentvariablesand more efficientlyhandles
missingdata(imputedusingmaximumlikelihood)than
other SEM programs (Muth~n and Muth~n 2001).
2Allitemscontaining
fouror moreresponseoptionsareestimated
assuminga continuouslatenttrait.Toavoidviolatingtheassumption of multivariate
we alsoranmodels(foritemsthat
normality,
hadlessthan 10 categories)in whichitemsweretreatedas cateandfound
correlations)
gorical(usingrobustWLSwithpolychoric
results.Wereportresultsfromthecontinuousmodels
comparable
for theirrelativeeasein interpretation,
exceptwherenotedin the
text.
67
Structure of National Attachments
The structureof nationalattachmentswas assessedin all
threedatasets. The 2002 and 2004 studentstudieshave
nearlyidenticalmeasuresof nationalidentityand symbolic patriotism;the measuresof uncriticalpatriotism
anda measureof constructive
weremoredivergent;
patriotismwasconfinedto the 2004study.NationalIdenin 2004.3Thesymbolic
byfourquestions
titywasassessed
from
scalewasformedfromtwoitemsadapted
patriotism
the NES patriotism scale.4Constructivepatriotism was assessed by four agree-disagreeitems from the Schatz scale.
Uncriticalpatriotismwas comprisedof sevenitemsfrom
Schatz,Staub,andLavine's(1999)blindpatriotismscale.5
Table1 includesthe wordingof all nationalattachment
itemsin the 2004studentstudy.
Levelsof nationalidentitywere high in both student studies, with over 65% of students referringto
Americansas "we"most or all of the time and reportwasa termthatdescribedthemvery
ing that"American"
or somewhatwell.Levelsof nationalidentityarealsohigh
in the GSSsample,with over80%of all respondentsrating themselvesat 6 or above on a 0 to 10 scale on the
importanceof beingAmerican.Studentsupportforsymbolicpatriotismandconstructivepatriotismwassimilarly
high, with relativelyfew reportingthat the flag and anthem did not makethem feel good or that they did not
supporteffortsat positivechange.In contrast,uncritical
patriotismandnationalismwerelesspervasive.Sixty-one
percentof studentsdisagreedin 2002with the statement
that theywould "supporttheircountryrightor wrong,"
and only 38%of the GSSsubsampleagreedsomewhator
stronglywith the statementthat "theworldwould be a
betterplaceif otherpeopleweremorelikeAmericans."
wereasked,"Whenyouhearnon-Americans,
3In2002,respondents
to whatextentdo you feel personallycritcriticizingAmericans,
icized?"Thisitemloadedon both the nationalidentityand uncriticalpatriotismscalesand replacedthe 2004item on identity
importance.
4Inthe 2002symbolicpatriotismscale,an itemwasincludedthat
"Howprouddo you feel whenyou hearthe
askedrespondents,
to replacetheitemon positivefeelingsaboutthe
nationalanthem,"
anthem.
scalesharedtwoitemswiththe2004
5The2002uncritical
patriotism
aregood,andthereis too muchcriticismof the
scale(protesters
worded
andonenegatively
UnitedStates).Itincludedonepositively
scale:"Ifanother
itemfromtheSchatzetal.(1999)blindpatriotism
countrydisagreedwith an importantUnitedStatespolicythatI
knewlittleabout,I wouldnot necessarily
supportmy country's
position"and"Iwouldsupportmycountryrightorwrong."Italso
includeda thirdnewitemthatasked,"Howangrydoesit makeyou
theUnitedStates,"
feel,if atall,whenyouhearsomeonecriticizing
adaptedfromthe NESpatriotismscalebut scaledwithuncritical
patriotism.
LEONIEHUDDYAND NADIAKHATIB
68
1 FactorStructureof NationalAttachmentItems:StudentStudy,2004
TABLE
National
Identity
How importantis being Americanto you?
To what extent do you see yourselfas a typical
American?
How well does the term Americandescribeyou?
When talkingabout Americans,how often do you
say "we"insteadof "they"?
How good does it makeyou feel when you see the
Americanflag flying?
How good does it makeyou feel when you hear
the nationalanthem?
Peopleshould work hardto move this country in
a positive direction.
If I criticizethe United States,I do so out of love
of country.
I oppose some U.S. policies becauseI careabout
my country and want to improveit.
I expressmy attachmentto Americaby
supportingefforts at positivechange.
I supportmy country'sleaderseven if I disagree
with their actions.
Peoplewho do not wholeheartedlysupport
Americashould live elsewhere.
For the most part,people who protestand
demonstrateagainstU.S. policy are good,
Symbolic
Patriotism
Constructive
Patriotism
Uncritical
Patriotism
1.00 (.21)
.94 (.20)
.65 (.14)
.86 (.18)
1.00 (.24)
.97 (.25)
1.00 (.08)
2.19 (.17)
2.50 (.19)
1.80 (.13)
1.00 (.20)
.84 (.17)
.56 (.11)
upstanding,intelligentpeople.t
The United Statesis virtuallyalwaysright.
I supportU.S. policies for the very reasonthat
.94 (.19)
1.17 (.23)
theyarethe policiesof mycountry.
Thereis too muchcriticismof the U.S.in the
world,andwe asits citizensshouldnot criticize
1.13(.22)
it.
1.11(.22)
I believethatU.S.policiesarealmostalwaysthe
morallycorrectones.
Correlations between Factors
National Identity
Symbolic
Constructive
.74
.22
.27
.51
.56
-.20
Note:N = 300. One item-loadingfor each factor is constrainedto 1.00 for identification.All items are rescaledto vary between 0 and 1.
Cells contain unstandardizedfactor loadings with standardizedestimatesin parenthesesand standardizedfactor correlations.All factor
loadingsand correlationsare significantat the 1%level.
tIndicatesa reverseditem.
The confirmatoryfactorstructurefor the 2004 studentstudyis presentedin Table1. Thethreefactorscommon to boththe 2002and2004studentstudies-national
identity,symbolicpatriotism,anduncriticalpatriotismhave almost identicalstructurewith minor differences
noted in the text. The factor structure for the GSS identity subsample is included in Table 2.
The expected four-factor model-national identity,
symbolic patriotism, constructive patriotism, and uncritical patriotism-was a very good fit to the data in the 2004
AMERICANPATRIOTISM,
NATIONALIDENTITY,AND POLITICAL
INVOLVEMENT
69
TABLE
2 FactorStructureof NationalAttachmentItems:1996GeneralSocialSurvey
National ID National Pride Nationalism
How importantis being an Americanto you, where0 is
1.00 (0.13)
not at all importantand 10 is the most importantthing
in your life?
To begin, we have some questionsabout whereyou live:
1.24 (0.16)
your neighborhoodor village,your town or city, your
county,and so on. How close do you feel to America?
Some people say the following things are importantfor
1.41 (0.18)
being trulyAmerican.Othersaythey arenot important.
How importantdo you think each of the following is:
-to feel American?
Are you proud of the way democracyworkshere?
Are you proud of economic achievementshere?
Are you proud of your country'sscience and technology
achievements?
Are you proud of your country'shistory?
Areyou proud of your country'sfair and equal treatment
of all groupsin society?
Areyou proud of your country'sachievementsin artsand
literature?
Areyou proud of your country'ssocial securitysystem?
Americais a bettercountrythan most others.
The world would be betterif more people from other
countrieswerelike Americans.
Correlations between Factors
National Identity
National Pride
1.00 (.17)
.94 (.15)
.69 (.11)
.80 (.13)
1.02 (.17)
.58 (.10)
.90 (.15)
1.00 (.18)
.83 (.15)
.61
.65
.46
Allitemsarerescaledto vary
Note:N = 678.Oneitem-loading
foreachfactoris constrained
to 1.00foridentification.
All factor
between0 and 1. Cellscontainunstandardized
estimatesin parentheses.
factorloadingswithstandardized
aresignificantatthe 1%level.
loadingsandcorrelations
student study. The ratio of the chi-squared value to the
degreesof freedom was below 2, an acceptablysmall value.
The RMSEAof .057 indicated a good fit and the normed
fit indices are also high: CFI = .943 and TLI= .932.6 The
four different national attachments are thus distinct. But
they are also related.National identity was strongly tied to
symbolic patriotism in both student studies, with a standardized factor correlation of .74 in 2004 and .68 in 2002.
National identity and uncriticalpatriotism were also posi-
tively relatedalthough the relationshipswere not as strong
(r = .51 in 2004 and r= .56 in 2002).
In contrast to other national attachments, constructive patriotism stood out as a distinct concept. The
standardized factor correlation between constructive patriotism and symbolic patriotism was a modest .27. Constructive patriotism was weakly and negatively correlated
with uncritical patriotism, consistent with Schatz and
colleagues' (1999) findings. And there was only a weak
linkbetweennationalidentityandconstructive
patriotism (r= .22), suggestingthat the two are unlikelyto
6Valuesof RMSEA(rootmeansquarederrorof approximation) conveythe samepoliticaleffects.Overall,the modest
less than .10 indicatea good fit of the modelto the dataand
andothernational
linkbetweenconstructive
patriotism
valuesless than.05 indicatea verygood fit (Browneand Cudek
reinforces
earlier
concernsabout
measures
attachment
modelwasalsoa goodfitto the2002data;
1993).Thethree-factor
ordetectspolitical
whetherthescalemeasures
= .049,CFI= .98,andTLI= .97.
patriotism
RMSEA
70
LEONIEHUDDYAND NADIAKHATIB
involvementinstead.Finally,despitestrongties among
three of the four nationalattachments,the four-factor
model provideda muchbetterfit to the datathana oneor two-factormodel.
The GSS subsampleincludesmeasuresof national
identity,nationalpride,and nationalism.Nationalidentityis assessedin the GSSwiththreeitems.Nationalpride,
analogousto symbolicpatriotism,is assessedwith seven
items from de Figueiredoand Elkins'(2003) scale.7Nationalism,which is typicallylinkedto uncriticalpatriotism,wasassessedwithtwoitems.Thewordingof allthree
itemsetsis includedin Table2. Threeclearfactorsemerged
in analysisof the GSSdata.All threeidentityitems load
on one factor,allsevennationalprideitemsloadon a second, and both nationalismitemsload on a distinctthird
factor.8Nationalidentityandnationalpridearepositively
related(r = .61), and nationalpride is positivelyrelated
to nationalism(r= .65). Nationalprideand nationalism
were more weaklyrelated,althoughstill closelyaligned
(r = .46). Moreover,the three-factormodel was a very
good fit to the data.The ratioof the chi-squaredvalueto
the degreesof freedomwas3.47,an acceptablylow value.
The RMSEAof .06 indicateda good fit and the normed
fit indicesare reasonablyhigh:CFI= .92 and TLI= .90.
The GSSanalysisthus confirmsthat nationalidentityis
distinctfrom, but positivelyrelatedto, nationalismand
nationalpride.Onceagain,the three-factormodelwas a
betterfit to the datathana single-or two-factormodel.
The Origins of National Identity,
Patriotism, and Nationalism
Socialidentitytheorypredictsthat nationalidentitywill
be less influencedby politicalideologythanotherforms
of patriotismandnationalism.Wetestthisconnectionby
regressingnationalattachmentson self-identifiedideology andpartyidentification,measuredon a 5-pointscale
in the studentstudiesand 7 points in the GSS.Analyses
alsoincludea seriesof demographiccontrols:participant
race(dummyvariablesfor Black,White,andotherin the
GSSand White,Black,Latino,and Asianin the student
study);first(bornoutsidetheUnitedStates),second(both
7Twoitems were dropped from de Figueiredoand Elkins'(2003)
scale.Feelingashamedof one'scountrydid not load on the national
pride factor in our analyses.And feeling close to Americaloaded
on the nationalidentitynot nationalpride factor.
8Wealsomodeledtwoerrorcorrelations-one
betweentwoof
thenational
items(closeness
andfeelingAmerican,
which
identity
hadsimilar
response
options)andonebetween
prideinthecounandprideinthecountry's
fairandequaltreatment
of
try'shistory
groups.
parentsbornoutsidethe UnitedStates),andthirdimmigrantgeneration(bothparentsbornin theUnitedStates);
andthe percentof an immigrant'slife spentin the United
States(studentstudiesonly). Authoritarianism
was includedin GSSanalysesand is measuredas a latentconstructindicatedby two items:how stronglyrespondents
favorspankingas a form of disciplinefor childrenand
how importantit is for childrento obey.9
The politicaland demographicdeterminantsof nationalattachmentswereestimatedin regressionanalyses
conductedusing Mplus?in whichnationalattachments
aremodeledas latentconstructs,and a singlemodelwas
estimatedfor eachof the threestudies.Overall,the three
modelsdemonstratedverygood fit. In the studentstudies, the ratioof the chi-squaredvalue to the degreesof
freedomwas 1.59 (2002) and 1.79 (2004). The RMSEA
was.042 in 2002and.051in 2004,indicatinga goodfit in
both years.And the normedfit indicesaresuitablyhigh:
CFI= .96 (2002) and .91 (2004), and TLI= .94 (2002)
and .90 (2004). The GSSmodel also performedreasonablywell.Theratioof the chi-squaredvalueto the degrees
of freedomwas2.72,withan RMSEAof .025,CFI= .861,
and TLI= .814. Findingsfor the studentstudiesarepresentedin Table3 and for the GSSin Table4.
Consistentwith a distinctionin social identitythebetween
identityand its meaning,nationalidentity
ory
is less ideologicalthan symbolic, constructive,or uncritical patriotism.National identity was unrelatedto
politicalideologyor partisanshipin both studentstudies. In contrast,conservativesscoredconsistentlyhigher
thanliberalson uncriticalpatriotismin bothstudies.Unexpectedly,partisanshipalso affecteduncriticalpatriotism in the 2004 student study,perhapsreflectingthe
recentemphasison patriotic
Republicanadministration's
loyaltyin connectionto the Iraqwar.The effectsof ideology on symbolicpatriotismare more mixed.Ideology
stronglyshapedsymbolicpatriotismin the 2002 student
studybut had no effectin 2004.Finally,ideologyalsoinfluencedconstructivepatriotismbut it was liberals,not
whoscoredmorehighlyon thescale.While
conservatives,
pastresearchhasfoundno linkbetweenideologyandconstructivepatriotism,strongerliberalendorsementof scale
itemsis consistentwiththeitems'emphasison progressive
change.
'GSS respondents ranked the following values in order of their
importance"fora child to learn to preparehim or her for life":to
obey, be popular or well liked, think for himself or herself, work
hard,and help otherswhen they need help. A dummy variablewas
createdfor those who ranked"obey"aboveall else. They werealso
asked how strongly they agreed or disagreedwith the following
statement:"It is sometimes necessaryto discipline a child with a
good, hardspanking."
AMERICANPATRIOTISM,
NATIONALIDENTITY,AND POLITICAL
INVOLVEMENT
71
TABLE
3 Determinants of National Attachments
Student Study,2002 (N = 341)
Student Study,2004 (N = 300)
National
ID
Constructive
Patriotism
Symbolic
Patriotism
Uncritical
Patriotism
National ID
Symbolic
Patriotism
Uncritical
Patriotism
.003**(.001) .003**(.001) .002* (.001)
Percentof life in .003**(.001) .000 (.000)
.003**(.001) .000 (.001)
the U.S.
Firstgeneration -.076 (.044) -.011 (.018)
.000 (.052) -.046 (.044) -.007 (.032) -.032 (.068) -.001 (.051)
-.078* (.034) -.002 (.014) -.055 (.040) -.043 (.033) -.028 (.019) -.115** (.039) -.063* (.029)
Second
generation
.007 (.004) -.003 (.003)
.004 (.002)
.003 (.003)
.002 (.001)
.005 (.004) -.002 (.003)
Age
.023 (.023)
Female
-.027 (.024) -.023** (.011) -.061* (.028) -.001 (.024) -.009 (.015) -.051 (.031)
Black
-.109** (.037) -.031* (.016) -.158** (.043) -.075* (.037) -.064** (.024) -.193** (.048) -.093** (.036)
.031 (.064) -.061 (.047)
Latino
-.064 (.041) -.008 (.017) -.078 (.048) -.017 (.040) -.047 (.031)
-.004 (.034)
Asian
.013 (.014) -.005 (.040) -.024 (.034) -.021 (.022) -.138** (.046) -.039 (.034)
.083
-.029
.130**(.050) .004 (.031) -.013 (.065) -.042 (.048)
.044 (.058)
(.050)
(.020)
Party(Strong
Republican)
.356**(.074) .345**(.062)
-.029 (.053) -.060** (.023) .085 (.062)
.164**(.053) .043 (.036)
Ideology
(Strong
Conservative)
All variablesvaryfrom0 to 1 exceptage,
Note:Cellscontainunstandardized
estimateswith standarderrorsin parentheses.
parameter
whichis measuredin years,andpercentof lifein theUnitedStates,whichis a percentage.
*p< .05;**p< .001.
The GSS included a measureof authoritarianism,
providinga direct test of the relationshipbetweenauthoritarianismandnationalism.Politicalideologyhasno
directimpacton nationalismin the GSSdata.Butauthoritarianismdoes. This is somewhatsurprisinggiven the
strongconnectionbetweenideologyanduncriticalpatriotismin the studentdata.Butfindingsareconsistentwith
earliertheoreticalexpectationsthatauthoritarianism
exlink
the
between
and
uncritical
ideology
patriotism
plains
(andby extension,nationalism).The impactof authoritarianismon nationalismis sizeableandhelpsto explain
whynationalism(anduncriticalpatriotism)is associated
with lower levels of politicalinvolvement.Authoritarianstypicallysupportstrongleadersand areintolerantof
activepoliticaldissent;togetherboth forcesdiminishactivepoliticalparticipation(Altemeyer1988;Feldmanand
Stenner1997).At odds with our expectations,national
pridewas not ideologicalin natureand was no stronger
amongconservativesthanliberals.
Whentakentogether,datafromboth studentstudies
andtheGSSindicatethatnationalidentitywasthoroughly
nonideologicalin nature,consistentwith socialidentity
theory.In contrast,symbolic,constructive,anduncritical
patriotism,andnationalismweremorestronglyendorsed
in the
(orauthoritarians
byeitherliberalsorconservatives
case of nationalism).Nationalpridewas the only other
measureof nationalattachmentthatwas not ideological
in nature.
One other notableaspectof nationalidentityis the
easewith whichit developsamongimmigrants.Not surprisingly,immigrantswhohadspentlongerin the United
Statesmorestronglyendorsednationalidentityandsymbolic patriotismin both studentstudies,and uncritical
patriotismin 2002, but were no more likelythan other
studentsto endorseconstructivepatriotism.When national identitywas addedas a predictorof symbolicand
uncriticalpatriotismto the models depictedin Table3
(in analysesnot shown here), it fully mediatedthe impact of percent of life spent in the United States on
both symbolicand uncriticalpatriotism.This suggests
thatnationalidentitydevelopsrapidlyamongyoungnew
immigrantsand intensifiesother forms of nationalattachmentas a consequence.Of course,thesemediational
analysesimplythat nationalidentityis causallypriorto
symbolicand uncriticalpatriotism,a causalorder that
is not well established.Nationalidentityremainedunaffectedby subsequentimmigrationgenerationin the 2002
studentstudybut wasweakeramongsecond-thanthirdgenerationstudentsin 2004.This is an unexpectedfinding that was also observedfor symbolicand uncritical
patriotism.Immigrantgenerationhad no effect on nationalidentity,nationalpride,or nationalismin the GSS
data.
Finally,thereareseveralothertrendsin Tables3 and
4 that deservemention. In both studentstudies,blacks
expressedlowerlevelsof allformsof nationalattachment,
72
LEONIEHUDDYAND NADIAKHATIB
TABLE
4 Determinants of National
findingraisesquestionsas to whetherhigherlevelsof educationareassociatedwith diminishednationalidentity
becausebettereducatedindividualsare less nationalisSurvey
tic (and nationalismand nationalidentityare related).
National
National
Therewassomesupportforthishypothesisin addedmeID
Pride
Nationalism diational
analyses(not shownhere)in whichnationalism
Firstgeneration -.041
-.003
-.020
mediated
the effectsof educationon nationalidenfully
But
once
(.033)
(.037)
(.038)
tity.
again,suchfindingsneedto be treatedwith
Second
.009
.029
-.003
cautiongivenuncertaintyasto thetruecausalrelationship
betweennationalidentityand differentformsof patrio(.015)
generation
(.018)
(.019)
.002**
tism andnationalism.
.004**
.002**
Age
(.000)
(.000)
(.000)
Yearsof
-.008**
-.002
-.011**
education
(.003)
(.003)
(.003)
White
Political Involvement
-.021
-.051
.064
(.031)
(.038)
(.039)
Political Attention and Knowledge
Black
-.041
-.094*
.035
We now turn to the positiveimpactof nationalidentity
(.035)
(.041)
(.043)
Female
-.018
-.031*
on politicalengagement.Socialidentitytheorypredicts
-.035*
(.013)
(.015)
(.016)
higherlevelsof politicalinvolvementamongstrongna-.019
.030
tional identifiersbecauseof their greateradherenceto
.001
Party(Strong
(.021)
Republican)
(.025)
(.042)
groupnorms.In contrast,other formsof patriotismare
.057
.022
not expectedto promotepoliticalinvolvement.Political
.078
Ideology(Strong
involvementwas assessedas attentionto politics,knowlConservative) (.033)
(.040)
(.042)
Authoritarianism .070
-.019
.112*
edge of currentevents,and voter turnout.We consider
(.038)
(.047)
(.052)
politicalattentionand knowledgefirst.The 2002 student
focused on politicalattentionto and knowledge
Note:N = 676.Cellscontainunstandardized
estimates study
parameter
of eventsin the MiddleEast;the 2004 studentstudyaswith standarderrorsin parentheses.Authoritarianismis estimated
asalatentvariable
oftwoitems.Allvariables
consisting
varyfrom sessedattentionto electoralpolitics.Studentswereasked
0 to 1except
whicharebothmeasured
inyears. two questionsin 2002:how closelythey were"following
ageandeducation,
*p<.05;**p<.001.
newsstoriesabouteventsin Iraq"andhowmuchthought
they had given in the past week or two "to a possible
warwithIraq."In the same2002study,students'political
and Asians expressedlower levels of symbolic patrio- knowledgeconcerningthe MiddleEastwasassessedwith
tism in 2002. Blacksalso expressedlower levels of na- five factualquestions(askingrespondentsto name one
tionalpridebutnot nationalidentityor nationalismin the countryborderingIraq,the Iraqicapitalcity,the Middle
GSS.'oWomenin the GSSsubsampleweresomewhatless EasternTV networkbroadcastingstatementsby Osama
nationalisticand scoredlowerthan men on the national bin Laden,the rulingIraqipoliticalparty,and the ethnic
pride scale.Theyalso scoredless highlyon constructive groupin northernIraq),treatedas dichotomousindicaand symbolicpatriotismin the 2004 studentstudy,but tors of a continuousunderlyinglatentknowledgescore.
did not differ from men in strengthof nationaliden- The amount of attentionpaid to, and closelyfollowing
tity or uncriticalpatriotismin eitherstudentstudy.Older news about,the 2004 presidentialelectionservedas two
adultsweremorelikelythanyoungerindividualsto hold indicatorsof politicalattentionin 2004.Allmodelsareesa strongidentity,expressgreaterpride,and endorsena- timatedusingMplus?.Analysesforattentionandknowltionalismin theGSSdata.Andbettereducatedindividuals edgearepresentedin the firstthreecolumnsof Table5.
Considerfirstthe impactof nationalidentityon pohelda weakernationalidentitythanthosewithlesseducalitical
attentiveness.
Consistentwithsocialidentitytheory,
tion andscoredloweron the nationalismscale.Thelatter
holdinga strongnationalidentityincreasedattentiveness
to eventsin Iraqin 2002. The same patternis observed
"oLower
levelsof prideamongblacksdisappear
oncethetwoitems
thatrefertoprideintheequaltreatment
ofgroups,andthecountry's for attentivenessto the presidentialelectionin 2004,and
knowledgeof Iraqin 2002.In allthreeinstances,national
historyareremovedfromthenationalpridefactorin analysesnot
shownhere.
identityhas a large,positiveeffecton politicalattention
Attachments:1996GeneralSocial
AMERICANPATRIOTISM,
NATIONALIDENTITY,AND POLITICAL
INVOLVEMENT
73
TABLE
5 NationalAttachmentsandPoliticalInvolvement
StudentStudies
Attentionto
Politics
(2002)
NationalIdentity
.463**(.195)
NationalPride
-.019 (.100)
SymbolicPatriotism
UncriticalPatriotism
-.295* (.146)
Nationalism
Constructive
Patriotism
Percentof lifein theUnitedStates -.001 (.001)
Firstgeneration
-.037 (.057)
Secondgeneration
-.028 (.033)
.006(.004)
Age
Yearsof Education
Female
-.072** (.029)
White
Black
-.072 (.040)
Latino
-.092 (.055)
Asian
-.122** (.041)
.023(.054)
Party(StrongRepublican)
Ideology(StrongConservative) .026(.071)
Authoritarianism
N
341
Attentionto
Politics
(2004)
1996GSS
MiddleEast
Knowledge
(2002)
Vote
(2002)
Vote
3.248**(1.07)
-.077 (.635)
-2.298**(.718)
.018(.012)
.817(.439)
.062(.448)
.172(.156)
.063(.186)
.024**(.004)
.071**(.019)
.134**(.022)
.179(.122)
.104(.156)
-.039 (.352)
.294(.384)
-.258 (.237)
-.368 (.296)
-.542* (.253)
.225(.221)
-.431 (.318)
-.014 (.293)
.719(.415)
.232(.447)
640
309
1.676*(.809)
1.265**(.516)
-.066 (.572)
-.086 (.326)
-.086 (.100)
-.346** (.110) -1.880**(.494) -1.579* (.734)
.381**(.127)
-
-
.422(.248)
-.001 (.001)
.007(.045)
.088*(.035)
.006*(.003)
-
-.060* (.025)
-.098* (.038)
-.003 (.042)
-.133** (.042)
-.064 (.050)
.119*(.059)
300
-.008 (.004)
-.389 (.251)
-.044 (.137)
.014(.018)
-.561** (.123)
-.247 (.164)
-.169 (.246)
-.162 (.164)
-.133 (.203)
.522*(.257)
309
andvotingare
Note:Cellscontainunstandardized
withstandard
errorsin parentheses.
estimates
MiddleEastknowledge
parameter
asa latent
isestimated
estimated
ascategorical
inthecaseofvoting.Authoritarianism
andobserved
traits,latentinthecaseofknowledge
oflife
inyears),
andpercent
variable
oftwoitems.Allvariables
(bothmeasured
consisting
varyfrom0 to 1exceptage,yearsofeducation
intheUnitedStates.
*p< .05,**p< .001.
andknowledge.
In contrast,constructive
has
patriotism
no effecton politicalinvolvement
withor withoutnationalidentityin the analysis.
Thiscontradicts
pastevidenceandsuggestsa weakrelationship
overallbetween
constructive
andpoliticalinvolvement.
patriotism
Symbolicpatriotismhasno independent
effecton political
attentionorknowledge.
Uncritical
patriotismis the onlyothernationalattosignificantly
tachment
affectpoliticalinvolvement,
and
itseffectsarenegative
asexpected.
Uncritical
patriotsare
lesslikelyto attendto theIraqwaror campaign
politics
andknowlessabouttheMiddleEast.Moreover,
thepositiveeffectsof nationalidentityandthe negativeeffects
of uncritical
areintertwined
(sincethetwoare
patriotism
stronglypositivelyrelatedyethavepowerfully
opposing
The
effects
of
national
effects).
political
strongpositive
on
for
uncritical
and
identityhinge controlling
patriotism
in
a
similar
disappear
equationthatpredictseitherattentivenessor knowledge(not shownhere).Thissuggests
thatAmericanidentityheightenspoliticalengagement,
but only aftercontrollingfor individualswho are reluctant to criticizethe governmentand its politicalleaders
(andwho alsohavea strongnationalidentity).
VoterTurnout
Voterturnoutwasassessedin the 2002 studywith a question askingstudentswhethertheyhadvoted in "theelections this Novemberfor Congressand otheroffices."We
didnot examineturnoutin the2004studentstudybecause
it wasconductedin February2004,almost18monthsafter the most recentnationalelectionand too farbackin
timeformanystudentsto havevoted.Turnoutin the 1992
Voter
presidentialelectionwasassessedin the 1996GSS.11
turnoutis regressedonto nationalattachmentsandother
"The GSSquestionwas "In 1992,you rememberthat Clinton
ran for Presidenton the DemocraticticketagainstBushfor the
Do you rememberfor
andPerotas an Independent.
Republicans
surewhetheror notyouvotedin thatelection?"
74
demographiccontrolsfor boththe GSSand2002student
study,in probitmodelsestimatedin Mplus?viaweighted
leastsquares.'2Nationalidentitypredictedvoterturnout
in bothstudies,asseenin the lasttwo columnsof Table5.
Thecoefficientfor nationalidentityis large,positive,and
significantin the GSS.It is also significantin the student
dataalthoughthe effectis not quiteas large.Bothuncriticalpatriotismandnationalismdepressvoterturnout,as
expected.
Thepowerof nationalidentityto enhanceanduncriticalpatriotismor nationalismto depressvoterturnoutis
madeapparentby examiningdifferencesin the predicted
probabilityof votingat differentlevelsof eachtypeof national attachment.Predictedprobabilitiesare calculated
from the equationspresentedin Table5 for individuals
at the 25th(low) and 75th(high) percentilesof national
identity and uncriticalpatriotismor nationalism.All
turnoutprobabilitiesare estimatedfor third-generation
Americanwhitemaleswhoarepartisanindependentsand
politicalmoderates,andscoreatthe meanon allotherindependentvariables.Considerfirstthe impactof national
whoscore
identityin the studentstudy.Forindividuals
at themeanon uncritical
turnout
patriotism,
predicted
from
a
low
of
.53
weak
nationalidentiranges
among
fiersto a highof .70amongstronger
identifiers.
Levelsof
turnoutarehigherin the GSSsamplebecausethe sampleis olderandconfinedto citizens.IntheGSS,turnout
to a high
rangesfroma lowof .86amongweakidentifiers
of .99amongstrongidentifiers.
In the studentstudy,uncriticalpatriotismandnationalismhaveroughlythesameeffecton voterturnout
as nationalidentity,but in the oppositedirection.Thus
for studentsat the meanon nationalidentitystrength,
thepredicted
of votingrangesfroma highof
probability
.70forthoselowin uncritical
to a lowof .48
patriotism
turnoutrangesfrom
amongthosewhoarehigh.Likewise,
a predicted
of .99forAmericans
in the GSS
probability
low
in
nationalism
to
.82
those
subsample
among
highin
nationalism
andatthemeanon nationalidentity.
Otherfactorsplayan expectedrolein drivingvoter
andknowledge.
Olderandbetturnout,politicalinterest,
ter educatedAmericansweremore likelyto reporthaving votedin the 1992presidentialelection.Ageincreased
turnoutamongstudentsin 2002andattentionto politics
in 2004. Womenwere less attentiveand knowledgeable
aboutIraq,but no lesslikelyto havevotedthanmen in eitherthe GSSor the studentstudy.Asianstudentswereless
attentiveto politicsandlesslikelyto havevotedin the 2002
12All models in Table5 have decent model fit, although the worst
fit occurs for the vote model, which still falls within acceptablefit
limits (RMSEAbelow .1).
LEONIEHUDDYAND NADIAKHATIB
of immigrant
status.Finally,
conelection,independently
servative
studentsweremoreknowledgeable
aboutIraq
in 2002andmoreattentive
to politicsin 2004,although
thiseffectemergedonlywiththeinclusionof uncritical
Onceuncritical
is removed,conpatriotism
patriotism.
servatives
areno moreknowledgeable
thanliberals.
Conclusion
thecontribution
Thisresearch
underscores
ofsocialidento
the
of
a
field
of inquiry
study patriotism,
titytheory
thathastypically
lackeda coherenttheoretical
focus.Accordingto the theory,a socialidentitydevelopsreadily
amongallmembersof a salientgroupevenwhenmembeliefs(Tajfel
andTurner1979;Turner
bersholddiffering
is borneout in thecurrent
et al. 1987).Thisprediction
unrestudyin whichnationalidentitywasconsistently
latedto politicalideologyonwhichAmericans
tendto be
atleastthreeof theotherfourforms
divided.Incontrast,
exhibitsomedegreeof ideological
of assessedpatriotism
bias.
Socialidentitytheoryalsopredicts
adherence
greater
to groupnormsamongstronggroupidentifiers,
which
translates
into greatercivicinvolvement
amongstrong
in thecaseof American
nationalidentifiers
This
identity.
in
our
data.
received
Amersupport
impressive
prediction
icanswith a strongnationalidentitypaidmoreattention to politics,knewmoreaboutcurrentevents,and
the connectionbeweremorelikelyto vote.Moreover,
and
civic
is not
attachment
national
tween
engagement
Theconnecbyanyotherformof patriotism.
predicted
andcivicinvolvement
hasbeen
tionbetweenpatriotism
and
Schatz
tested
colleagues(1999).But
by
empirically
makeclearthatnafindingsfromthe currentresearch
tionalidentityis the onlyformof nationalattachment
social
to positively
Overall,
predictpoliticalinvolvement.
on
the
measurement
identitytheoryprovidesguidance
a nonideological
meaof nationalattachments,
produces
overthemeaning
ofAmerican
surethatevadescontention
testableandempirically
andgenerates
subpatriotism,
stantiatedpredictionsthatunderscoreits contributionto
researchon patriotism.
Socialidentitytheory generatesa numberof other
predictions in addition to those tested in the current research.For example,some researchershave concluded that patriotism is unrelatedto outgroup animosity (De Figueiredoand Elkins 2003; Kosterman
and Feshbach1989). But this conclusionis unlikelyto
hold during periods of internationalconflict. According to social identity theory, ingroup and outgroup
sentimentsare typicallydistinct because groups evade
AMERICANPATRIOTISM,
NATIONALIDENTITY,AND POLITICAL
INVOLVEMENT
75
directcompetitionfor socialprestigeby recognizing
Despiteits popularityas a measureof patriotism
distinctpositiveingroupand outgroupcharacteristics. withinpoliticalscience,symbolicpatriotism
emergedas
This possibilityis eliminatedunderconditionsof di- theleasteffectivemeasureof nationalattachment
in this
rect outgroupthreatwhichproduceoutgrouphostil- research.
in flavor(inoneof ourstudies
It is ideological
et and in other research;see Hurwitzand Peffley1999).It
ity amongstrongingroupidentifiers(Branscombe
al. 1999;Duckitt2003;Huddy2003;TajfelandTurner alsooverlaps
heavilywithnationalidentityanduncritical
Social
NESsymbolicpaInfact,oneof thestandard
1979).
identitytheorythus posits a link be- patriotism.
tweenpatriotism,nationalism,
oftheUnited
and outgroupanimos- triotismitems-reactingangrilytocriticism
under
constructin
conditions
of
national
uncritical
the
threat.
on
The
States-loaded
ity
patriotism
theory
other
relevant
has
such
as
research.
intensified
this
Moreover,
generates
predictions
symbolicpatriotism noindenationalidentity,more positivefeelingstowardsco- pendenteffecton measures
We
of politicalengagement.
andconformity
tonational
traitswhenoneisin suggestthatfutureresearch
abandonthisconceptin fanationals,
theminority(duringoverseas
neutral
a moreideologically
Haslam vorof itstwocomponents:
travel,forexample;
etal.1992;Huddy2003;Mullen,Brown,andSmith1992; measureof nationalidentityandthepolitically
powerful
Thelattertwomeasures
Spearset al. 1997;Turneret al. 1987).
patriotism.
conceptof uncritical
The positiveconnectionbetweennationalidentity providea potentdemonstration
effects
of the divergent
andpoliticalinvolvement
on political
mirrorsthe pastpoliticalef- of differentformsof nationalattachments
fectsof constructive
suchas
Butourresearch
thataremaskedby singlemeasures
demon- involvement
patriotism.
stratesthatthe effectsof nationalidentityarefarmore symbolicpatriotism.
robust.Indeed,we uncovered
thevalueof a social
a seriesof problemswith
In sum,ourresearch
highlights
the constructive
of
national
attachments.
scale.
to
the
it
First, wasrelatively identityapproach
patriotism
study
hasproduced
unrelated
to nationalidentityandothermeasures
andnationalism
onpatriotism
of pa- Pastresearch
andhasoftenbeencharacthatit is notpartof thesamebroad avarietyofscalesandconcepts
triotism,suggesting
and
andcontradictory
concept.Second,it didnotpredictpoliticalinteresteven terizedbyconflicting
terminology
whennationalidentitywasremovedfromthe analysis, empirical
of
social
idenTheintroduction
measurement.
focusto thisresearch
raisingquestionsaboutits predictive
power.Andthird, titytheoryaddsa strongtheoretical
it wasmorestronglyendorsedbyliberalsthanconserva- andgenerates
nationalidentity,an effectivemeasureof
Intheend,a nationalidentityscale
biasandweakening
its nationalattachment.
tives,demonstrating
ideological
adclaimas a broadmeasureof patriotism.Ourfindings mayproveto be an important(andnonideological)
differmarkedly
fromthosereportedby Schatzandcol- ditionto research
on thestudyof politicalparticipation
of nationalidentityas
Theintroduction
astowhy.Weincluded verygenerally.
leagues,andwecanonlyspeculate
a measurement
modelandmoreextensivecontrolsthan a measureof nationalattachment
mayalsohelpto adButul- dressHurwitzandPeffley's
Schatz,Staub,andLavine(1999)in ouranalysis.
(1999)concernthatideologdo nottapbroadsupportfor
furtherresearch
is neededto fullyresolvethese icalmeasures
of patriotism
timately,
rather
but
the
nation
discrepancies.
capturemorenarrowideological
Thecurrentfindingsnot onlyhighlightthepositive allegiances.Overall,a social identityapproachsharpens
impactof nationalidentityonpoliticalinvolvement;
they researchon patriotismat a timewhenAmericansareconof claimsaboutpatriotism's
alsorevealthenegative
effectsofuncritical
De- frontedwitha proliferation
patriotism.
spitebeinglabeledpatriots,studentswho scoredhighly virtuesandvices.
on uncritical
patriotism
paidlessattentionto newsabout
were
less
abouteventsthere,andwere
Iraq,
knowledgeable
lesslikelyto havevotedin 2002.Thesameholdsforstrong
nationalists,whowerelesslikelythanothersto havevoted
in the 1992presidentialelectionin GSSdata.Uncritical
patriotismandnationalismaremoreideologicalthannationalidentitybecausethey aregroundedin authoritarianism(asseenin thisstudyfor nationalismandin Schatz,
Staub,andLavine1999,foruncriticalpatriotism).Andthe
link betweenuncriticalpatriotismand authoritarianism
helpsto accountfor the negativeeffectsof uncriticalpatriotismon politicalinvolvementbecauseauthoritarians
aremorelikelythanothersto abnegatedecision-making
powersto theirleaders.
References
DanielJ.Levinson,
Adorno,Theodor,ElseFrenkel-Brunswick,
and R. NevittSanford.1950.TheAuthoritarian
Personality.
New York:Harper.
SanFrancisco:
Jossey
Altemeyer,Bob.1988.EnemiesofFreedom.
Bass.
Specter.Cambridge:
Altemeyer,Bob. 1996. TheAuthoritarian
Harvard.
Altemeyer,Bob. 1998."TheOther'Authoritarian
Personality."'
SocialPsychology
Advancesin Experimental
30(1):48-92.
Branscombe, Nyla R., Naomi Ellemers, Russell Spears, and
Bertjan Doosje. 1999. "The Context and Content of Social
76
In SocialIdentity:
Context,
IdentityThreat."
Commitment,
RussellSpears,andBertjan
Content,ed. NaomiEllemers,
Blackwell,
Doosje.Oxford:
pp.35-58.
Michael
Cudek.1993."Alternative
Browne,
W.,andRobert
Ways
ofAssessing
ModelFit."InTesting
Structural
ModEquation
A.BollenandJ.ScottLong.Newbury
els,ed.Kenneth
Park,
CA:Sage,pp. 136-62.
Christensen,
P. Niels,HankRothberger,
WendyWood,and
DavidC.Matz.2004."Social
NormsandIdentity
Relevance:
A Motivational
to Normative
Behavior."
PersonApproach
Bulletin
alityandSocialPsychology
30(10):1295-1309.
Citrin,Jack,CaraWong,andBrianDuff.(2001)."TheMeaning
of American
NationalIdentity:
Patterns
of EthnicConflict
andConsensus."
In SocialIdentity,
and
Intergroup
Conflict,
ed.Richard
D.Ashmore
andLeeJussim.
Reduction,
Conflict
London:
OxfordUniversity
Press,pp.71-100.
Pamela
Feldman.
1987."Memoto NES
Conover,
J.,andStanley
Boardof Overseers
Patriotism
and
Regarding
'Measuring
Nationalism.'"
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu.
PamelaJ.,DonaldD. Searing,
andIvorCrewe.2004.
Conover,
"TheElusive
Idealof EqualCitizenship:
Political
Theoryand
Political
in theUnitedStatesandGreatBritain."
Psychology
TheJournal
66(4):1036-1068.
ofPolitics
De Figueiredo,
RuiJ.P.,andZachary
Elkins.2003."ArePatriots Bigots?An InquiryintotheVicesof In-GroupPride."
American
Science
Journal
47(1):171-88.
ofPolitical
Devos,Thierry,and MahzarinR. Banaji.2005. "American
= White?"Journalof Personality
and SocialPsychology
88(3):447-66.
and Intergroup
Duckitt,John.2003. "Prejudice
Hostility."
In OxfordHandbook
ed. DavidO.
of PoliticalPsychology,
Sears,LeonieHuddy,andRobertJervis.NewYork:Oxford
Press,pp.559-600.
University
andJohnSides.2003."TheFoundations
of
Elkins,Zachary,
National
andTemporal
FacIndividual,
State-Level,
Identity:
tors."Presented
attheannualmeetingof theMidwest
PoliticalScienceAssociation.
NormanT.,RobertJ.Boeckmann,
andIanR.McKee.
Feather,
2001."Reactions
toanOffenseinRelation
toAuthoritarianaboutRisk,andFreedom
of Action."
ism,Knowledge
Euro31(2):109-26.
peanJournal
ofSocialPsychology
andKarenStenner.1997."Perceived
Threat
Feldman,
Stanley,
andAuthoritarianism."
Political
18(4):741-70.
Psychology
Gibson,JamesL.,andAmandaGouws.2000."SocialIdentities and PoliticalIntolerance:
Withinthe South
Linkages
AfricanMassPublic."
American
Journal
ofPoliticalScience
44(2):272-86.
ANDNADIAKHATIB
LEONIE
HUDDY
Huddy, Leonie,StanleyFeldman,CharlesTaber,and Gallya
Lahav. 2005. "Threat,Anxiety, and Support of AntiTerrorismPolicies."AmericanJournalof PoliticalScience
49(3):610-25.
Huddy, Leonie, and Nadia Khatib (in press). "SocialIdentity Strengthand Meaning:A New Look at AmericanPatriotism."In Inter-Group
Behaviorand PoliticalPsychology,
ed. YoshinobuArakiand MinoruKarasawa.
Tokyo:Brain
PublishingCompany.
Attitudes."
Hurwitz,Jon,andMarkPeffley.1999."International
In Measuresof PoliticalAttitudes,ed. John P. Robinson,
PhillipR. Shaver,and LawrenceS. Wrightsman.SanDiego:
AcademicPress,pp. 533-90.
Minoru.2002. "Patriotism,Nationalism,and InterKarasawa,
nationalismamong JapaneseCitizens:An Etic-EmicAp23(4):645-66.
proach."PoliticalPsychology
Kosterman,Rick, and SeymourFeshbach.1989. "Towarda
Measureof Patrioticand NationalisticAttitudes."Political
Psychology10(2):257-74.
Lavine,Howard,MiltonLodge,andKateFreitas.2005."Threat,
and SelectiveExposureto Information."
Authoritarianism,
PoliticalPsychology,
26(2):219-44.
and
Melissa
Mathews.2005."WhoCaresabout
McFarland,
Sam,
PoliticalPsychology
HumanRights?"
26(3):365-85.
R.
1996.
"Social
Robert
McCrae,
Consequencesof Experiential
Bulletin120(3):323-37.
Openness."Psychological
Mullen,Brian,RupertBrown,and ColleenSmith. 1992."Ingroup Biasas a Functionof Salience,Relevance,and Status: An Integration."EuropeanJournalof SocialPsychology
22(2):103-22.
Mummendey,Amelie,AndreasKlink,andRupertBrown.2001.
"Nationalismand Patriotism:NationalIdentificationand
Out-GroupRejection."BritishJournalof SocialPsychology
40(1):159-72.
AnalMuth6n,LindaK.,andBengtO.Muthen.2001.Statistical
LosAngeles:Muthen& Muth6n.
ysiswithLatentVariables.
Osterreich,Detlef.2005."Flightinto Security:A NewApproach
PoliticalPsycholand Measureof Authoritarian
Personality."
ogy 26(3):275-97.
Petersen,Bill E., LaurenE. Duncan,and JoyceS. Pang.2002.
and PoliticalImpoverishment:Deficits
"Authoritarianism
in Knowledgeand Civic Disinterest."PoliticalPsychology
23(1):97-112.
Rothi, DespinaM., EvantiaLyons,and XeniaChryssochoou.
2005. "NationalAttachmentand Patriotismin a European
Nation:A BritishStudy."PoliticalPsychology
26(1):135-55.
of
Schatz,RobertT., and ErvinStaub.1997. "Manifestations
Blind and ConstructivePatriotism:PersonalityCorrelates
Haslam,S. Alexander,JohnC. Turner,PenelopeJ.Oakes,Craig
Relations."In Patriotism:
In theLives
and Individual-Group
McGarty,and BrettK. Hayes. 1992. "Context-Dependent
Variationin Social Stereotyping1: The Effectsof Interof Individualsand Nations,ed. Daniel Bar-Taland Ervin
Staub.Chicago:Nelson-Hall,pp. 229-45.
groupRelationsas Mediatedby SocialChangeandFrameof
Reference."EuropeanJournalof SocialPsychology22(1):3Schatz,RobertT.,ErvinStaub,and HowardLavine.1999."On
20.
BlindversusConstructheVarietiesof NationalAttachment:
Political
tive
Patriotism."
20(1):151-74.
Psychology
Huddy, Leonie. 2001. "FromSocial to PoliticalIdentity:A
CriticalExaminationof Social IdentityTheory."Political Schuman,Howard,and StanleyPresser.1981. Questionsand
in QuestionForm,
22(1):127-56.
Answersin AttitudeSurveys:Experiments
Psychology
CA:
Thousand
Context.
and
Oaks,
Sage.
Wording,
Leonie.
2003.
Huddy,
"GroupMembership,IngroupLoyalty,
andPoliticalCohesion."In HandbookofPoliticalPsychology, Sidanius,Jim, SeymourFeshbach,Shana Levin, and Felicia
Pratto.1997. "TheInterfacebetweenEthnicand National
ed. DavidO. Sears,LeonieHuddy,and RobertJervis.New
York:OxfordUniversityPress,pp. 511-58.
PublicOpinionQuarterly61(1):103-33.
Attachment."
AMERICANPATRIOTISM,
NATIONALIDENTITYAND POLITICAL
INVOLVEMENT
Sniderman,Paul M., Louk Hagendoorn,and MarkusPrior.
2004. "PredisposingFactorsand SituationalTriggers:ExclusionaryReactionsto ImmigrantMinorities."American
PoliticalScienceReview98(1):35-49.
Spears, Russell, Penelope J. Oakes, Naomi Ellemers, and
S. AlexanderHaslam.1997.TheSocialPsychology
of Stereotypingand GroupLife.Oxford:Blackwell.
Spinner-Halev,Jeff,and ElizabethTheiss-Morse.2003. "National Identity and Self-Esteem."Perspectiveson Politics
1(3):515-632.
Sullivan, John L., Amy Fried, and Mary G. Dietz. 1992.
"Patriotism,Politics, and the PresidentialElection of
1988." AmericanJournalof PoliticalScience 36(2):20034.
Tajfel,Henri. (1981). Human Groupsand Social Categories.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Tajfel,Henri,andJohnC.Turner.1979."AnIntegrative
Theory
of IntergroupConflict."In TheSocialPsychology
oflntergroup
Relations,ed. W.G. AustinandStephenWorchel.Monterey,
CA:Brooks/Cole,pp. 33-47.
77
Terry,DeborahJ.,and MichaelA. Hogg. 1996."GroupNorms
and the Attitude-Behavior
Relationship:A Role for Group
Identification."Personalityand SocialPsychologyBulletin
22(8):776-93.
Terry,DeborahJ.,MichaelA. Hogg,and JulieM. Duck. 1999.
SocialIdentityandAttitudes."InSocial
"GroupMembership,
and
Identity Cognition,ed. DominicAbramsandMichaelA.
Hogg.Oxford:BlackwellPublishers,pp. 280-314.
Terry,DeborahJ.,MichaelA. Hogg,and KatharineM. White.
1999."TheTheoryof PlannedBehavior:Self-Identity,Social Identity,and GroupNorms."BritishJournalof Social
38(3):225-44.
Psychology
Turner,JohnC., MichaelA. Hogg,PenelopeJ.Oakes,Stephen
D. Reicher,and MargaretS. Wetherell.1987.Rediscovering
theSocialGroup:A Self-Categorization
Theory.Oxford:Basil
Blackwell.
Wellen,JackieM., MichaelA. Hogg, and DeborahJ. Terry.
"GroupNorms and Attitude-BehaviorConsistency:The
Role of Group Salience and Mood." GroupDynamics
2(1):48-56.

A behavioral model of rational choice

Animal Model Market

Economics of Information and Internet for Master Students (Winter

lincoln douglas debate study guide - Belle Vernon Area School District