National Attachment and Patriotism in a European Nation: A British Study

National Attachment and Patriotism in a EuropeanNation: A British Study

Despina M. RothìMiddlesex University

Evanthia LyonsSocial Psychology European Research Institute, University of Surrey

Xenia ChryssochoouSocial Psychology European Research Institute, University of Surrey

This study explores identification with one’s national group using two distinct but interre-lated concepts: identity content and relational orientation. Theoretical distinctions weredrawn between two forms of identity content: traditional-cultural and civic, and betweentwo forms of relational orientation: blind and constructive. The multidimensionality of bothidentity content and relational orientation and the relationships amongst these componentswere examined in a British sample: positive relationships were hypothesized between blindorientation and traditional-cultural content and between constructive orientation and civiccontent. Principal components analyses confirmed the hypothesized factor structures, andthe resulting scales were highly reliable. Relationships amongst the resulting factors wereexplored using regression analyses. The overall results indicate support for the orthogo-nality of both the two orientation dimensions and the two content dimensions. Moreover,the hypothesized relationships between forms of orientation and content were largely sup-ported. In conclusion, this study highlights the importance of looking at the relationshipbetween identity content and relational orientation. The implications of these observationsfor theory and research are discussed with reference to using categories to “group” par-ticipants in research, citizenship education, and more general attitudes towards socialchange.

KEY WORDS: National identity; Britain; patriotism; attachment; Europe; nationalism.

Political Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2005

0162-895X © 2005 International Society of Political PsychologyPublished by Blackwell Publishing. Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ

135

The nation has been identified as an important element of identity and self-definition; it has also been conceptualized as an imagined community (Anderson,1983; Billig, 1996) and as such may give rise to different interpretations.However, little has been done to explore the particular ways that identificationwith the nation occurs. To do this one may wish to explore not only the contentof nationhood but also the relational orientation adopted towards the nation. Thisarticle explores whether theoretical interpretations of nationhood reflect differentconstructions in a British population. In addition, we examine the type of rela-tionship that one builds with the nation in terms of relational orientation.

The Bases of National Identity Content

Historically, nationhood and ethnicity were fundamentally tied together(Kelman, 1997). This mode of thinking is often referred to as nationalist ideol-ogy: it attempts to deny the legitimacy of national membership claims made byanyone who is not of the dominant ethnic/cultural unit (Bar Tal & Staub, 1997,p. 5). However, “the reality of the nation-state rarely lives up to the ideal modelenvisioned by nationalist1 ideology. The composition of most states violates, to agreater or lesser degree, the assumption that the political entity corresponds to anational (i.e. ethnic-cultural) entity” (Kelman, 1997, p. 167). Even though the“reality of the nation-state” may be ethnically heterogeneous, some citizens ofmulticultural nations may not share this reality.

There are sociological definitions of the nation that have important conse-quences for membership (Smith, 1991). Smith identifies two models of the nation:civic-territorial and ethnic-genealogical. The focal point of the civic-territorialnation is the political community; membership is based in juridical definitions ofcitizenship irrespective of ethnic ancestry; the common “culture” is based not ongenealogical commonality but on shared components of the political culture suchas the rights and obligations of citizenship. On the other hand the focal point ofthe ethnic-genealogical nation is genealogy; the route to membership is throughdescent or ancestry; the common “culture” is in shared components of “native”traditions and symbols. Drawing on Smith’s (1991) proposals, we hypothesizethat two theoretically distinct conceptions of the nation exist in modern nation-states: these two definitions may reflect the different ways in which the nation isconceived by its members. The content of the group’s definition may impact theiridentification with the nation.

This article proposes that a theoretical distinction may be made along tradi-tional-cultural and civic lines: i.e., we propose that some citizens within a given

136 Rothì et al.

1 The terms “nationalist” and “nationalism” are extended by both Bar Tal and Kelman to include eth-nocentrism, reflecting the current trend of allocating the terms to the periphery of social behaviorand insinuating that only extremists are subject to nationalism (see for a more in-depth discussion:Billig, 1995; Gellner, 1994).

nation-state may perceive the boundaries of the national group as including thosewho share a common heritage and ancestry with the majority, while others mayperceive these boundaries as including anyone who is legally part of the polityand adheres to their citizenship obligations irrespective of their ethnicity. Boththese conceptualisations have the capacity to exclude psychologically individualsfrom the group based on different criteria. This distinction, or boundary demar-cation, is a psychological distinction irrespective of the actual legalities of thenational membership criteria.

Attachment as Identity Content

Apart from boundary demarcation another important aspect of identificationwith a social group is an attachment to (or identification with2) important group-defining elements. Indeed social identity theory stipulates that psychologicalgroup belongingness goes beyond the semantic inclusion of oneself in a group; itinvolves the experience of inclusiveness and definition through the perception ofoneself as similar to other group members along important group-defining char-acteristics (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Research within the area of national attachment has generally focused on themanner with which individuals identify with their country and has identified anumber of differing forms of the individual-state relationship. Indeed nationalattachment research has shown that people differ in the manner with which theyconstruct the relationship they share with their national group.

Early research on national attachment has identified three main forms of thisattachment relationship (Davis, 1999). Terhune and DeLamater et al. each iden-tify similar forms of attachment (DeLamater, Katz, & Kelman, 1969; Terhune,1964, although the terms that follow here were coined by DeLamater et al.). Thefirst—symbolic/affective involvement—is characterized by an emotional, senti-mental attachment to the nation and its values and symbols. The second form—functional/goal involvement—is more instrumental in nature; it is characterizedby a belief in a citizenship role that is defined in terms of institutional responsi-bilities; individual efforts are directed towards advancing the national objective.The final form—normative/ego involvement—is characterized by a perceived linkbetween the achievements of the nation and the self: costs and benefits to thenation are experienced as costs and benefits to the self; evaluations of the groupare proposed as having a direct effect on personal self-esteem. This final formdiffers somewhat from the first two forms in that it is less about the form one’sattachment takes and more about the repercussions to the self from adopting agiven form.

Kelman and colleagues have since proposed two main forms of attachment:sentimental and instrumental (Kelman, 1969, 1997; Kelman & Hamilton, 1989).

National Attachment and Patriotism in a European Nation 137

2 The use of the term “attachment” in this article is synonymous with the term “identification.”

Sentimental attachment is characterized by a perception that the group reflectsindividual identity and involves an emotional connection to the culture andsymbols of the nation. Instrumental attachment, on the other hand, reflects apattern of identification that is based on a costs/benefits analysis associated withthe rights and obligations of citizenship, such as “satisfaction with political organ-isations and public services” (Cinnirella, 1993, p. 346). The distinction betweenthese two forms of attachment has received empirical support from a study con-ducted in the United Kingdom (Routh & Burgoyne, 1998).

National attachment research in this guise reflects the elements of nationhoodupon which one’s national identity is psychologically anchored; in other words itis a position taken in the shared space of national constructions. This position maybe an objectification of the national group as it is “theorised” by the individualsconcerned.

Using Smith’s ethnic-genealogical and civic-territorial models of the nationand Kelman’s sentimental and instrumental attachments (Kelman, 1997; Smith,1991), we operationalized two theoretically distinct conceptualisations of nationalidentity content. More specifically, we speculated that sentimental attachment mayreflect a national group image anchored in the ethnic-genealogical model andinstrumental3 attachment in the civic-territorial model. We evaluated these possi-bilities in the present study. That is we hypothesized that psychological boundarydemarcation based on shared genealogy and heritage and an attachment to thenation’s symbols and “traditional” culture would form a single factor of identitycontent reflecting a traditional-cultural construction of nationhood, while psy-chological boundary demarcation based on a shared polity and an attachment tothe nation’s civic practices would form a second factor of identity content reflect-ing a civic construction of nationhood. Further, it is likely that individuals’ con-structions of nationhood will involve both forms to varying degrees, involving nosystematic relationship between them. Therefore we expect the two forms ofnational identity content to be orthogonal. For example, it is possible that an indi-vidual may be attached to certain symbols and certain civic elements of the nation,as well as rating some aspects of each of the two forms of boundary demarcationas important in defining the principles of group membership.

Attachment as a Relational Orientation

Theorising about national attachment has also involved the concept of patri-otism; in this guise attachment is defined as a relational orientation.4 The patriot-ism concept is comprised of guides to personal behaviors that support the national

138 Rothì et al.

3 It should be noted that our research focused on the civic element of Kelman’s instrumental attach-ment, i.e., in terms of citizenship rights and obligations rather than in terms of tangible benefitsreceived through group membership.

4 Some researchers have defined patriotism as both identity content and relational orientation (Sullivan, Fried, & Dietz, 1992).

group’s decisions and actions. Expressions of patriotism have been observed inlarge percentages of populations in many countries (Rose, 1985). A more com-plete analysis of national identification should therefore involve not only thecontent of identity but also the relational orientation adopted in support of thatcontent.

Patriotism research has identified two main forms of patriotic beliefs: onebased in uncritical conformity, the other in critical loyalty. Other researchers viewpatriotism as a form of intergroup discrimination (e.g., Reykowski, 1997) or as aconcept that includes perceptions of national superiority and dominance (e.g.,Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989). We however (after Nathanson, 1997) take the viewthat individuals can possess a diversity of beliefs alongside their critical or uncrit-ical affection for their country. For Nathanson (1997) patriotism can be moderateand extreme or hostile and peaceful; moreover he argues patriotism can includevarying degrees of ethnocentrism. This approach allows for relationships to existbetween different identity content (e.g., different levels of ethnocentrism) and dif-ferent relational orientations. Indeed empirical evidence against equating formsof patriotism with ethnocentrism has been demonstrated (Schatz, Staub, & Lavine,1999). Schatz et al. report reliable correlations between one form of patriotism(blind) and both perceptions of “cultural contamination” and “nationalism”—which they defined as: “perceptions of national superiority and support fornational dominance” (1999, p. 157). However, they also conducted a direct testto examine whether nationalism (as they define it) and (blind) patriotism formeda single construct; confirmatory factor analyses using Lisrel indicated that thetwo-factor model fit the data better than the single-factor model. Moreover, all theobserved significant relationships between blind patriotism and other constructs(such as cultural contamination) remained significant after controlling for nation-alism.

Theoretical distinctions which do not include ethnocentrism have been madeby Sommerville (1981) who distinguishes between ignorance and irrationality onthe one hand and reason and dissent on the other. This conceptualisation is similarto Staub’s (1997) distinction between “blind” and “constructive” patriotism. Blindpatriotism is characterized by an inflexible attachment to one’s nation, unques-tioning positive evaluation, staunch allegiance, and intolerance of criticism; con-structive patriotism on the other hand is characterized by critical loyalty andquestioning and criticism of current group practices that are driven by a desire forpositive change (Schatz et al., 1999; Staub, 1997). Research has shown that thesetwo forms of patriotism are orthogonal dimensions (Schatz et al., 1999). Initiallythis orthogonality appears counterintuitive; perhaps we should expect thesedimensions to be negatively correlated. However, it is plausible that an individ-ual may strongly endorse some elements of both orientations. For example, onemay question the decisions or actions of one’s nation but still offer staunch supportfor their country’s actions once that action is taken. This sentiment is captured bythe popular patriotism item: “I would support my country right or wrong.”


Schatz et al.’s results point towards reliable relationships between blind patri-otism and protecting the national group from “cultural contamination” which theydefine as the “concern about perceived threats to the homogeneity and distinc-tiveness of national culture” (1999, p. 157). Furthermore, a reliable positive rela-tionship was evident between blind patriotism and the belief that symbolicbehaviors were more important than instrumental ones (p. 167). Conversely, con-structive patriotism was reliably associated with political efficacy, political infor-mation gathering, political knowledge, and the frequency of politically relevantbehavior. These results may indicate relationships between blind patriotism andnational traditional-cultural concerns and between constructive patriotism andcivic concerns.

The constituent elements of blind patriotism guide group members to extendstaunch loyalty to the group, to be intolerant of in-group criticism, and to appraisethe in-group’s decisions and actions positively and unquestioningly. All of thesesupport an antisocial change stance and are ways of maintaining the status quo.It is possible that national groups, and perhaps social groups more generally, resistchanges to group attributes that are seen as traditional and symbolic, not for tra-dition or symbolism’s sake per se, but because those aspects of identificationprovide a historical image of the group and a sense of continuity. For example,Billig (1992, pp. 33–35) shows how images of the British monarchy are used byBritish citizens to define and differentiate the national group in an historicalmanner—achieving simultaneously a sense of distinctiveness and continuity fromnational identity. The image of the monarchy is mobilized in this way to the extentthat some of Billig’s participants claimed that should the monarchy be abolishedthe national group would cease to exist as an independent and distinctive nation.It could be argued that the traditional-cultural dimension of national identity pro-vides the group with historical distinctiveness which is valued because it is con-structed as relatively constant and unchanging. Group conformity on the attributesof this dimension would ensure that this dimension continues to be constructedin such a manner.

These types of regulatory prescriptions should not be significantly relatedwith civic concerns as the civic system is based in the idea of democracy and cit-izenship. That is, it is constructed in a manner that is based in citizens’ rights and obligations to effect change as and when the group members deem fit. Theconstituent elements of constructive patriotism on the other hand guide groupmembers to be critically loyal, tolerate in-group criticism or dissent, and questionthe in-group’s decisions and actions when required. Such regulatory prescriptionssupport a construction of national identity that is grounded in citizen’s rights andobligations to effect social change, as and when the in-group members decide suchaction is appropriate.

Building on the results observed by Schatz et al. (1999) and the arguments pre-sented above we hypothesized that the two relational orientations may also beapparent in a British population. We further hypothesized that given the observedrelationship between blind orientation and both cultural contamination and sym-

140 Rothì et al.

bolic behaviors, it is a distinct possibility that individuals who express high levelsof the blind orientation would also express high levels of traditional-culturalcontent. Conversely, on the bases of the reliable relationships reported by theseresearchers between constructive orientation and political concerns, it is justified toexpect a positive relationship between civic content and constructive orientation.

Summary of Predictions

In summary, we expect four factors corresponding to our operationalizationof the two identity content dimensions and the two relational orientations toemerge in the following manner:

i. Traditional-cultural content: delimiting psychological membership bound-aries on the basis of shared genealogy and heritage and involving an attach-ment to the nation’s symbols and traditional culture;

ii. Civic content: delimiting psychological membership boundaries on the basisof a shared polity and involving an attachment to the nation’s civic practices;

iii. Blind orientation: staunch support for the nation’s actions, an intolerance ofcriticism, and an unquestioning positive evaluation of country; and

iv. Constructive orientation: support for critical loyalty and criticism of currentgroup practices that are driven by a desire for positive change.

Our predictions in terms of relationships between the two identity-content dimen-sions and between the two relational orientations are as follows:

1. Traditional-cultural and civic content will constitute two orthogonal dimen-sions of nationhood;

2. Blind and constructive orientations will constitute two orthogonal forms ofrelational orientation;

We further expect positive relationships between:

a. Civic content and constructive orientation; andb. Traditional-cultural content and blind orientation.

Although no other reliable relationships were expected, we could not discount thispossibility. Therefore our analyses will include tests of the relationships betweencivic content and blind orientations, traditional-cultural content and constructiveorientations, as well as the interaction between the two content forms and bothblind and constructive orientations.

Methodology

Participants

One hundred and two participants from an ethnically diverse university inLondon, United Kingdom, took part in the study as part of a research methods


class; participation was voluntary. This study explored British identity; however,only data from participants who were British and had been born and raised inEngland (not Northern Ireland, Wales, or Scotland) were included in the analy-ses. This resulted in the exclusion of six participants. Forty-five participants clas-sified their race as white, twenty-three as black, twenty-five as Asian, and nine asother. The mean age of the sample was 22.91 years.

Design

Survey methods of data collection were employed in the form of self-reportquestionnaires. The factor structure of the scales was assessed through principalcomponents analyses, and the scales were examined for reliability using Cron-bach’s alpha. The inferential analyses adopted a correlational design; the data wereanalysed using regression analyses.

Measures

All measures were scored on a 5-point Likert scale. Basic demographic infor-mation was also collected from participants.

Blind and constructive relational orientations: the operationalization of theseconstructs were adopted from Staub (1997) and Schatz et al. (1999); however, asthe scales used in these studies were developed for use in an American sample,the items were adapted or changed for use with British participants. Blind orien-tation was measured using eleven items: five items were used that measuredstaunch support for the country’s actions, four measured intolerance of criticism,and two unquestioning positive evaluation. Three items were taken from Schatzet al. (1999); all the remaining items were newly developed (see appendix A). Constructive orientation was measured using ten items: seven items were usedthat measured support for critical loyalty and three items criticism of current grouppractices that are driven by a desire for positive change (again see appendix A);all the items were newly developed.

Traditional-cultural and civic content: the operationalization of these con-structs was developed using research and theorising by Kelman (Kelman, 1969,1997; Kelman & Hamilton, 1989) and Smith (Smith, 1991). The items measur-ing attachment to the nation’s symbols and traditional culture were also guidedby Routh & Burgoyne’s (1998) operationalization of cultural attachment. All theitems were newly developed by the researchers. Traditional-cultural content wasassessed using ten items: five items were developed to measure attachment to thenation’s symbols and traditional culture and five psychological boundary demar-cations based on shared genealogy and heritage (see appendix B). Civic contentwas also assessed using ten items: five items assessed attachment to the nation’scivic practices and five psychological boundary demarcations based on a sharedpolity (again see appendix B).

142 Rothì et al.

Results

The Multidimensionality of Relational Orientation and Identity Content

Two unconstrained principal components analyses (PCAs) were conductedfor each of the two scales: relational orientation and national identity content. Therelational orientation PCA revealed five factors with eigenvalues over 1.00 andfor identity content four. However, the accompanying scree plots suggested two-factor solutions for both constructs. The two-factor structure of each constructwas confirmed via parallel analyses comparisons using data sets of randomnumbers (Thompson, 1996). Two parallel analyses were conducted for each con-struct, all of which yielded eigenvalues for factors III and above which were largerthan those from the sample data.

The PCAs were repeated constraining them both to two-factor solutions withorthogonal rotations.5 All factor loadings were above 0.5, and all the relevantitems loaded on the appropriate factor (see Tables 1 and 2). Internal reliabilitiesof the four subscales were good: blind orientation a = 0.84, constructive orienta-tion a = 0.85, traditional-cultural content a = 0.91, and civic content a = 0.84.

The results of both the relational orientation and identity-content PCAs sup-ported our hypotheses: the two relational orientation factors were indeed distinctorthogonal constructs as were the two identity content factors.6

Factor scores for both blind and constructive orientations and traditional-cul-tural and civic content were calculated. The simple summation method was usedas all items loaded well on their respective factors; furthermore the standard devi-ations for the items within each scale were roughly equal (Tabachnick & Fidell,1996, p. 678). Item scores for each factor were summed and the total divided bythe number of items in the scale, thus retaining the same possible range withineach factor-scale. Pearson correlation coefficients were then calculated betweenthe two relational orientation factors (r = -0.009, ns) and the two identity contentfactors (r = 0.173, ns) confirming that the pairs of factors were not reliably cor-related; rather they were orthogonal.

Exploration of the factor means by t-test revealed that participants reportedsignificantly higher levels of the constructive orientation compared to blind (t(102)

= 15.42, p < 0.001; constructive x̄ = 3.64, SD = 0.71; blind x̄ = 2.32, SD = 0.48)


5 Oblique rotations were conducted and discarded as the factor intercorrelations were <0.3 indicatingan orthogonal rotation was appropriate.

6 The assumption in this article that modes of behavior and identity content are separate concepts wastested by conducting a single PCA containing all the mode and content items. The factor extractionwas guided by the scree plot and parallel analyses as detailed above. The results indicated a four-factor oblique solution that explained 49% of the variance. The four factors corresponded to the twomode and two content dimensions; moreover, all items loaded significantly (between 0.50 & 0.81)on the construct they were designed to measure. Only one pair of factors had a correlation above0.3 (absolute value): blind mode and traditional-cultural content r = 0.34. These results support theunderlying assumption of distinct mode and content constructs.

144 Rothì et al.

Table 1. PCA of Blind and Constructive Orientation Items with Orthogonal Rotation

Item FI FIIConst Blind

I would support my country right or wrong. (-.29) .75

Being good British citizens involves accepting all the decisions made on our (-.28) .70behalf by our government.

As British citizens we should set aside any personal beliefs and never (-.06) .68protest against national policies.

Even if you personally disagree with your country’s actions you should still (-.09) .64support your country.

If another country disagreed with an important British policy that I knew (-.03) .63little about, I would still support my country’s position.

I support British policies for the very reason that they are the policies of (.04) .63my country.

We should not tolerate citizens who challenge national decisions. (-.30) .59

Questioning national decisions will lead to the downfall of Britain. (-.08) .58

Britain can only remain a strong nation if we as citizens unite (-.02) .54unquestioningly behind her.

When it comes to international affairs Britain is nearly always right. (.08) .54

In order to be a powerful nation we as citizens must accept the guidance of (-.26) .51our national leaders without doubting them.

My willingness to challenge the “wrongs” Britain commits allows the .76 (-.20)building of a better nation.

I prefer to recognise the faults in British policies rather than to blindly .73 (-.10)accept them.

In order to maintain a strong nation citizens should demand changes in .71 (-.07)government policies when they feel it is necessary.

Questioning policy decisions is one’s obligation as a citizen. .70 (-.09)

Taking action against bad national policy is good for the country. .70 (-.10)

When you love your country you should say when you think its actions are .61 (.13)wrong.

Being positively critical of one’s nation is the best thing I can do for my .60 (-.10)nation.

Simply accepting the actions of Britain when I disagree with them, is bad .59 (-.31)for the nation.

It is the duty of a good citizen to express their discontentment with the .59 (-.04)national decisions.

All citizens should voice their opinions even if these opinions oppose the .59 (-.11)national status quo.

Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability .85 .84

Variance Explained 29% 15%

Parentheses indicate non-significant loadings.

and significantly higher levels of civic content compared to traditional-cultural(t(102) = 11.14, p < 0.001; civic x̄ = 3.30, SD = 0.57; traditional-cultural x̄ = 2.36,SD = 0.74).

Relationships between Identity Content and Relational Orientation

The relationships between each relational orientation and the two forms ofidentity content were examined using hierarchical multiple regression. Multipleregression was favoured over ANOVA techniques in order to avoid dichotomis-ing a continuous variable, which would ultimately result in a lowering of statis-tical power (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Two separate analyses were conducted, onefor each relational orientation (blind and constructive).

The possible joint effect of the two forms of identity content was also exam-ined by creating an interaction term (traditional-cultural*civic). The interactioneffects were examined using Cohen and Cohen’s (1983) recommendation which


Table 2. PCA of Traditional-cultural and Civic Content Items with Orthogonal Rotation

Item FI FIITraditional Civic

In my opinion a person is truly British if they . . .. . . believe in maintaining traditional British culture. .81 (-.08). . . adhere to a traditional British way of life. .78 (.03). . . can trace their British ancestry for many generations. .78 (-.09). . . value important British historical events. .76 (.15). . . swear allegiance to the Queen. .75 (.22). . . have family that has lived in Britain for many generations. .74 (-.07). . . share traditional British religious beliefs. .74 (.08). . . value having the Queen’s head on British currency. .72 (.24). . . have not been influenced by non-British cultures. .72 (.07). . . are loyal to the Monarchy. .71 (.23). . . feel a sense of joint national responsibility with other Britons. (.09) .73. . . are committed to British society. (.21) .73. . . believe they have a role in British society. (-.05) .67. . . think of Britain as their democratic ‘home’. (.10) .65. . . share a common sense of allegiance to Britain. (.24) .64. . . believe in maintaining British democracy. (-.07) .62. . . have not been influenced by non-British civic systems. (.14) .61. . . adhere to their citizenship obligations. (.12) .60. . . value their right to vote. (-.12) .60. . . believe in the British legal system. (.04) .52

Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability .91 .84

Variance Explained 29% 22%

Parentheses indicate non-significant loadings.

states that forming a multiplicative term, i.e., X1X2, encompasses the interactioneffect. Two R2 values are obtained, one for the main-effects model (including bothtraditional-cultural and civic content as predictors) and one for the full modelwhich included the multiplicative term; if an interaction is present, the R2 changebetween these two models should be statistically significant.

Cronbach’s (1987) suggestion to center the variables prior to forming themultiplicative term was followed. This is a way of minimizing correlationsbetween the product term and the component parts of the term; thus, minimizingthe adverse effects of multicollinearity associated with multiple regression, whichtend to be inflated when multiplicative terms are used (Jaccard, Turrisi, & Wan,1990). The mean of each content variable (traditional-cultural and civic) wasobtained and subtracted from all the scores on that variable, thereby effectivelyplacing the mean of the new measures at zero. A product term was then calcu-lated between the two centered identity content scores (traditional-cultural*civic).These new measures were used throughout the analyses.

Model testing commenced by comparing the main-effects model with the fullmodel (which included the interaction term) through hierarchical regression.Results will be reported for the blind orientation followed by the constructive ori-entation.

Blind Relational Orientation. The analyses revealed that the main-effectsmodel predicted 24% of the variance in blind orientation (22% adjusted).However, of the two identity content variables only traditional-cultural was foundto be a significant predictor (traditional-cultural: t(102) = 5.57, p < 0.001; civic:(t(102) = -0.97, ns; see also Table 3). The full model did not significantly increasethe variance (R2

change = 0); rather the interaction term was found to be nonsig-nificant (t(102) = 0.03, ns).

These results indicate a reliable positive relationship between blind relationalorientation and traditional-cultural identity content. At all levels of traditional-

146 Rothì et al.

Table 3. Full Model for Blind Orientation

Variables B b Zero-order sr2 (uniquecorrelations variance)

Civic Content -0.07 -0.09 0.00 0.01Traditional-cultural Content 0.32* 0.50 0.48 0.22Interaction 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00

Total Unique Variability 0.23R 0.49*

R2 0.24Adjusted R2 0.22

Shared Variance 0.01Intercept 2.32

*= p < 0.001.

cultural content, scores on the blind orientation are similar across the levels ofcivic content, indicating that civic content does not have a significant influenceon blind orientation. Therefore, blind orientation is only influenced by traditional-cultural content.

Constructive Relational Orientation. The main-effects model was found topredict 31% of the variance in constructive orientation of behavior (30%adjusted). Both the identity-content variables were found to be significant pre-dictors (Traditional-cultural: t(102) = -4.44, p < 0.001; Civic: (t(102) = 5.52, p <0.001; see also Table 4). The full model significantly increased the variance by4% (3% adjusted) to 35% (33% adjusted; R2

change = 0.04, F(1,98) = 5.03, p < 0.03);the interaction term was found to be a significant predictor of constructive orien-tation (t(102) = 2.24, p < 0.03).

As hypothesized these results indicate that the constructive orientation has areliable positive relationship with civic content; however, and somewhat unex-pectedly, there was also a reliable negative relationship with traditional-culturalcontent. Moreover, a small but reliable positive relationship was also apparentwith the interaction term (traditional-cultural*civic).

In order to investigate the interaction effect, the regression equation was usedto calculate predicted constructive orientation scores for low, medium, and highlevels of traditional-cultural content for each of the low, medium, and high levelsof civic content. These were then represented graphically (see Figure 1). In orderto avoid plotting extreme scores “low” was defined as two standard deviationsbelow the mean, “medium” as the mean, and “high” as two standard deviationsabove the mean.

This investigation revealed that levels of constructive relational orientationare only reduced when traditional-cultural content is high and civic content is low.


Table 4. Full Model for Constructive Orientation

Variables B b Zero-order sr2 (uniquecorrelations variance)

Civic Content 0.40* 0.49 0.41 0.23Traditional-cultural Content -0.29* -0.45 -50.30 0.18Interaction 0.19** 0.19 0.05 0.04

Total Unique Variability 0.45R 0.59*

R2 0.35Adjusted R2 0.33

Shared Variance 0.10Intercept 3.70

*= p < 0.001; **= p < 0.03.

Discussion

Attachment as Identity Content

The results confirmed the multidimensional content of national identity. Iden-tification with the nation comprised of two qualitatively different and largelyorthogonal ways, sharing less than 3% of their variance. The emergent factorstructure was clearly interpretable and supported the operationalization of the twocontent dimensions: traditional-cultural and civic. The two scales created fromtheir constituent items demonstrated strong reliable internal consistency.

Overall, the pattern of responses indicates that national identity contentemerges along two distinct dimensions, each anchored in different constructionsof nationhood that correspond to the sociological definitions of the nation identi-fied by Smith (1991). The patterns of endorsement applied by British citizens toscale items would seem to support two distinct underlying images, or interpreta-tions, of the nation. Each interpretation consisted of two subcomponents relatingto the characteristics of in-group members and the values and beliefs they share.The ethnic-genealogical model of the nation was formed from two sets of items:

148 Rothì et al.

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Low Medium High

Traditional-cultural Content

Co

nst

ruct

ive

Ori

enta

tion

Sco

res

Low Civic Medium Civic High Civic

Figure 1. Plot of Constructive Orientation as a Function of Traditional-cultural Content forDifferent Levels of Civic Content.

shared genealogy and heritage and an attachment to the nation’s symbols and tra-ditional culture. The civic model of the nation was also formed from two sets ofitems: shared polity and attachment to the nation’s civic practices.

The utility of these observations is twofold. Firstly, it supports the sociolog-ical definitions that are thought to influence national identification, an observa-tion that may be generalizable to other nations. Secondly, it allows specificinterpretations of the nation to be examined in terms of identity content; the utilityhere is in the connections that are made between the various components of eachinterpretation. For example, a British citizen who endorses the idea that a personis truly British if they share traditional British religious beliefs is likely to reporta strong belief in resisting changes to traditional British culture. Connections suchas these may allow us to build a better understanding of the differential mannerwith which nations are imagined.

These results highlight the subjective nature of social categories; British doesnot mean the same thing to all Britons. Moreover, these observations suggest thatthe use of category labels in research to form “units” for analysis may result inthe grouping together of individuals for whom a category has very different sub-jective meanings. The resulting cost of such an exercise is the imposition of homo-geneity where little may exist.

Attachment as a Relational Orientation

The hypothesized multidimensional nature of relational orientation was sup-ported. As argued, the manner with which national attachments are supported wasexpressed in two ways: one based on uncritical conformity, the other on criticalloyalty. More specifically, blind and constructive constituted two qualitatively dif-ferent and orthogonal dimensions of relational orientation. The emergent factorstructure was clearly interpretable and in-line with the operationalization of thetwo dimensions. Blind orientation was defined by a staunch support for thecountry’s actions, an intolerance of criticism, and an unquestioning positive eval-uation of country. Constructive orientation on the other hand involved a supportfor critical loyalty and criticism of current group practices that were driven by adesire for positive change. The two relational orientation scales demonstratedgood internal reliability.

The orthogonality of the two relational orientations confirms that no system-atic relationship was apparent between them. One possible explanation for thismay be found in the observation that different relational orientations are linkedto different identity content.

Relational Orientation and Identity Content

Blind Relational Orientation. Blind orientation was found to be associatedreliably with traditional-cultural content, sharing 24% of their variance. As wasexpected expressed levels of blind orientation increased with increased levels of


traditional-cultural content; moreover, no reliable relationships were observedbetween blind orientation and either civic content or the interaction of civic andtraditional-cultural content.

The relationship between traditional-cultural content and blind orientationindicates a connection between particular ideological beliefs about the nation—i.e., those captured traditional-cultural content and an uncritical, conformist rela-tional orientation. The ideological beliefs about the nation here relate to theperceived characteristics of in-group members—in terms of their British cultureand heritage and the values and beliefs that they share—in terms of resistingchanges to British culture and an attachment to traditional national symbols. It isindividuals who share these ideological beliefs that are more likely to express anuncritical, conformist relational orientation. These observations are not incon-sistent with Schatz et al.’s (1999) findings regarding the positive relationshipbetween cultural contamination of the national group, the primacy of symbolicbehaviors over civic ones, and blind patriotism.

The conforming nature of this relational orientation may make these indi-viduals more vulnerable to misguided national decisions and actions: these indi-viduals would be unlikely to challenge or criticize even when they disagree withnational actions or know little about them. Moreover, as is evident from the con-stituent items of blind orientation, these individuals believe this approach shouldalso be followed by fellow citizens; for high-scoring blind orientation individu-als, a questioning approach is perceived as detrimental to the nation.

Constructive Relational Orientation. Constructive orientation was not onlypositively related to civic content as hypothesized, but also negatively related totraditional-cultural content. The main-effects relationships were qualified by apositive relationship between constructive orientation and the interaction betweenthe two content dimensions. Constructive orientation levels were largely unaf-fected by traditional-cultural content when civic content was high; however atlower levels of civic content, traditional-cultural content had the effect of lower-ing constructive orientation. These results indicate a more complex relationshipbetween constructive relational orientations and national identity content than washypothesized.

The positive relationship between constructive orientation and civic contentwas expected and indicates a connection between the particular ideological beliefscaptured by civic content and a critical relational orientation. Here the ideologi-cal beliefs are characterized in terms of individuals’ civic commitment andattachment to civic practices; i.e., the cohesion of in-group members is on thebasis of joint civic national responsibility and democracy. Furthermore, civic characteristics, such as citizenship obligations, are perceived as importantnational-group-defining elements. The negative correlation between constructiveorientations and traditional-cultural content is suggestive of a rejection of bothsymbolic characteristics and the use of cultural/genealogical criteria to define thenational group.

150 Rothì et al.

The significant interaction term confirms that when individuals’ patterns ofidentification include a strong civic definition—irrespective of levels of tradi-tional-cultural commitment, they retain a critical approach towards nationalactions and decision making. This indicates that citizens’ national identity caninclude high levels of both civic and traditional-cultural content and still main-tain a critical and constructive relational orientation. Citizens’ opportunities to becritical and constructive are only reduced by levels of traditional-cultural contentwhen their civic commitment is low.

General Discussion. The observations from this study suggest a number of implications; however, the implications discussed below require further investigation.

First, there are implications to citizenship education and to the effectivenessof the democratic process. The decision- and policymaking processes of demo-cratic nations are dependent on the views of the electorate—the expression of cit-izens’ discontent or disagreement is an important element of democracy. Adoptionof a blind relational orientation may suppress the effectiveness of the democraticprocess. As identity content appears to be related to relational orientation, it ispossible that individuals whose national identification is primarily based in tradi-tional-cultural definitions may suffer a decreased opportunity to be involved inthe democratic process. However, the results of the constructive orientation analy-sis clearly indicated that traditional-cultural-based identifications need not excludecritical relational orientations: the addition of strong civic definitions in nationalidentification allows for constructive criticality. This highlights the need for goodcitizenship education: building civic awareness may facilitate perceptions of com-patibility between the two national images: traditional-cultural and civic.

Second, it is possible that the results reported here may be indicative of moregeneral attitudes towards social change; it would be difficult to effect socialchange while expressing a blind relational orientation. Indeed research byAndrews (e.g., 1997) has shown that social change activists express critical, con-structive patriotism and are often denigrated by those who do not share their rela-tional orientation. In the context of the current study, traditional-culturalcontent—through its association with blind relational orientation, may be sug-gestive of a more entrenched belief that the national group should resist socialchange and retain its “traditional” composition and structure. On the other hand,civic content—through its association with constructive relational orientation—may indicate a willingness to consider the costs and benefits of social changebefore taking a stance on any given issue.

In Britain, these possibilities require consideration. Public opinion polls thathave examined Britons’ fears regarding European integration have identified per-ceptions of threat to national identity and culture (Eurobarometer, 2001, 2002).In the context of European integration the observations from this study may helpus better understand British citizens’ positions on the European Union. The formperceived threat assumes may be dependent on national identity content and the


relational orientation Britons adopt. These threat forms may include threats toBritish cultural distinctiveness and/or to the decision-making powers of Britishinstitutions. Identifying any relationships between threat forms and different inter-pretations of nationhood may inform the approach required from political leadersin their attempts to mobilize the people for or against the European Union.

In conclusion we would argue that research involving large-scale groups suchas the nation should not assume that such groups are associated with only onedefinition of identity or one manner of relating to that group.

APPENDIX I: Blind and Constructive Orientations of Behaviour Items

Blind Orientation: Staunch support for country’s actions (5 Items, italicsdenotes items taken from Schatz et al., 1999)

If another country disagreed with an important British policy that I knew littleabout, I would still support my country’s position.

I would support my country right or wrong.Being good British citizens involves accepting all the decisions made on our

behalf by our government.I support British policies for the very reason that they are the policies of my

country.In order to be a powerful nation we as citizens must accept the guidance of

our national leaders without doubting them.

Blind Orientation: Intolerance of criticism (4 Items)

Even if you personally disagree with your country’s actions you should stillsupport your country.

Questioning national decisions will lead to the downfall of Britain.We should not tolerate citizens who challenge national decisions.As British citizens we should set aside any personal beliefs and never protest

against national policies.

Blind Orientation: Unquestioning positive evaluation (2 Items)

When it comes to international affairs Britain is nearly always right.Britain can only remain a strong nation if we as citizens unite unquestion-

ingly behind her.

Constructive Orientation: Support for critical loyalty (7 Items)

It is the duty of a good citizen to express their discontentment with thenational decisions.

Questioning policy decisions is one’s obligation as a citizen.

152 Rothì et al.

When you love your country you should say when you think its actions arewrong.

Being positively critical of one’s nation is the best thing I can do for mynation.

All citizens should voice their opinions even if these opinions oppose thenational status quo.

Simply accepting the actions of Britain when I disagree with them, is bad forthe nation.

I prefer to recognise the faults in British policies rather than to blindly acceptthem.

Constructive Orientation: Criticism of current group practices that aredriven by a desire for positive change (3 Items)

In order to maintain a strong nation citizens should demand changes in gov-ernment policies when they feel it is necessary.

Taking action against bad national policy is good for the country.My willingness to challenge the ‘wrongs’ Britain commits allows the build-

ing of a better nation.

APPENDIX II: Traditional-cultural and Civic Identity Content Items

Traditional-cultural Content: National group boundary delimitation basedon shared culture & heritage (5 Items)

. . . have family that has lived in Britain for many generations.

. . . have not been influenced by non-British cultures.

. . . share traditional British religious beliefs.

. . . value important British historical events

. . . can trace their British ancestry for many generations.

Traditional-cultural Content: Attachment to the nation’s symbols and tradi-tional culture (5 Items)

. . . adhere to a traditional British way of life.

. . . believe in resisting changes to traditional British culture.

. . . demand that the Queen’s head remains on British currency.

. . . swear allegiance to the Queen.

. . . are loyal to the Monarchy.

Civic Content: National group boundary delimitation based on shared polity(5 Items)

. . . are committed to British society.

. . . think of Britain as their democratic ‘home’.


. . . have not been influenced by non-British civic systems.

. . . feel a sense of joint national responsibility with other Britons.

. . . have a common sense of allegiance to Britain.

Civic Content: Attachment to the nation’s civic practices (5 Items)

. . . adhere to their citizenship obligations.

. . . believe in maintaining British democracy.

. . . value their right to vote.

. . . believe in the British legal system.

. . . believe they have a role in British society.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. Wewould like to thank Jonathan Sigger and the three anonymous reviewers for theirhelpful and constructive comments on previous versions of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Despina M. Rothì,Department of Psychology, School of Health and Social Sciences, Middlesex University, Queensway, Enfield, EN3 4SF, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism.London: Verso.

Andrews, M. (1997). Fighting for “the finest image we have of her”: Patriotism and oppositional politics. In D. Bar-Tal & E. Staub (Eds.), Patriotism in the lives of individuals and nations(pp. 271–292). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Bar Tal, D., & Staub, E. (1997). Introduction: Patriotism: Its scope and meaning. In D. Bar Tal & E.Staub (Eds.), Patriotism: In the lives of individuals and nations (pp. 1–19). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

Billig, M. (1992). Talking of the royal family. Florence, KY: Taylor and Francis/Routledge.

Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage.

Billig, M. (1996). Nationalism as an international ideology: Imagining the nation, others and the worldof nations. In G. M. Breakwell & E. Lyons (Eds.), Changing european identities: Social psychological analyses of social change (pp. 181–194). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Cinnirella, M. (1993). Social identity perspectives on European integration: A comparative study of national and European identity construction in Britain and Italy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, London University, London.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cronbach, L. J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently proposed.Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 414–417.

Davis, T. C. (1999). Revisiting group attachment: Ethnic and national identity. Political Psychology,20(1), 25–47.

154 Rothì et al.

DeLamater, J., Katz, D., & Kelman, H. C. (1969). On the nature of national involvement: A prelimi-nary study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 13, 320–357.

Eurobarometer. (2001). Report No. 56, Public opinion in the European Union. Brussels: Commissionof the European Communities (English language edition).

Eurobarometer. (2002). Report No. 57, Public opinion in the European Union. Brussels: Commissionof the European Communities (English language edition).

Gellner, E. (1994). Encounters with nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.

Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Sage Univer-sity paper series on quantitative applications in social sciences, No. 07 072. Newbury Park:Sage Publications, Inc.

Kelman, H. C. (1969). Patterns of personal involvement in the national system: A social psychologi-cal analysis of political legitimacy. In J. M. Rosenau (Ed.), International politics and foreignPolicy: A reader in research and theory (pp. 276–288). New York: The Free Press.

Kelman, H. C. (1997). Nationalism, patriotism, and national identity: Social-psychological dimen-sions. In D. Bar-Tal & E. Staub (Eds.), Patriotism: In the lives of individuals and nations(pp. 165–189). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of author-ity and responsibility. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Polit-ical Psychology, 10(2), 257–274.

Nathanson, S. (1997). Should patriotism have a future? In D. Bar Tal & E. Staub (Eds.), Patriotism:In the lives of individuals and nations. Chicago: Nelson Hall.

Reykowski, J. (1997). Patriotism and the collective system of meanings. In D. Bar Tal & E. Staub(Eds.), Patriotism: In the lives of individuals and nations (pp. 108–128). Chicago: Nelson Hall.

Rose, R. (1985). National pride in cross-national perspective. International Social Science Journal,37, 85–96.

Routh, D. A., & Burgoyne, C. B. (1998). Being in two minds about a single currency: A UK per-spective on the euro. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19(6), 741–754.

Schatz, R. T., Staub, E., & Lavine, H. (1999). On the varieties of national attachment: Blind versusconstructive patriotism. Political Psychology, 20(1), 151–174.

Smith, A. D. (1991). National identity. London: Penguin.

Sommerville, J. (1981). Patriotism and war. Ethics, 91, 568–578.

Staub, E. (1997). Blind versus constructive patriotism: Moving from embeddedness in the group tocritical loyalty and action. In D. Bar Tal & E. Staub (Eds.), Patriotism: In the lives of individu-als and nations (pp. 213–228). Chicago: Nelson Hall Publishers.

Sullivan, J. L., Fried, A., & Dietz, M. G. (1992). Patriotism, politics, and the presidential election of1988. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 200–234.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brookes-Cole.

Terhune, K. W. (1964). Nationalism among foreign and American students: An exploratory study.Journal of Conflict Resolution, 8(3), 256–270.

Thompson, B. A. D., L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: Ahistorical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 197–208.


National Attachment and Patriotism in a European Nation: A British Study

Documents

Transcript of National Attachment and Patriotism in a European Nation: A British Study