The Circumplex Theory of National Pride Michel Meulders, Paul De Boeck, Anu Realo

HUB RESEARCH PAPER 2009/41 DECEMBER 2009

The Circumplex Theory Of National Pride

Michel Meulders

HUBrussel

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Paul De Boeck, Anu Realo

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Note: The research reported in this paper was partially supported by the Fund for Sci-

entific Research-Flanders (Belgium) (project G.0207.97 awarded to Paul De Boeck and

Iven Van Mechelen), the Research Fund of K.U. Leuven (GOA/2000/02 awarded to Paul

De Boeck and Iven Van Mechelen), and by a fellowship grant from the K.U. Leuven to

Anu Realo (visiting from the University of Tartu).

Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Michel Meulders, Storm-

straat 2, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.

E-mail: Michel.Meulders@hubrussel.be

1

Abstract

National pride in 22 countries, reported in probability surveys of the International

Social Survey Programme of 1995 on national identity is shown to be based on four

sources of national pride: internal care (IC), nowadays and past achievements (NA and

PA), and external power (EP). The proportion of repondents who are proud of these

basic sources differs among countries: (1) being proud of IC is more common in countries

with a high level of democracy and a well-developed social welfare system, (2) people

are most likely to be proud of NA in economically well-developed countries, (3) pride in

PA is especially high in countries that lack pride in NA, and (4) pride in EP is greatest

in countries with powerful armed forces. Furthermore, being proud of NA correlates

positively with gross national product whereas the reverse holds for being proud of PA.

Interpersonal trust, postmaterialist values, subjective well-being and life satisfaction are

shown to be strong positive correlates of pride in IC and less strong, but still positive,

correlates of pride in NA.

Keywords: national pride, national identity, probabilistic feature model, cross-national

study, International Social Survey Programme

2

Introduction

Two major domains of life are social life and work, or social relationships and achieve-

ments (Hermans, 1987). These two domains may be considered a basis of one’s self-value,

in the positive sense if things are going well, and in a negative sense if things are not

going well. One may be proud of one’s achievements, of one’s influence, but also of one’s

positive relationships with others. Yet, although personal aspects of self are important

aspects of positive self-evaluation, feelings of self-worth may also be derived from collec-

tive or social aspects of self (Tajfel, 1982). Social identity theory, for instance, states that

individuals define themselves in terms of their group memberships and try to maintain

positive identity and feelings of self-worth through association with those groups (Tajfel

& Turner, 1979).

The basis of pride is largely individual, but also identifications with larger entities

may play a role. We all have more than a mere individual life, we belong to groups, to

societies, and we are citizens of countries. Self-value and pride may also be related to

these larger entities. National pride is an example. Like for an individual life, also for

these larger entities an analysis can be made in terms of achievements and relationships.

Let us take the example of a country. As far as achievements are concerned, they can

be of different types: economic achievements, scientific and technological achievements,

achievements in sports and culture. They can all be a source of national pride indeed. A

distinction can be made between past achievements and nowadays achievements, certainly

when it comes to sources of national pride. Some countries have or believe they have

a grand history, with lots of achievements in the past, and past achievements can be

accentuated as a source of pride. Other countries don’t have much of a history to be

proud of, but they are achieving well nowadays, of course, also the combination of both

past and nowadays achievements is possible.

As far as relationships are concerned, groups have two kinds of relationships: within

the group, and between groups. To describe these relationships we rely on the circum-

plex of interpersonal relations which has two dimensions: dominance versus submission,

and love versus hate (Wiggins, 1982; Horowitz et al., 1997). Applying this circumplex

to countries, the within-group relationships may be described in terms of internal care

3

(solidarity, a well-developed social welfare system) and internal power (groups dominat-

ing other groups, authoritarian regime). One may assume that mostly only internal care,

but not internal power is a source of pride in one’s country, as the latter goes against

the democratic ideal. For countries, the between-group relationships may be described

in analogous terms: external care and external power. External care means international

solidarity, countries helping other countries, countries maintaining good relationships and

peace with one another. External power means that a country is influential in the world.

Both, external care and external power can reasonably be assumed to be sources of pride

for their citizens.

In sum, one may distinguish between different potential sources of national pride,

relational ones and others: internal care (but not internal power), external care and

external power, and nowadays and past achievements in different domains. It turns out

that in the context of a large-scale international survey (ISSP, 1998), data are gathered

on various aspects of national identity, including national pride. This data set provides an

interesting opportunity to test our theory about the sources of national pride. Upon an

inspection of the items that were used (see Method section), it is clear that the potential

sources of pride we identified, are more or less represented, except for external care. The

advantage of the conceptual analysis we made, is that it provides a basis for a content

analysis of existing survey items, but also for the construction of new surveys in the

future. Fortunately, the ISSP survey contains most of the elements that are identified on

the basis of our conceptual analysis.

In the following paragraphs we will first describe a circumplex theory of national

pride. Next, we will present the results of applying the circumplex model to the ISSP

’95 data. In this regard, we will describe the sources of pride on the basis of the items

used in the survey and the distribution of sources of pride over countries. Finally, the

interpretation of the sources will be validated by relating them to socio-demographic

indicators such as the level of democracy and the gross national product, as well as to

culture-level psychological variables such as interpersonal trust, postmaterialist values,

subjective well-being and life satisfaction.

4

The Circumplex Theory of National Pride

The circumplex theory of national pride is built upon six assumptions:

1. The total set of aspects in which one can take pride of one’s country may be repre-

sented as a circle that consists of a limited number of segments each of which refers

to a potential source of national pride.

As an illustration, Figure 1a shows how the total set of aspects in which one can take

pride of one’s country could be based on four potential sources of national pride

that were earlier described in the introduction of the paper, namely, nowadays

achievements (NA), past achievements (PA), internal care (IC), and external power

(EP) (external care not being represented in the survey). Each segment of the circle

represents one source of pride.

2. Pride in a particular aspect of one’s country is based on pride in one or more

potential sources of national pride. In addition, it is assumed that the sources that

are associated with pride in a particular aspect may be represented as an unbroken

segment of the circle.

For instance, pride in the social welfare system could be based on pride in IC and on

pride in NA. This is illustrated in Figure 1b by shading the segments corresponding

to IC and NA in black. Indeed, a well-developed social welfare system implies that

a country prefers to spend a considerable amount of the GNP in order to take care

of all its citizens. In addition, it implies that a booming economy is needed to carry

the costs of the social welfare system.

The assumption that the sources of pride associated with a particular aspect may

be represented as an unbroken segment of the circle, actually means that, for a

given ordering in the circumplex, pride in a particular aspect (e.g., the social wel-

fare system, a country’s political influence in the world) is based on pride in a

subset of adjacent sources. As a consequence, the occurrence of particular aspects

associated with exactly IC and PA (or with NA and EP) and no other sources, may

be considered a violation of this assumption because this kind of pride relates to

nonadjacent sources .

5

Figure 1: (a) Pride in a particular aspect is based on four sources of pride: internal care

(IC), nowadays achievements (NA), past achievements (PA), and external power (EP).

(b) Pride in the social welfare system is based on pride in IC and on pride in NA. (c)

Person X takes pride in the sources NA and PA. (d) Person X takes pride in at least one

source of pride associated with the social welfare system, that is, NA

3. Persons can take pride in one or more sources of national pride. The combination

of sources in which a person takes pride may be represented as an unbroken segment

of the circle.

For instance, a person X can take pride in both past and nowadays achievements of

6

her country. This is illustrated in Figure 1c by shading the segments corresponding

to NA and PA in black. The assumption that each person’s pride may be repre-

sented as an unbroken segment of the circumplex means that, given a particular

ordering of sources in the circumplex, persons take pride in a subset of adjacent

basic sources of pride. As a result, the occurrence of persons who take pride in IC

and PA (or in NA and EP) may be considered a violation of this assumption.

4. Whether a person takes pride in a particular aspect of her country (e.g. social

welfare system) is a specific mapping of (1) the sources of pride associated with the

particular aspect and (2) the sources the person is proud of.

Two mapping rules are often used in models that underlie the circumplex theory.

The two rules are described by Maris, De Boeck, and Van Mechelen (1996). First,

in a disjunctive communality model, a person takes pride in a particular aspect if

she takes pride in at least one source associated with the particular aspect. In other

words, in order to feel proud of a particular aspect, the person’s segment should

contain at least one part of the particular aspect’s segment. As an illustration,

Figure 1d indicates that person X takes pride in at least one source of pride asso-

ciated with the social welfare system. The corresponding source of pride (i.e. NA)

is shaded in black.

In a conjunctive dominance model, a person takes pride in a particular aspect if

she takes pride in all the sources associated with that particular aspect. Stated

differently, the person’s segment should contain all the sources a particular aspect

is associated with.

5. The understanding of pride in a particular aspect in terms of sources of pride is

probabilistic.

In other words, whether a source of pride is associated with a particular aspect,

is considered a random event which occurs with a certain probability. A high

probability indicates that the source of pride is very likely to be associated with the

particular aspect and a low probability indicates the opposite. For instance, the

7

sources of national pride IC and NA could have a high probability to be associated

with pride in the “social welfare system”.

6. A person takes pride in a source of national pride with a certain probability which

depends on one’s nationality.

Hence, whether a person takes pride in a certain source is a country-dependent

probabilistic event. This assumption can be further specified in several ways in case

a person is asked to judge her pride for several particular aspects. In particular,

one may adopt a random change or a stability model. In both models, whether or

not one takes pride in a given source depends on country-specific probabilities. The

difference between the models is that, in the stability model, the set of sources one

takes pride in, is determined once for all items (all aspects) and therefore is stable

over all items, whereas, in the random change model, a new selection of sources is

made at the occasion of each item (aspect), and therefore the set of sources may

vary over items. The random change version takes the unreliability into account

that may exist in the sources of national pride.

Method

Data on National Pride

The data that are analyzed in this paper were taken from the International Social

Survey Program (ISSP) of 1995 (ISSP, 1998; Svallfors, 1996). The ISSP is a programme

for international comparative attitude studies which aims to survey each year one topic

in the same way in each of 29 participating countries. Between 1985 and 2000, a variety

of topics were investigated including the role of the government, social inequality, and

work orientations amongst others.

The 1995 study addressed “aspects of national identity” such as nationalism, xeno-

phobia, globalism, and national pride. Coenders (2001) used the data in order to compare

nationalistic attitudes and exclusionistic attitudes across countries. In the present paper

we focus on the construct of national pride, which was measured by asking respondents

8

how proud they are of their country (very proud, somewhat proud, not very proud, not

proud at all) in each of the following 10 particular aspects:

• The way democracy works

• Its political influence in the world

• (Respondent’s country) economic achievements

• The social security system

• Its scientific and technological achievements

• Its achievements in sports

• Its achievements in the arts and literature

• (Respondent’s country) armed forces

• Its history

• Its fair and equal treatment of all groups in society

As indicated by Coenders (2001) the first three items can be considered indicators of

patriotism. The above items were administered to 28456 probability sampled respondents

in 23 countries. A detailed description of the samples and the respondents is provided

in the ISSP codebook of the National Identity Study (ISSP, 1998). In case respondents

didn’t know the answer to a certain question, couldn’t choose between the provided alter-

natives, or refused to answer, their response was coded as a missing value. In particular,

10.8% of all the recorded responses (i.e. 30871 out of 10 × 28456) had to be coded as

missing values. Moreover, nonresponse varied between 1% and 30% with an average of

10% for each pair of countries and items. In the present paper we analyze the data that

were obtained after listwise deleting respondents with incomplete response patterns. In

the absence of any information on the reasons for nonresponse, this procedure yields a

sample of “reliable” respondents, in the sense that they have clear ideas about whether

or not they are proud of a particular aspect of their country. Specifically, listwise dele-

tion of respondents with an incomplete response pattern yielded 17251 complete data

patterns in 22 countries (in one country all respondents had a missing value for at least

one particular aspect). We also note that an analysis of all the available data without

any deletion yielded very similar results, and hence the data stand as they are presented

below.

9

Finally, it should be emphasized that the models, which are at the basis of the cir-

cumplex theory, are models for discrete random events. Whether or not a basic source of

pride is associated to a particular aspect, whether or not one takes pride in a certain ba-

sic source of pride, and consequently, whether or not one is proud of a particular aspect,

are considered to be binary events. The gradation that is inherent in being proud of a

particular aspect is captured by the model by thinking in terms of probabilistic events.

This view has led us to dichotomize the data by coding the categories “very proud” and

“somewhat proud” as 1, and by coding the categories “not very proud” and “not proud

at all” as 0. The event of being proud therefore means that one is at least “somewhat

proud”.

A possible alternative is to think of each step on the scale (i.e. from 0 to 1, from 1

to 2, from 2 to 3) as a discrete event. The advantage of this gradual approach is that

the gradation is not only recognized at the level of the model (i.e. in the probabilities),

but also at the level of the data. A disadvantage is that additional assumptions need

to be made, namely that the different steps are equivalent and independent. We have a

preference for the more conservative view which made us dichotomize the data, but when

the data are analyzed taking the gradation from 0 to 3 into account, that is, without any

dichotomization and under the assumptions just mentioned, the results are very similar.

Analysis

In order to evaluate the pie chart theory, the data are analyzed with the probability

matrix decomposition (PMD) model which is a method for data-analysis of two-way

frequency tables that was introduced by Maris et al. (1996). Recently, several extensions

of the PMD model have been proposed which have been applied to different substantive

contexts. More specifically, Meulders, De Boeck, Van Mechelen, Gelman and Maris (2001)

analyzed cross-cultural data on the opinions of respondents about the risks of being

infected with HIV in a specific situation. Meulders, De Boeck and Van Mechelen (2003)

analyzed the occurrence of hostile behaviors in different types of frustrating situations in

a context of personality assessment. Meulders, De Boeck, Kuppens, and Van Mechelen

(2003) used PMD models to investigate the coping styles that occur when being angry

10

at persons with a particular status and familiarity. Finally, Meulders, De Boeck, Van

Mechelen and Gelman (2005) used PMD models to test the hypothesis of configural

encoding in the facial perception of emotions.

The PMD model may be regarded an unconstrained variant of the circumplex model

as it does not presume any particular ordering of basic sources of pride. Hence, our

strategy is to first apply the unconstrained PMD model and afterwards seek for the best

circular ordering of basic sources of pride (in terms of a minimal number of violations

against the circumplex assumptions).

The PMD model allows to extract the potential abstract sources of national pride

which are at the basis of pride in particular aspects. As indicated in assumptions 5 and

6 of the circumplex theory, the model is probabilistic: It assumes that pride in particular

aspects is based on sources of pride with a certain probability and that respondents take

pride in sources with a certain country-specific probability. When applying the PMD

model, both types of probabilities are estimated from the data.

A PMD model which involves a disjunctive mapping rule and a “random change”

assumption was specified to analyze the data. The disjunctive mapping rule implies that

respondents are proud of a particular aspect if they take pride in at least one basic source

of pride associated with the particular aspect. The “random change” assumption means

that the set of sources one takes pride in is determined separately (but based on the

same probabilities) for each of the aspects. Models with one up to six sources of pride are

estimated. To select the number of sources that is needed to describe the data sufficiently

well, these models are compared in terms of a simple measure of descriptive goodness-

of-fit, namely, the squared correlation between observed and expected proportions of

respondents in a country who are proud of a particular aspect, which equals the proportion

of the variance in the observed proportions that is accounted for by the model. In

particular, models assuming one up to six sources account for 60%, 83%, 88%, 93%, 95%

and 97% of the variance in the observed proportions. Hence a model that assumes four

sources describes the data rather well and adding more sources does not improve the

fit much (i.e. a model that assumes five sources only accounts for an extra 2% of the

variance).

11

In a last step of the analysis, the four sources of pride of the selected model are

ordered in such a way that the number of violations against the circumplex assumptions

are minimized. The optimal ordering is determined by the following procedure:

1. Dichotomize all the parameters of the model (i.e. probability that respondents in a

country take pride in a source of pride and probability that a source is associated

with a particular aspect) at .50 with values smaller than .50 coded as 0 and other

values coded as 1. Given a certain ordering of sources in the circumplex, each unit

in the analysis (country or particular aspect) is now characterized by a pattern of

dichotomized probabilities, for instance 1001.

2. For each possible ordering of sources, count the number of violations against the cir-

cumplex assumptions. The circumplex theory assumes that each unit in the analysis

may be represented as an unbroken segment of a circle, which means that it may be

represented as a set of adjacent sources. Hence, patterns that include nonadjacent

sources (i.e. 1010 and 0101) are considered a violation of this assumption.

3. Select the ordering of sources of national pride with a minimal number of violations.

Description of Variables that may be Related to National Pride

Besides a decomposition of pride in particular aspects of one’s country in terms of

sources of pride, the analysis also shows how respondents may take different pride in

sources depending on their country. In order to validate those results, we will relate

the country-specific probabilities to other measures such as objective characteristics or

subjective constructs in which these countries may differ. The measures describing the

countries were taken from other cross-national studies that included at least 18 coun-

tries that were also involved in the ISSP ’95 study on national identity. They concern

macroeconomic and cultural variables, as well as scores concerning the level of democracy.

Level of democracy. Two types of variables describing the level of democracy in a coun-

try are considered (Inglehart, 1997, Table A.1): (1) the number of continuous years of

12

democracy between 1920 and 1995, (2) the level of democracy in 1995, based on the

Freedom House scores, which range from 2 (low) to 14 (high).

Macroeconomic variables. Gross-National-Product-per-capita values of 1980 and 1990

are taken from the World Bank World Development Report (1993) (see also, Inglehart,

1997, Table A.3).

Cultural variables. Several cultural variables listed by Inglehart (1997, Table A.2) are

taken from the 1990-91 World Value Survey: (1) the postmaterialist-values score, which is

computed as the average percentage of respondents who give first choice to postmaterialist

goals in each of five multiple choice items (with four alternatives), (2) the interpersonal

trust score, which is the percentage of respondents who endorse the statement “Most

people can be trusted.”, (3) the subjective well-being index, which is derived as the mean

of two differences: the percentage of respondents who indicate that they are happy minus

the percentage who indicate that they are unhappy, and the percentage who indicate that

they are satisfied minus the percentage who indicate that they are dissatisfied.

In addition, three variables that may be considered important components of subjec-

tive well-being are taken from the World Value Survey II (World Values Study Group,

1994; see also Diener & Suh, 1999): (1) the life satisfaction score, which is based on

respondent’s answer to the question “All things considered, how satisfied are you with

your life as a whole these days?”, with answers ranging from dissatisfied (coded as 1) to

satisfied (coded as 10), (2) the positive affect score, which is derived as the number of

questions (out of five) assessing the experience of pleasant affect in the past few weeks,

that is answered affirmatively, (3) the negative affect score, which is derived in the same

way and measures the experience of negative affect in the past few weeks, (4) the hedonic

balance score, which is calculated as the positive affect score minus the negative affect

score.

Results

Sources of National Pride Associated with Particular Aspects

In Figure 2, based on the results of a data analysis, the probability that pride in a par-

13

ticular aspect is associated with a certain source of pride is printed in the corresponding

slice. In addition, slices are shaded so that darker shades indicate higher probabilities.

The identification of the sources is based on an interpretation to be explained in the fol-

lowing paragraphs. The fact that we found the four hypothesized sources is an empirical

result and is in no way induced by the type of analysis. Each particular aspect is pre-

sented as a circumplex which consists of four segments indicating the sources of national

pride. The probability that a particular aspect is associated with a source is printed in

the segment, with probabilities larger than or equal to .50 printed in white. It follows

from assumptions 2 and 3 of the circumplex theory that such slices should be adjacent

in order for the model to have a perfect fit.

We will now give an interpretation of the sources of national pride as they resulted from

our analysis. First, the source corresponding to the upper-left segment of the circumplex

can be interpreted as expressing that a country takes care of its citizens. Specifically,

particular aspects such as “the social security system” (.86), “the way democracy works”

(.73), and “the fair and equal treatment of all groups in society” (.67) all have a high

probability to be associated with this source of pride. Therefore, the upper-left source of

pride is labeled “Internal Care” (IC).

The source in the upper-right segment is labeled “Nowadays Achievements” (NA) as it

has a high probability of being associated with pride in particular aspects that concern a

country’s present achievements in several domains such as “politics” (.68), “the economy”

(.94), “science and technology” (.82), “sports” (.71), “the arts and literature” (.68). Pride

in “the way democracy works” has also a rather high probability to be based on this source

(.62), whereas pride in “the social welfare system” (.35), and pride in “the fair and equal

treatment of all groups in society” (.13) have low probabilities of being associated with

this basic source of pride. Hence, “the way democracy works” is also regarded as a

present achievement of the nation-state whereas “the social welfare system” and “the

equal treatment of groups in society” mainly refer to a country’s care for its citizens.

Finally, we note that the source NA has a very low probability of being associated with

the particular aspect “history”. This supports our interpretation of NA as “history” by

definition refers to the past.

14

democracy

.73 .62

.35 .01

NAIC

EP PA

pol. influence

.04 .68

.52 .11

NAIC

EP PA

econ. influence

.05 .94

.47 .02

NAIC

EP PA

soc. security

.86 .35

.06 .02

NAIC

EP PA

ach. science/technol.

.45 .82

.36 .67

NAIC

EP PA

ach. sports

.43 .71

.04 .96

NAIC

EP PA

ach. the arts/lit.

.05 .68

.37 .98

NAIC

EP PA

armed forces

.22 .13

.96 .14

NAIC

EP PA

history

.61 .02

.67 .90

NAIC

EP PA

equal treatm. groups

.67 .13

.38 .12

NAIC

EP PA

Figure 2: Association between sources of pride and particular aspects

The source of pride in the lower-right slice is interpreted as referring to the “Past

Achievements” (PA) of a country. This interpretation is supported by the fact that

this source has a high probability of being associated with “history” (.90), and with

achievements that may refer as well to the past, such as “science and technology” (.67),

“sports” (.96), and “the arts and literature” (.98).

The source in the lower-left segment is labeled “External Power” (EP). It has a high

probability of being associated with pride in “the armed forces” (.96) of a country. In

addition, it has a moderate probability of being associated with pride in “political in-

15

fluence” (.52) and “economic achievements” (.47). This is meaningful as a country may

have power over other countries through politics and through its economy, although per-

haps more directly so through its military forces. Finally, the fourth source has a rather

high probability to be associated with pride in “history” (.67), perhaps because military

conquests in the past may contribute to pride in the history of one’s country in general.

Distribution of Sources of National Pride in Different Countries

In Figures 3 and 4, the probability that respondents in a certain country take pride in

a certain source is printed in the corresponding segment of the circumplex. Furthermore,

segments are shaded so that darker shades indicate higher probabilities.

Internal Care. In general, pride in IC is most common in established Northwestern

European democracies that spend a substantial share of the Gross National Product

(GNP) to the social welfare system: Respondents in the Netherlands (.91), Austria (.77),

and Sweden (.68) have a rather high probability to be proud of this source of national

pride. Other countries are characterized by moderately high probabilities (Norway (.60),

Ireland (.58), Spain (.54), Great Britain (.54), West-Germany (.53), Philippines (.50),

and Japan (.46)). Furthermore, economically well-developed countries that are more

liberal and have a less-developed social welfare system include a lower proportion of

respondents who take pride in this source (i.e. the United States (.37), New Zealand

(.27)). Also, ex-Warschau-Pact states, which have younger democracies, generally have

a low proportion of respondents who are proud of IC (i.e., Russia (.01), East-Germany

(.06), Czech Republic (.07), Poland (.12), Latvia (.15), Hungary (.16), Slovac Republic

(.19), Slovenia (.23), Bulgaria (.24)). Finally, also respondents in Italy (.15) have a low

probability to be proud of IC. This could be due to the fact that Italy has had very

unstable governments since World War II and several political scandals in recent years

(Smith & Jarkko, 1998).

Nowadays Achievements. Pride in nowadays achievements is most likely in industrial-

ized and economically well-developed countries. Respondents in West-Germany (.86),

United States (.83), Norway (.83), Austria (.80), the Netherlands (.77), New Zealand

(.73), Japan (.70) and Ireland (.70) have a rather high probability to take pride in this

16

Austria

.77 .80

.23 .60

IC NA

EP PA

Bulgaria

.24 .04

.60 .92

IC NA

EP PA

Czech Republic

.07 .41

.14 .77

IC NA

EP PA

East-Germany

.06 .87

.11 .36

IC NA

EP PA

West-Germany

.53 .86

.09 .02

IC NA

EP PA

Great Britain

.54 .17

.86 .70

IC NA

EP PA

Hungary

.16 .01

.20 .89

IC NA

EP PA

Ireland

.58 .70

.90 .87

IC NA

EP PA

Italy

.15 .25

.24 .95

IC NA

EP PA

Japan

.46 .70

.30 .58

IC NA

EP PA

Latvia

.15 .25

.19 .71

IC NA

EP PA

Netherlands

.91 .77

.03 .31

IC NA

EP PA

Figure 3: Distribution of sources of national pride in different countries

respect. On the other hand, pride in nowadays achievements is less likely in Southern-

European countries with some of the regions being poorer than others (i.e. Italy (.25)

and Spain (.23)), the Philippines (.29), and ex-Warschau-Pact countries (Czech Republic

(.41), Latvia (.25), Russia (.10), Slovenia (.08), Bulgaria (.04), Slovac Republic (.03),

Poland (.02), and Hungary (.01)). In contrast, East-Germany (.87) is characterized by a

high proportion of respondents who feel proud in NA. One may speculate that this could

be a consequence of the recent unification (i.e. in 1991) with West-Germany at the time

the data were collected. Somewhat surprisingly, Sweden (.31) and Great Britain (.17)

17

New Zealand

.27 .73

.69 .74

IC NA

EP PA

Norway

.60 .83

.25 .49

IC NA

EP PA

Philippines

.50 .29

.41 .66

IC NA

EP PA

Poland

.12 .02

.58 .53

IC NA

EP PA

Russia

.01 .10

.31 .84

IC NA

EP PA

Slovac Republic

.19 .03

.42 .69

IC NA

EP PA

Slovenia

.23 .08

.44 .83

IC NA

EP PA

Spain

.54 .22

.46 .80

IC NA

EP PA

Sweden

.68 .31

.05 .64

IC NA

EP PA

United States

.37 .83

.93 .68

IC NA

EP PA

Figure 4: Distribution of sources of national pride in different countries

have a low proportion of respondents who feel proud in NA.

Past Achievements. Pride in past achievements is rather high for most countries as the

proportion of respondents who take pride in this source is lower than .50 for only four

countries (i.e. West-Germany (.02), the Netherlands (.31), East-Germany (.36) and Nor-

way (.49)). In case of West-Germany and to a lesser extent East-Germany, this could be

explained by war guilt as both countries were aggressor states in World War II and were

to a greater or lesser extent involved in war crimes (Smith & Jarkko, 1998). Furthermore,

many countries that have low pride in NA have moderate to high proportions of respon-

18

dents who are proud of PA. In particular, this is the case for Southern-European countries

that include some less-developed regions (i.e. Italy (.95), Spain (.80)), ex-Warschau-Pact

states (Bulgaria (.92), Hungary (.89), Russia (.84), Slovenia (.83), Czech Republic (.77),

Latvia (.71), Slovac Republic (.69) and Poland (.53)), the Philippines (.66), Great Britain

(.70), and Sweden (.64). In contrast, some countries that have high pride in NA also have

moderate to high pride in PA, that is, Ireland (.87), New Zealand (.74), United States

(.68), Austria (.60), and Japan (.58).

External Power.

Pride in external power is greatest among countries with powerful armed forces such as

the United States (.93) and Great Britain (.86). The relatively high score of New Zealand

(.69) is possibly due to identification with the military forces of Great Britain, as many

served in the British army. The high proportion of respondents in Ireland (.90) who feel

pride in EP is somewhat surprising. However, one may hypothesize that the Irish are

generally very proud of their country and as such do not make sharp distinctions between

different particular aspects in which one takes pride. This hypothesis is supported by the

Irish economic miracle–the so-called Celtic Tiger– and the very popular Irish culture

which provides a basis for the high proportion of respondents who feel proud in other

basic respects as well, namely IC (.58), NA (.70) and PA (.87).

On the other hand, pride in EP is rather low in Western countries with a neutral

or a quasi-neutral past (i.e. the Netherlands (.03), Sweden (.05), Norway (.25)). Also,

possibly due to the recent decline in military forces after the “cold war”, ex-Warschau-

Pact countries often have rather low pride in EP (Czech Republic (.14), Latvia (.19),

Hungary (.20), Russia (.31), Slovakia (.42), and Slovenia (.44))(see also Smith & Jarkko,

1998). Exceptions are Poland (.58) and Bulgaria (.60). Furthermore, countries that could

be depressed by war guilt, in the sense that they were aggressor states in World War II,

also have lower pride in EP (West-Germany (.09), East-Germany (.11), Austria (.23),

Italy (.24), and Japan (.30)) (see also Smith & Jarkko, 1998).

Interpretation of Circular Order in Sources of National Pride

The circumplex theory assumes that the distribution of pride in a country and the

19

decomposition of pride in particular aspects in terms of sources of national pride may

be represented as unbroken segments of a circle. As noted earlier, this implies that,

given a certain ordering of sources in the circumplex, each unit of the analysis (countries

and particular aspects) may be represented as a combination of adjacent sources. For

the particular ordering of basic sources in our analysis (i.e. IC,NA,PA,EP) this implies

that the combinations (IC,PA) and (NA,EP) violate the circumplex theory as they are

combinations of nonadjacent sources. As may be seen in Figures 2, 3, and 4 for only one

particular aspect and three countries, national pride cannot be represented as an unbroken

segment. More specifically, the particular aspect “political influence” is associated with

NA and EP. However, a slightly lower probability for EP (.49 instead of .52) would solve

this problem. With respect to countries, pride in the Philippines (IC and PA), Spain

(IC and PA), and Sweden (IC and PA) is composed of nonadjacent sources. For the

Philippines and Spain, the violation is very small, whereas for Sweden it is more serious.

With the more strict criterion that the probabilities may only decrease from the highest

one on in both directions until they meet, the circumplex theory fits reasonably well.

Only two particular aspects (i.e. “political influence” and “economic achievements”) and

four countries (i.e. Philippines, Spain, Sweden, and United States) are a violation of this

circular rule.

From a substantive point of view, the implications of the circumplex theory (and

possible violations) provide an interesting interpretation for the distribution of pride in

countries as it implies that certain combinations of sources of national pride are unlikely.

More specifically, the ordering of the four sources implies two pairs of contrasted

halves: (1) IC and EP versus NA and PA (left part versus right part of the pie), and (2)

IC and NA versus EP and PA (upper part versus lower part of the pie). The first contrast

occurs between relational sources and achievement sources, and corresponds to a basic

distinction made in the introduction. The second contrast emerges between a modern

policy which gives the economy and the social welfare system mutually stimulating roles,

and a more traditional power-based policy. That mere combinations either of IC and PA

or of EP and NA are excluded, is because the sources that would be combined belong to

opposite poles in both contrasts.

20

Another way of looking at the meaning of the circular order is that two implications

follow. First, the combination of IC and PA implies either EP or NA. If one takes pride

in internal care and past achievements, then the gap between both needs to be filled by

either EP or NA (or both). A possible explanation is that coherence within a country

with strong past achievements can perhaps exist only if the country is still doing well or

has an impact in the world. If not either of both, the coherence within the country and

therefore the solidarity implied by a system of internal care might dissolve. Second, the

combination of EP and NA either implies IC or PA. If one is proud of external power

and nowadays achievements, then the gap between both needs to be filled by either IC

or PA (or both). Perhaps a country, which at present does well economically and has

international power, needs the moral authority based on a good internal care system,

or the present achievements need to be the continuation of past achievements. Sheer

nowadays achievements may not be sufficient for being proud of one’s country’s external

power .

Principal Components Analysis of Data on National Pride

Other studies on the components of national pride (Muller-Peters, 1998; Hjerm, 1998)

have used a more traditional multivariate technique such as principal components analysis

(PCA) to investigate the structure of national pride. It turns out that PCA of the

present data set yields very similar results as obtained in these previous studies. As it is

interesting to compare the results of the circumplex model with those of a PCA, we will

briefly describe the latter.

Applying PCA to the undichotomized data yields two components with eigenvalues

larger than 1. These components account for 40.2% and 15.7% of the variance in the ob-

served variables. The varimax-rotated components may be interpreted as (1) pride in the

present economic-political performances and (2) historic-cultural pride in past achieve-

ments: The first component has high loadings for items concerning “democracy” (.80),

“political influence” (.72), “economic achievements” (.79), “the social welfare system”

(.79) and “the equal treatment of groups in society” (.64), whereas the second com-

ponent has substantial to high loadings for items concerning “achievements in science”

21

(.57), “sports” (.74), “the arts and literature” (.79), “armed forces” (.55) and “history”

(.71). Comparing these results with the results of the circumplex model shows that the

first principal component may be considered a combination of IC and NA and that the

second principal component may be regarded a combination of achievements that are not

NA-specific and EP.

Correlations between Sources of National Pride and other Variables

Table 1 lists the correlations between democracy scores, GNP, and several cultural

variables on the one hand and pride in basic respects on the other hand.

Level of democracy. The three measures of democracy show a significant correlation with

IC and NA. More specifically, “Years of continuous democracy”, “Level of democracy

1990” and “Level of democracy 1995” are strongly correlated to pride in IC (r(20) = .79,

p < .005; r(20) = .75, p < .005; and r(20) = .61, p < .005, respectively) and are

moderately correlated to pride in NA (r(20) = .59, p < .01; r(20) = .50, p < .05; and

r(20) = .46, p < .05, respectively). Hence, these results indicate that people living in

long-term well-established democracies show more pride in IC and NA. This validates

the fact that pride in “the way democracy works” may be based on pride in IC and pride

in NA, with IC being the more important source. Also, it shows that pride in “the way

democracy works” mirrors the objective level of democracy, as measured by the Freedom

House scores.

Macroeconomic variables. GNP-per-capita measures of 1980 and 1990 strongly correlate

positively with pride in IC or NA, and negatively with pride in PA. Moreover, as could

be expected, the two types of GNP measures show an identical pattern of correlations

with these sources of national pride. In particular, GNP measures in ’80 and ’90 correlate

positively with pride in IC (r(20) = .69, p < .005; r(20) = .75, p < .005, respectively) and

with pride in NA (r(20) = .72, p < .005; r(20) = .75, p < .005, respectively) and they

correlate negatively with pride in PA (r(20) = −.67, p < .005; r(20) = −.59, p < .01,

respectively). In other words, economically well-developed countries with a booming

economy have more respondents who are proud of IC and NA, whereas poorer countries

22

Table 1: Correlations between Sources of National Pride and External Variables

Variable N IC NA PA EP

Years of continuous democracy between 1920 and 1995 20 .79*** .59** -.27 .19

Level of democracy 1990 20 .75*** .50* -.28 .09

Level of democracy 1995 20 .61*** .46* -.28 -.02

GNP per capita 1980 20 .69*** .72*** -.67*** -.29

GNP per capita 1990 20 .75*** .75*** -.59** -.08

Interpersonal trust 20 .66*** .44 -.28 .04

Postmaterialist values 20 .76*** .57** -.39 -.10

Subjective well-being 20 .71*** .60*** -.45* .09

Life satisfaction 18 .75*** .65*** -.39 .02

Positive affect 18 .43 .51* -.49* .03

Negative affect 18 -.26 .33 -.59** -.17

Hedonic balance 18 .58* .38 -.23 .11

Note. N indicates the number of countries on which the correlation is based. In case

N=20, no data are available for New Zealand and the Philippines. In case N=18 no

data are available for New Zealand, the Philippines, Great Britain and the Slovac Repub-

lic. IC= Internal Care; NA= Nowadays Achievements; PA= Past Achievements; EP=

External Power.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .005.

have more respondents who are proud of PA.

Apparently, a country’s objective economic prosperity is reflected in the way peo-

ple take pride in their country’s nowadays achievements such as economic and political

influence. In addition, a country’s thriving economy is also highly correlated with its

citizens feeling proud of IC. However, a booming economy is not sufficient as a country

23

may choose to spend less of the GNP for this reason. On the other hand, the pride of

respondents from poorer countries is more oriented towards past achievements, possibly

to compensate for the lack of nowadays achievements. We may also note that the macro-

economic variables correlate as high with NA as with IC, whereas variables concerning

the level of democracy correlate higher with IC than with NA.

Cultural variables

The variable “interpersonal trust” shows a strong positive correlation with pride in

IC (r(20) = .66, p < .005). This may be explained by the fact that in well-established

democracies with a good social welfare system the solidarity may strengthen the trust

among people. However, the causal relation may also be the reverse, with interpersonal

trust being at the basis of a system of internal care, and also mutual enhancement of

both interpersonal trust and internal care may play a role. Furthermore, as pride in

“the way democracy works” is strongly associated with pride in IC, this finding is in

line with the finding of Inglehart (1990, 1997) that there is a strong correlation between

trust and the functioning of democratic institutions throughout the world. On the other

hand, we found a weak nonsignificant correlation between “interpersonal trust” and NA

(r(20) = .44, n.s.). This contradicts the finding of Inglehart that “interpersonal trust” is

strongly positively related to “economic development”.

Postmaterialist values show a strong positive correlation with pride in IC (r(20) = .76,

p < .005) and a moderate positive correlation with pride in NA (r(20) = .57, p <

.01). One may clarify this pattern of correlations from the postmodernization theory

that in countries with a certain level of prosperity, a shift has occurred from materialist

values towards postmaterialist values (see Inglehart, 1997). According to this theory,

postmaterialist values such as well-being, self-expression, and self-esteem have become

more important in societies in which survival and security are guaranteed by a booming

economy. Hence the positive correlation between postmaterialist values and pride in NA

can be attributed to the fact that both variables are based on prosperity. This hypothesis

is supported by the partial correlation between postmaterialist values and pride in NA

being not significant after controlling for GNP in 1990 (r(20) = .13; n.s.). Furthermore, it

may be expected that the strong positive correlation between postmaterialist values and

24

pride in IC is only partly based on prosperity and economic achievements, while also softer

non-economic values play a role. Indeed, the partial correlation between postmaterialist

values and pride in IC is still significant after controlling for GNP in 1990 (r(20) = .52,

p < .05).

The variables subjective well-being and life satisfaction, which overlap to some extent

in the way they were constructed, show about the same pattern of correlations with

pride in the sources of national pride. In particular, these variables show strong positive

correlations with IC (r(20) = .71, p < .005 and r(18) = .75, p < .005, respectively),

strong positive correlations with NA (r(20) = .60; p < .005 and r(18) = .65, p < .005,

respectively), weak negative correlations with PA (r(20) = −.45, p < .05 and r(18) =

−.39, n.s., respectively) and no correlation with EP (r(20) = .09, n.s. and r(18) = .02,

n.s., respectively).

Again we may hypothesize that the strong positive correlations between these vari-

ables and pride in NA are due to the general level of prosperity of countries (see also,

Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995). Indeed, the partial correlations between subjective

well-being and life satisfaction on the one hand and pride in NA on the other hand, are

nonsignificant after controlling for GNP in 1990 (i.e. r(20) = .15, n.s. and r(18) = .27,

n.s., respectively). The partial correlations between subjective well-being /life satisfaction

and pride in IC are still substantial after controlling for GNP in 1990 (i.e. r(20) = .39,

p < .10 and r(18) = .51, p < .05, respectively). As far as pride reflects reality, this

means that in equally prosperous countries, a well-developed social welfare system, a

well-functioning democracy, and the equal treatment of groups in society may lead to a

higher average level of subjective well-being and life satisfaction, which is in line with the

finding of Diener et al. (1995) that the subjective well-being of a nation correlates with

human rights and societal equality.

The frequency of positive affect shows a positive correlation with pride in NA (r(18) =

.51, p < .05) and a negative correlation with pride in PA (r(18) = −.49, p < .05). Again

these correlations become nonsignificant after controlling for prosperity as measured by

GNP in 1990 (r(18) = .26, n.s. and r(18) = −.29, n.s., respectively).

The frequency of negative affect correlates negatively with pride in PA (r(18) = −.59,

25

p < .01). However, inspection of the scatterplot of these two variables shows that the

correlation is especially based on two outlying observations, namely East- and West-

Germany, who score low on PA and high on negative affect. The low scores of these

countries on PA are possibly due to war guilt, but it is rather uncertain why they score

high on negative affect.

Finally, hedonic balance correlates with pride in IC (r(18) = .58, p < .05), but the

correlation is no longer significant after controlling for GNP in 1990 (r(18) = .38, n.s.).

Discussion

In the present paper, a circumplex model was used to model data on national pride

in 22 different countries. The model involves a probabilistic decomposition of pride in

particular aspects in terms of basic sources of national pride. In addition, the distribution

of pride in basic sources per country provides an overview of cross-national differences

with respect to national pride. Four types of sources were extracted from the data. They

concern the way in which the nation-state takes care of its citizens (IC), a country’s

present and past achievements (NA and PA), and a country’s potential to dominate

other countries (EP). As a special feature, the circumplex model assumes that both the

distribution of sources of pride in a country and the decomposition of particular aspects

in terms of basic sources of pride may be represented as unbroken segments of a circle.

One may wonder about the merits of using the circumplex model in comparison to

a more traditional multivariate technique such as principal components analysis (PCA)

in order to investigate the structure of national pride. What are the differences between

both models and to what extent do they yield the same results?

The first difference between the two models is that PCA assumes a dimensional rep-

resentation of the construct under investigation whereas the circumplex model assumes a

feature representation, the features being basic sources of pride in the present application.

One could argue that countries may be better represented by a larger set of qualitative

features rather than by a smaller set of quantitative dimensions (Tversky, 1977). Second,

the principal components are a linear function of the observed variables whereas the cir-

cumplex model involves a specific nonlinear decomposition of the observed variables. An

26

advantage of the latter approach is that it postulates a specific psychological process to

account for the data whereas PCA often functions merely as a data reduction technique.

In particular, in the present application it was assumed that respondents are proud of a

particular aspect if they take pride in at least one source the particular aspect is associ-

ated with. Third, in contrast to PCA, the circumplex model does not allow the solution

to be rotated. This may be considered an advantage because it gives the process of model

selection a more objective character.

Applying PCA to the undichotomized data yielded two components of national pride:

An economic-political component which could be considered a combination of pride in

IC and pride in NA, and a historic-cultural component which could be regarded a combi-

nation of pride in PA and pride in EP. Hence, in contrast to PCA, the circumplex model

does make a difference between pride in IC and pride in NA. This may be regarded as an

advantage because of two reasons. First, the distinction between IC and NA is of consid-

erable interest for the description of different countries as it allows to distinguish between

more liberal countries (e.g. United States), with a high score on NA and a lower one on

IC, and more socially oriented countries with a well-developed social welfare system, and

a high score on both IC and NA. Second, IC and NA show different partial correlations

with important cultural variables such as subjective well-being and postmaterialist values

after controlling for prosperity. Furthermore, unlike PCA, the circumplex model makes

a distinction between EP and PA. This seems justified as pride in EP and PA are only

weakly related across countries (r(20) = .41, p = .058).

Finally, we may wonder to what extent the results of our analysis could be influenced

by some general problems which may arise in the context of comparative attitude studies

(Svallfors, 1996). A first problem is that attitudes are context-dependent because con-

cepts may have different connotations in different countries. The second problem, which

is related to the first, is that the entirety of the questionnaire may lead to a different

framing of questions depending on the country, which may elicit different answers. Al-

though it is difficult to fully safeguard against both problems, our approach may be seen

as an attempt to minimize the effect of single semantic idiosyncrasies because it aims to

explain pride in particular aspects in terms of pride in basic sources that are common

27

to the different countries. That is, insofar as our analysis yields a meaningful and in-

terpretable decomposition of particular aspects in terms of basic sources, it also implies

that particular aspects have a somewhat similar meaning across countries.

28

References

Coenders, M. T. A. (2001). Nationalistic attitudes and ethnic exclusionism in a com-

parative perspective: An empirical study of attitudes toward the country and ethnic

immigrants in 22 countries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Catholic University

of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Diener E., Diener, M. & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being

of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 851–864.

Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1999). National differences in subjective well-being. In D. Kah-

neman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic

psychology. (pp. 434–450). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Hermans, H. J. M. (1987). The dream in the process of valuation: A method of interpre-

tation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 163–175.

Hjerm, M. (1998). National identities, national pride and xenophobia: A comparison of

four Western countries. Acta Sociologica, 41, 335–347.

Horowitz, L. M., Dryer, D. C., & Krasnoperova, E. N. (1997). The circumplex structure

of interpersonal problems. In R. Plutchik & H. R. Conte (Eds.), Circumplex models

of personality and emotions (pp. 347–384). Washington: American Psychological

Association.

Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and

political change in 43 societies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

ISSP (1998). ISSP 1995 National Identity Codebook. Zentralarchiv fur Empirische Sozial-

forschung, University of Cologne.

Maris, E., De Boeck, P., & Van Mechelen, I. (1996). Probability matrix decomposition

models. Psychometrika, 61, 7–29.

Meulders, M., De Boeck, P., Van Mechelen, I., Gelman, A. and Maris, E. (2001). Bayesian

inference with probability matrix decomposition models. Journal of Educational and

Behavioral Statistics, 26, 153-179.

29

Meulders, M., De Boeck, P., Kuppens, P. and Van Mechelen, I. (2002). Constrained latent

class analysis of three-way three-mode data. Journal of Classification, 19, 277-302.

Meulders, M., De Boeck, P. and Van Mechelen, I. (2003). A taxonomy of latent structure

assumptions for probability matrix decomposition models. Psychometrika, 68, 61-77.

Meulders, M., De Boeck, P., Van Mechelen, I. and Gelman, A. (2005). Probabilistic

feature analysis of facial perception of emotions. Journal of the Royal Statistical

Society, Series C (Applied Statistics), 54, 781–793.

Muller-Peters, A. (1998). The significance of national pride and national identity to the

attitude toward the single European currency: A Europe-wide comparison. Journal

of Economic Psychology, 19, 701–719.

Smith, T. W., & Jarkko, L. (1998). National pride: A cross-national analysis. GSS Cross-

national Report No. 19, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.

Svallfors, S. (1996). National differences in national identities? An introduction to the

International Social Survey Programme. New Community, 22, 127–134.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology,

33, 1–39.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In G. W.

Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47).

Monterey: Wadsworth.

Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.

Wiggins, J. S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology.

In P. C. Kendall & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical

psychology (pp. 183–221). New York: Wiley.

World Bank (1993). World Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.

World Values Study Group (1994). World Values Survey, 1981-1984 and 1990-1993

(Computer File). ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.