How People View Patriotism: The Evidences

from Cross-National Surveys

Gal Ariely

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
National Pride Across Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How People Evaluate Patriotism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
What Explains the Variations of Patriotism Between Countries? Contextual Explanations of
National Pride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Evaluation of Patriotism Between Majorities and Minorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Abstract
This chapter demonstrates how cross-national surveys can be used to examine
how lay people view patriotism across countries. Using data from four cross-
national surveys across dozens of countries, it evinces levels of national pride and
the contexts in which these are higher, namely, in countries whose citizens are
worse off. In societies that form part of the globalized community, enjoy more
income equality, and are not subject to the threat of terror or external conflict,
national pride levels appear to be lower. Analyzing public views of patriotism, it
seems that it is viewed more positively than negatively in nearly all the countries.
Majorities, nonetheless, held more positive views of patriotism than minorities.
The majority/minority variation was directly associated with inclusive policies,
minorities in more exclusive countries tending to view patriotism more negatively
than those in more inclusive countries. The benefits of using cross-national
surveys to discuss patriotism must be viewed in the light of their inherent
limitations. These are thus also identified and explained.

G. Ariely (*)
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
e-mail: galariel@bgu.ac.il

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

M. Sardoč (ed.), Handbook of Patriotism,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30534-9_55-1
2 G. Ariely

Keywords
Patriotism · Nationalism · National Identity · Cross-National surveys · Multilevel
Analysis

Introduction

The notion of patriotism has been the subject of much debate amongst political
theorists and in empirical studies. Normatively, political philosophy is suspicious of
such particular and limited loyalties to a specific country. Patriotism is perceived as a
source for bigotry, chauvinism, and conflict, serving as a tool to marginalize and
exclude minorities from the “circle of we” (Nussbaum 2002). While universal
principles and skeptical views of patriotism still hold prominence within political
philosophy over the past two decades, political thinkers have begun to significantly
reassess the issue of attachment to the nation. These scholars include both liberal
nationalists, who focus on the cultural component of allegiance to a country (e.g.,
Miller 1995), and promoters of constitutional patriotism, who argue that the cultural
element should be replaced by a reformulated version of political patriotism, namely,
constitutional patriotism (e.g., Habermas 1995). Some contend that, functioning as a
form of “cement” holding diverse societies together, patriotism reduces social
conflict, increases cooperation and strivings towards social justice, and fosters a
committed and engaged citizenry. Patriotism is considering as crucial for minority
integration and social cohesion in the face of increasing diversity (Brubaker 2004;
Müller 2007). Patriotism is thus viewed in both negative and positive terms.
Empirically, while the positive and negative consequences of patriotism and its
various aspects have been extensively examined, the findings are inconsistent and
therefore inconclusive. While higher levels of patriotism appear to be related to
citizen support for paying taxes (Gangl et al. 2015), political participation (Huddy
and Khatib 2007), and solidarity (de Rooij et al. 2011), they are also linked to income
equality (Solt 2011). Those who score highly on the patriotism scale are also less
likely to participate in unconventional forms of political activity (de Rooij et al.
2011) or tolerate minorities (Blank and Schmidt 2003). These conflicting normative
and empirical interpretations of patriotism are not surprising in the light of its
multidimensional character and the fact that “research on patriotism has been marred
by a confusing array of terms, definitions and expected consequences” (Huddy and
Khatib 2007, p. 63).
Rather than seeking to resolve the conflicting conceptualizations and interpreta-
tions of patriotism, this chapter conducts a cross-national analysis of the way in
which lay people view patriotism. It capitalizes on the fact that the proliferation of
cross-national research projects in recent decades has enabled scholars to study
various aspects of patriotism within diverse political and societal contexts. Numer-
ous studies use data from cross-national surveys such as the World Value Survey
(WVS), the International Social Survey Project (ISSP), the European Social Survey
(ESS), and various other projects to study patriotism. According to Smith and
How People View Patriotism: The Evidences from Cross-National Surveys 3

Schapiro (2015), more than 500 studies have been published based on the first two
ISSP National Identity modules. These cross-national surveys have extended survey
research beyond Western countries to include areas such as Latin America and post-
communist states (for a review of cross-national survey projects, see Heath et al. 2005;
Norris 2009). These projects provide empirical tools for the systematic study of the
way in which expressions of patriotism – such as national pride or constructive
patriotism – influence attitudes and behaviors and the relationship between them (e.
g., de Figueiredo and Elkins 2003; Smith and Kim 2006). Cross-national surveys of
this type also enable comparative investigation of the ways in which patriotism is
related to the broader social and political context. They thus help to clarify the extent
to which immigrants are proud of their host countries (Reeskens and Wright 2014)
and the degree to which ethnopolitical inequality is reflected in majority and
minority national pride (Wimmer 2017), for example.
While they facilitate a description of people’s perceptions of patriotism and a
comparison of differences between countries, cross-national surveys also suffer from
limitations. As this volume illustrates, patriotism is a richer concept than any
measures employed in surveys that can truly grasp. Conceptually, some of the
measures are occasionally used to study both nationalism and patriotism. The limits
of the measures are particularly relevant when patriotism is measured across dis-
similar contexts and the validity and the comparability of the measures used lies in
doubt (Sapountzis 2008; Latcheva 2011; Sinnott 2006; Meitinger 2018). The
description provided in this chapter is circumscribed by the available data, only
being as valid as the measures themselves. Cross-national surveys can nonetheless
give an account of the levels of some aspects of patriotism (such as national pride)
across the globe and the ways in which people themselves evaluate patriotism. The
comparative framework also enables analysis of how these measures of patriotism
are related to various social and political factors.

National Pride Across Countries

This section employs the most common measure of patriotism – national pride –
based on the question: “How proud are you to be [nationality]?” The response
options were “very proud,” “quite proud,” “not very proud,” and “not at all
proud.” This element constitutes one of the basic components of patriotism, serving
as the most prevalent measure of national pride in several key cross-national surveys.
According to Moaddel et al. (2008), its usefulness as a tool for cross-national
comparison derives from its generality. It also exhibits strong correlations with
other, more complex, measures of patriotism. Although the measurement equiva-
lence of this single item cannot be determined, the design reflects an attempt to cover
as many countries as possible. Forming part of numerous studies, the measure
includes 93 countries and data provided by 153,031 respondents. Not a random
sample, the latter include over 90% of the world’s population.
Table 1 illustrates the patterns of national pride across the countries, presenting
the percentage of respondents who chose “very proud.” In the majority of countries,
4 G. Ariely

Table 1 National pride across the world (percentage of people who are “very proud” of their
country)
Qatar 99 Australia 70 Austria 48
Ghana 94 Ethiopia 69 Singapore 47
Ecuador 91 Malaysia 67 Indonesia 46
Mali 90 Greece 67 Bulgaria 44
Trinidad & Tobago 89 Jordan 66 Albania 42
Uzbekistan 88 Portugal 65 Italy 42
Guatemala 88 Nigeria 64 Croatia 42
Colombia 87 Uruguay 63 Sweden 42
Thailand 85 Zambia 63 Romania 41
Philippines 85 Iran 63 Slovakia 41
Mexico 84 USA 63 Brazil 39
Burkina Faso 83 Peru 62 Lebanon 37
Yemen 83 Morocco 62 Russia 37
Vietnam 81 Kazakhstan 62 Switzerland 37
Kuwait 81 Argentina 62 Hungary 36
Libya 80 Poland 62 Czech Republic 33
Turkey 80 Iceland 62 Belarus 32
Rwanda 79 Algeria 61 Latvia 32
Pakistan 79 Spain 59 Belgium 29
Ireland 77 Tunisia 58 Ukraine 29
Zimbabwe 77 Kyrgyzstan 55 France 29
South Africa 77 Finland 55 Bosnia & Herzegovina 29
Georgia 76 United Kingdom 55 Japan 26
Armenia 74 Chile 54 Germany 25
Iraq 73 Slovenia 54 Netherlands 23
India 73 Macedonia 53 China 23
Malta 73 Norway 53 Lithuania 23
Azerbaijan 72 Cyprus 53 Estonia 21
Canada 70 Luxembourg 52 South Korea 19
Egypt 70 Denmark 49 Moldova 19
New Zealand 70 Serbia 49 Taiwan 16
Source: WVS 2000, WVS 2005, EVS 2008

more than half the respondents exhibited a strong sense of national pride. Only in 33
countries did less than half of the sample report being very proud of their country.
These findings suggest that patriotism constitutes a relatively broad phenomenon,
more than half the respondents in the majority of countries evincing a high level of
pride in their nation. A significant variation also existed in the levels of national pride
across countries, however – ranging from as low as 16% in Taiwan to as high as 99%
in Qatar. Possible explanations for this variation are adduced in section “What
Explains the Variations of Patriotism Between Countries? Contextual Explanations
of National Pride”.
How People View Patriotism: The Evidences from Cross-National Surveys 5

How People Evaluate Patriotism

The previous section provided an overview of a predetermined definition of patriot-

ism – national pride. While covering numerous countries, this was limited in its
value. A recent study investigating public perceptions of “national pride” in Ger-
many, the USA, Mexico, Spain, and the UK evinces a significant variation between
and across countries. This undermines the validity of employing national pride as a
proxy for patriotism across countries (Meitinger 2018). While Table 1 thus presents
perceptions relating to multiple countries, the precise nature of national pride across
these remains uncertain. This circumstance highlights our lack of knowledge regard-
ing the way in which lay people view patriotism. Most cross-national studies ignore
the question of how people themselves evaluate patriotism: is it a positive or
negative phenomenon? The Third National Identity Module (2013) of the Interna-
tional Social Survey Programme affords an opportunity to address this issue, includ-
ing the question:
How much do you agree (strongly = 1) or disagree (strongly = 5) that strong
patriotic feeling in [country]:

• Strengthens [country’s] place in the world.

• Is necessary for [country] to remain united.
• Leads to intolerance in [country].
• Leads to negative attitudes towards immigrants in [country].

This item facilitates evaluation of whether the respondents believe “strong patri-
otic feelings” to be positive (helping the country remain united and strengthening its
world status) or negative (fueling intolerance and negative attitudes towards immi-
grants). Figure 1 presents the average perceptions of patriotism as positive or as
negative across the countries.
The overall view of patriotism tended to be more positive than negative. The
negative consequences of patriotism were only deemed to be higher in Sweden and
Spain. In all other countries, the positive overrode the negative aspects. By and large,
people thus appear to view patriotism more positively than negatively. The figures
also evince that perceptions of patriotism varied greatly across the countries. In
Spain, for example, positive perceptions of patriotism were nearly 1.5 points lower
(on a 5 points scale) than in India.

What Explains the Variations of Patriotism Between Countries?

Contextual Explanations of National Pride

In order to analyze what explains variations in national pride across countries, a set
of factors – state performance, globalization, social diversity, and conflicts – were
analyzed. Variations in within-country national pride and the dissimilar effect of
contextual variables on diverse segments of society in each country prompted us to
control for three individual-level characteristics – education, age, and income. The
6 G. Ariely

Spain
Sweden
Norway
Switzerland
Germany
Finland
Croatia
Ireland
Iceland
Denmark
Hungary
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Slovenia
UK
France
Japan
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Estonia
Belgium
Israel
Latvia
Taiwan
South Africa
Russia
Mexico
USA
Korea (South)
Philippines
Turkey
Georgia
India

5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

Negative patriotism Positive patriotism

Fig. 1 Positive and negative perceptions of patriotism. Notes: Positive patriotism = “patriotic
feelings towards [country] strengthen [country’s’] place in the world and are necessary for [country]
to remain united.” Negative patriotism = “patriotic feelings towards [country] lead to intolerance
and negative attitudes towards immigrants in [country]”. 5 = “strongly agree.” (Source: ISSP 2013)

young and more educated tending to be less attached to their countries, controlling
for these individual-level variables assured a more precise analysis. A hierarchical
linear modeling (HLM) approach was employed in order to test whether levels of
national pride are related to the contextual explanations. The respondents being
nested within countries, this forms a methodologically appropriate strategy, enables
How People View Patriotism: The Evidences from Cross-National Surveys 7

contextual and individual-level explanations to be accounted for simultaneously (for

details of the contextual measures and the analysis, see Ariely 2017). In other words,
this method can explain if differences in national pride are related to the contextual
explanations that are measured at the country level while taking differences in age,
gender, and education between respondents. Overall, the between-country variation
in national-pride levels across the 93 countries lay at 17.4%. This indicates the
relevance of the multilevel analysis (Hox 2010).
The findings evince that citizens of more developed and globalized countries are
less likely to be proud of their nation. Figure 2 evinces that, on average, respondents
in more globalized countries were less likely to display high levels of national pride.
It also demonstrates that the more globalized countries were usually those that were
more developed, however. This pattern is in line with the argument that globalization
undermines feelings of national attachment, people having become global con-
sumers of goods and information in today’s “global village.” In a wired world, the
government also no longer serves as the exclusive source of cultural control over its
citizens and/or territory (Guibernau 2001), the cross-border flow of information
further impinging upon the sense of a unique national identity. Eric Hobsbawm
thus argues, for example, that having become “historically less important,” attach-
ment to one’s nation is likely to cease being a vital political program the more
“supernational” the world becomes (1992, p. 191). State performance in the form of
regime (level of democracy) and statehood (failed states) was found to be unrelated
to national pride when globalization was taken into account.

Fig. 2 Patriotism and globalization. (Source: WVS 2000, WVS 2005, EVS 2008)
8 G. Ariely

Fig. 3 Patriotism and income inequality. (Source: WVS 2000, WVS 2005, EVS 2008)

Patriotic sentiments are higher in countries marked by higher levels of income

inequality. As Fig. 3 illustrates, the greater the income-distribution inequality from
which a country suffers, the higher the levels of patriotism its citizens display. This
pattern is in line with the diversionary theory of nationalism (Solt 2011), which
posits that national sentiments are frequently stoked in an attempt to counteract high
levels of economic inequality. National sentiments enable citizens to form a sense of
solidarity irrespective of the unequal conditions they may experience and discourage
them from challenging country institutions that benefit only the few. They thus tend
to be promoted by political elites seeking to mask discriminatory governance.
Citizens of countries that have experienced intense conflict are also more likely to
be patriotic. The analysis thus further investigated whether patriotism is related to
conflict. In line with the multidimensional character and lack of agreed measurement
of conflict, two aspects – mobilization and actual conflict – were examined. Mobi-
lization of society for conflict (economic resources allocated to the military and
relatively large numbers of military personnel) was not found to be related to
patriotism. Citizens of countries exposed to terror displayed higher levels of national
pride. As Fig. 4 illustrates, this holds true across such widely differing countries as
Iraq, Colombia, and India. Respondents from countries that have suffered deaths
from external conflict also evinced higher levels of national pride.
These findings are in accord with the common argument that wars, conflicts, and
external threats directly influence the development of patriotism (Cook-Huffman
2009). Various explanations of this mechanism have been adduced (Korostelina
2007). According to social-identity theory, the relationship between in-group iden-
tification and out-group hostility depends on specific social contexts, in-group
identification, and negative attitudes towards the out-group increasing when clashes
occur, particularly in zero-sum conflicts (Brewer 2001). Terror-management theory
How People View Patriotism: The Evidences from Cross-National Surveys 9

Fig. 4 Patriotism and conflict. (Source: WVS 2000, WVS 2005, EVS 2008)

posits that people cling to protective worldviews when their lives are threatened,
regarding their in-group beliefs as ensuring security and safety on the one hand and
the threatening behavior of “others” as demanding an aggressive response on the
other. Under such conditions, in-group/out-group distinctions become more pro-
nounced, willingness to use extreme political measures against the out-group
increasing (for a review, see Pyszczynski et al. 2003).

Evaluation of Patriotism Between Majorities and Minorities

Historically, national sentiment has formed a crucial element in legitimizing the

authority wielded by the modern nation state, enhancing state taxation capacities,
fostering obedience to the law, blunting dissent, and mobilizing citizens for combat.
Many governing elites have sought to achieve political and national unity by
constructing a common national identity and encouraging national sentiments
amongst diverse groups (Mylonas 2013). The very emergence of the modern nation
state is frequently understood as a homogenization process dissolving class, ethnic,
linguistic, and religious disparities (Tilly 1992). In the face of threats to territorial
integrity, governing elites have frequently sought to mass-school uneducated
populations into a coherent shared national identity that supersedes ethnic, family,
and kinship ties to ensure resistance to alien rule (Darden and Mylonas 2016).
Commonly serving as a tool for uniting societies, diversionary theory holds that
10 G. Ariely

patriotism is frequently invoked to counteract economic inequality between hetero-

geneous segments (Solt 2011). Enabling citizens to form a sense of solidarity
irrespective of the unequal conditions they may experience and discouraging them
from challenging state institutions that benefit the few, patriotic sentiments tend to be
promoted by political elites seeking to mask discriminatory governance.
Nation-building has frequently been predicated upon an elite ethnic group that
establishes itself as constitutive of the nation. When this new national entity joins
forces with other ethnic, linguistic, and religious sectors, a nation is created
(Wimmer 2013). National identity thus constitutes the most central form of identity
in the modern world (Greenfeld and Eastwood 2007). Various strategies have been
adopted to foster common identity, with diverse outcomes. In France, for example,
heterogeneous groups have been assimilated into the national core. In Spain, in
contrast, some groups have preserved their unique nature and status. Traditionally
homogeneous countries (e.g., Germany) are now becoming highly diverse due to the
influx of migrants and refugees into Europe. While France has historically succeeded
in “making peasants into Frenchman,” the recent waves of immigrations have
created new social and political divisions. Countries are thus characterized by
diverse types of minorities – territorial, religious, ethnic, linguistic, and immigrant.
Empirical studies have found evidence for ethnic asymmetry across various
countries and dissimilar majority/minority settings (Verkuyten and Yildiz 2007;
Sidanius et al. 1997). An analysis of the differences between core and non-core
group members across countries yields great variation in patriotism levels. Elkins
and Sides (2007) employed data from the World Values Survey to capture core and
non-core group members’ patriotism across 51 countries, examining religious (e.g.,
Egyptian Copts), ethnic (e.g., Turkish Kurds), and linguistic (e.g., Canadian Quebe-
cois) divides. By and large, minorities generally demonstrate lower levels of national
pride and attachment than majorities. Thus while 61% of the majorities reported
being “very proud” of their country, only 42% of the minorities did so. Levels of
national pride and attachment to the country or ethnic group also diverge signifi-
cantly across countries, however. In some cases – such as Egypt and Venezuela – no
disparity at all was evident. In others, however – such as Macedonia and Israel –
huge disparities obtained. Another study, based on the ISSP National Identity II, also
found cross-national variation. Despite the fact that the groups were classified on the
basis of divergent criteria (US: Blacks, Latinos, and Asians; Norway: non-Euro-
peans) and different sets of countries were included, the majority only exhibited
higher levels of national identification in 17 countries (Staerklé et al. 2010). A study
focusing solely on immigrants vs. nonimmigrants across 29 European nations found
that immigrants tended to be less proud of their host country, favoring sub- or trans-
national identification over national identity (Reeskens and Wright 2014).
While the previous section presented an overview of various contextual explana-
tions for the levels of national pride, here the focus lies on disparities between
majority and minority views of patriotism, together with state policies towards
minorities. This section examined whether any differences obtained between major-
ities and minorities based on a clear distinction between the core and minority groups
sufficiently represented in the ISSP National Identity III 2013 sample. The majority
How People View Patriotism: The Evidences from Cross-National Surveys 11

and minority groups were categorized in each country on the basis of the respon-
dents’ ethnic identification, religiosity, citizenship, parent citizenship at birth, coun-
try of birth, and parent country of birth (for details, see Ariely 2018).
Overall, divergences existed; these also varied across countries (see Fig. 5). In
some (e.g., Turkey and Slovakia), the majority tended to evaluate patriotism much
more positively than minorities. In others, no differences were seen between the

U.S.A.
U.K
Turkey
Taiwan
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
South Africa
Slovenia
Slovak Republic
Russia
Philippines
Norway
Mexico
Lithuania
Latvia
Israel
Ireland
India
Iceland
Germany
Georgia
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Republic
Croatia
Belgium
5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00

Minority (negative) Majority (Negative)

Minority (Positive) Majority (Positive)

Fig. 5 Differences between majority and minority views of patriotism. Notes: See Fig. 1 for scale
descriptions. (Source: ISSP 2013)
12 G. Ariely

groups (e.g., the USA), or minorities favored patriotism more than the majority (e.g.,
Ireland). A hierarchical linear modeling analysis found that, despite the between-
group variation, majorities and minorities perceived patriotism disparately, minori-
ties tending to view patriotism less positively than majorities (age, education, and
gender being controlled for). This finding reflects the different levels of patriotism
attributed to “ethnic asymmetry” – wherein the majority exhibits higher levels of
patriotism than those displayed by minorities (Elkins and Sides 2007; Staerklé et al.
2010; Wimmer 2017). Patriotism thus appears to be favored more by majorities than
by minorities.
The study also examined whether institutional policies are related to between-
country variation in patriotism assessment. In other words, it analyzed whether
cross-national disparities are associated with policy divergences (measured at the
country level). To this end, we measured the institutional inclusiveness of minorities/
immigrants via the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) scale – a cross-
national collaboration that inquires into and compares cross-national integration
policies. Constructed by national experts and standardized by Migrant Integration
Policy researchers, this covers more countries than other indices (Koopmans 2013).
The analysis found that institutional inclusion was strongly negatively correlated
with perceptions of positive patriotism (see Fig. 6). The more inclusive a country
policy is towards minorities, the less positively patriotism is thus evaluated highly.
This finding points to the fact that country policies are also related to the way in
which citizens view patriotism. By and large, the countries that follow this route also
tend to adopt less coercive approaches towards integration – and vice versa (Banting
and Kymlicka 2015).
These findings are in line with studies indicating that inclusive policies are
associated with a broad conception of national identity (Wright 2011), host members
being less anti-immigrationist (Weldon 2006; Schlueter et al. 2013; Hooghe and de
Vroome 2015). Overall, inclusive policies towards immigrants/minorities go hand in
hand with a more open and broad-based conception of the nation.
While the previous section focused on differences between countries, this
addresses the question of whether institutional inclusion is related to disparities
between majority/minority views of patriotism. Here, the interaction between minor-
ity group status and the MIPEX index revealed whether the divergences varied in
accord with institutional policy (for details of the analysis, see Ariely 2018). Figure 7
presents the results by plotting the MIPEX scores of the aggregate coefficients of
country-by-country regressions (controlling for age, education, and gender) between
minority status and positive patriotism evaluation. Minorities in countries with a
more exclusive policy (e.g., Latvia, Turkey) were more inclined to view patriotism
more negatively (β  0.4) than those in countries such as Sweden, Norway, and
Belgium (β  0.1).
These findings suggest that despite divergences in policies, political institutions
and policies are routinely regarded as instruments through which political elites
dictate social norms and attitudes. While in this sense they represent public senti-
ment, they also reflect variant conceptions of national identity. Inclusive policies
view the latter in terms of “becoming” rather than “being” (Papademetriou and
How People View Patriotism: The Evidences from Cross-National Surveys 13

4.50

Turkey
+

United States
+
Positive Patriotism

4.00
Lativa Belgium
+
Slovak Republic +
+ Estonia + Great Britain and/or United Kingdom
+
Lithuania + Slovenia +France
+ Czech Republic
+ Denmark
Croatia Ireland +
3.50 + + +
+ Finland
Iceland +
Switzerland Germany
+
Norway
+

Sweden
Spain
+
3.00
20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Inclusiveness (MIPEX)

Fig. 6 Positive patriotism evaluation and inclusive policies. (Source: ISSP 2013)

Kober 2012). In traditionally immigrant countries, such as the USA, national identity
is predicated upon the successful assimilation of minorities (Schildkraut 2011). In
such settings, where patriotism is not held to be responsible for exclusionary
attitudes, non-core groups are more likely to regard it in a positive light. Exclusive
policies, in contrast, are frequently based on a closed and rigid conception of national
identity, non-core groups thus being far more inclined to disfavor it.

Conclusions

Donald Trump’s 2017 inaugural speech championing patriotism – echoed in Marine

Le Pen’s claim that “patriotism is the policy of the future” – has added further fuel to
the long-running debate over patriotism. Normatively, while some regard patriotism
as a civic virtue, others argue that, as the “last refuge of the scoundrel,” it serves to
marginalize minorities. Empirically, evidence exists for both the positive effects of
patriotism (e.g., political participation and tax-paying) and its correlation with
negative attitudes towards minorities. Some inconsistencies between majorities
and minorities also obtain in expressions of patriotism. In several cases, minorities
tend to hold less patriotic feelings than majorities. To date, copious studies have
14 G. Ariely

Fig. 7 Plot of the relations between minorities’ coefficients on positive patriotism evaluation and
inclusive policy. Notes: coefficients from countries regression while controlling age, education and
gender. (Source: ISSP 2013)

measured levels of patriotism and its manifestations across numerous countries, the
factors that shape patriotic feelings, and the ways in which various dimensions of
patriotism are related to a broad set of attitudes and behaviors.
This chapter demonstrates how the use of cross-national survey data sheds light
on the debate surrounding the concept of patriotism. As noted at the outset, this
perspective must be viewed in light of its inherent limitations. Patriotism is a
complex, multidimensional notion that can only be properly understood to the extent
that the survey measures are valid. While this chapter reviews the use of the most
common measure – national pride – and explores how people themselves view and
evaluate patriotism, the conceptual vagueness of the notion must be kept in mind. It
is unclear whether the measures relate to patriotism or nationalism, few studies
establishing a clear conceptual distinction between these two phenomena. The use
of survey questions across such a diverse set of countries also constitutes a cause for
concern in relation to measurement equivalence: it cannot be conclusively deter-
mined whether the items are understood in the same way across all the countries.
More significantly, even were this possible to ascertain, the cross-sectional design
precludes any determination of causality. Patriotism being perceivable as either/both
cause and effect in the models employed, the cross-sectional design severely restricts
theoretical conclusions.
Despite these limitations, the chapter illustrates how these surveys can add to the
understanding of patriotism. By and large, the findings clearly indicate that patriot-
ism is viewed more positively than negatively by the public in nearly all the
How People View Patriotism: The Evidences from Cross-National Surveys 15

countries sampled. Despite the ambivalence towards patriotism in political theory

and findings relating to the negative consequence of patriotism, the public thus tend
to believe that strong patriotic feelings are necessary for national unification and
status rather than being responsible for an increase in intolerance and xenophobia. In
most countries of the world, the majority of the public also tend to be very proud of
their country.
Higher levels of national pride obtain in countries whose citizens are worse off,
however. National pride levels thus appear to be lower in societies that form part of
the globalized community, enjoy more income equality, and are not subject to the
threat of terror or external conflict. These findings support the claim that globaliza-
tion and development processes reduce the importance of the national bond. In
general, citizens who have broad access to a wide spectrum of ideas and information
are less likely to be overly proud of their country. Consistent with previous studies
(Solt 2011; Shayo 2009), the close correlation between income inequality and higher
levels of national pride supports the diversionary theory of nationalism. Rather than
claiming that elites generate national sentiments as a response to the threat posed by
high levels of economic inequality, however, the most one can say is that income
inequality and national pride go hand in hand. In line with the “rallying around the
flag” (Mueller 1973) thesis, exposure to terror attacks and external conflict was
correlated with higher levels of patriotism. Taking into account the fact that politi-
cians, pundits, and philosophers frequently describe patriotism as a mandatory
political commodity, this study suggests that national pride is related to a less
attractive environment than its advocates tend to assume.
This study also demonstrates that majorities and minorities diverge greatly in
their assessment of patriotism. On average across the pooled sample, majorities held
more positive views of patriotism than minorities. Significant between-country
variations nonetheless obtained along the majority/minority divide. The majority/
minority variation was directly associated with inclusive policies, minorities in more
exclusive countries tending to view patriotism more negatively than those in more
inclusive countries. While the research design precludes any claims regarding the
causal effect of such policies, it determines that in more inclusive policy settings a
smaller disparity exists between majority and minority perceptions of patriotism.
The overall between-country differences are also associated with state policy: the
more inclusive the country, the more negatively patriotism is perceived.
Patriotism appears to benefit majorities and, to some extent, disfavor minorities.
Their marginal status inclines minorities to be less convinced of patriotism’s poten-
tial for promoting unity and more likely to view it as fostering intolerance and
discrimination. While this result may appear to militate against the claim that
patriotism can act as a unifying agent in diverse societies, the majority/minority
disparity is not a static, predetermined phenomenon. Meaningful divergences occur
when state policies differ, countries with more exclusive policies tending to perceive
patriotism more positively than those that adopt more inclusive policies. The indi-
cation that minorities in more inclusive countries are also inclined to regard patriot-
ism more positively suggests that policy plays an important role in this context.
16 G. Ariely

These results may support the claim that inclusive policies serve to reduce the
gaps between majorities and minorities; patriotism merely acting as a form of glue in
diverse societies when the nation is predicated upon inclusion (see also Wimmer
2017). In a recent review, Banting and Kymlicka note that: “Given the intensity of
this debate, there has been surprisingly little research done on the impact of either
multiculturalism or civic integration policies on solidarity” (2015, p. 22). The
present findings provide some empirical support for the assertion that inclusive
policies directly impact the majority/minority divide. Policies and institutional
effects are nevertheless long-term factors, shaping political identity via lengthy
processes such as socialization.
In conclusion, this chapter demonstrates that exploring public views of patriotism
can contribute to our understanding of patriotism. The findings indicate a gap
between scholarly and public understandings of patriotism. In his reflections on
nationalism and patriotism, Rogers Brubaker observes that: “For many scholars in
the social sciences and humanities, ‘nation’ is a suspect category. Few American
scholars wave flags, and many of us are suspicious of those who do” (2004, p. 118).
In light of the role “strong patriotic feelings” have played in recent events in Europe
and the USA, this disparity calls for taking public views of the ambivalent concept of
patriotism into account. The approach adopted in this chapter can also provide an
understanding of the social context that sustains patriotism – at least to the extent that
the measures employed herein accurately reflect the concept.

References
Ariely G (2017) Why does patriotism prevail? Contextual explanations of patriotism across
countries. Identities Glob Stud Cult Power 24:351–377
Ariely G (2018) Evaluations of patriotism across countries, groups, and policy domains. J Ethn
Migr Stud 44(3):462–481
Banting KG, Kymlicka W (2015) The political sources of solidarity in diverse societies. Robert
Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No 2015/73
Blank T, Schmidt P (2003) National identity in a united Germany: nationalism or patriotism? An
empirical test with representative data. Polit Psychol 24(2):289–312
Brewer MB (2001) The many faces of social identity: implications for political psychology. Polit
Psychol 22(1):115–125
Brubaker R (2004) In the name of the nation: reflections on nationalism and patriotism 1. Citizsh
Stud 8(2):115–127
Cook-Huffman C (2009) The role of identity in conflict. In: Sandole D, Byrne S, Sandole-Staroste I,
Senehi J (eds) Handbook in conflict analysis and resolution. Routledge, New York, pp 19–31
Darden K, Mylonas H (2016) Threats to territorial integrity, national mass schooling, and linguistic
commonality. Comp Pol Stud 49(11):1446–1479
de Figueiredo RJ, Elkins Z (2003) Are patriots bigots? An inquiry into the vices of in-group pride.
Am J Polit Sci 47(1):171–188
de Rooij EA, Reeskens T, Wright M (2011) Does pride in One’s nation foster participation? On the
causal linkage between national pride and political engagement. Paper presented at the 6th
European Consortium for Political Research’s General Conference, University of Iceland,
Reykjavik, 25–27 August 2011
Elkins Z, Sides J (2007) Can institutions build unity in multiethnic states? Am Polit Sci Rev
101:693–708
How People View Patriotism: The Evidences from Cross-National Surveys 17

Gangl K, Torgler B, Kirchler E (2015) Patriotism's impact on cooperation with the state: An
experimental study on tax compliance. Polit Psychol 37(6):867–881
Greenberg J, Solomon S, Pyszczynski T (1986) The causes and consequences of a need for self-
esteem: a terror management theory. Public Self Private Self 189:212
Greenfeld L, Eastwood J (2007) National identity. In: Boix C, Stokes SC (eds) The oxford
handbook of comparative politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, pp 256–273
Guibernau M (2001) Globalization and the nation-state. In: Guibernau M, Hutchinson J (eds)
Understanding nationalism. Polity Press, Cambridge, pp 242–268
Habermas J (1995) Citizenship and national identity: some reflections on the future of Europe. In:
Beiner R (ed) Theorizing citizenship. State University of New York Press, New York, pp
255–281
Heath A, Fisher S, Smith S (2005) The globalization of public opinion research. Annu Rev Polit Sci
8:297–333
Hobsbawm E (1992) Nations and nationalism since 1780. Cambridge University Press, New York/
Cambridge
Hooghe M, de Vroome T (2015) How does the majority public react to multiculturalist policies? A
comparative analysis of European countries. Am Behav Sci 59(6):747–768
Hox JJ (2010) Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York
Huddy L, Khatib N (2007) American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. Am J
Polit Sci 51(1):63–77
Koopmans R (2013) Indices of immigrant rights: what have we learned, where should we go? Comp
Eur Polit 11(5):696–703
Korostelina KV (2007) Social identity and conflict: structures, dynamics, and implications. Pal-
grave Macmillan, New York
Latcheva R (2011) Cognitive interviewing and factor-analytic techniques: a mixed method
approach to validity of survey items measuring national identity. Qual Quant 45(6):1175–1199
Meitinger K (2018) What does the general national pride item measure? Insights from web probing.
Int J Comp Sociol 59(5–6):428–450
Miller D (1995) On nationality. Clarendon Press, Oxford England
Moaddel M, Tessler M, Inglehart R (2008) Foreign occupation and national pride: the case of Iraq.
Public Opin Q 72(4):677–705
Mueller JE (1973) War, presidents, and public opinion. Wiley, New York
Müller JW (2007) Constitutional patriotism. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Mylonas H (2013) The politics of nation-building: making co-nationals, refugees, and minorities.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Norris P (2009) The globalization of comparative public opinion research. In: Robinson N,
Landman T (eds) Handbook of comparative politics. Sage, London, pp 522–540
Nussbaum MC (2002) Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. In: Nussbaum MC, Cohen JJ (eds) For love
of country. Beacon, Boston, pp 2–17
Papademetriou DG, Kober U (eds) (2012) Rethinking national identity in the age of migration.
Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC
Pyszczynski T, Jeff G, Sheldon S (2003) In the Wake of 9/11: The Psychology of Terror. W.A ed.
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC
Reeskens T, Wright M (2014) Host-country patriotism among European immigrants: a comparative
study of its individual and societal roots. Ethn Racial Stud 37(14):1–17
Sapountzis A (2008) Towards a critical social psychological account of national sentiments:
patriotism and nationalism revisited. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 2(1):34–50
Schildkraut DJ (2011) Americanism in the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press, New
York
Schlueter E, Meuleman B, Davidov E (2013) Immigrant integration policies and perceived group
threat: a multilevel study of 27 western and eastern European countries. Soc Sci Res 42
(3):670–682
18 G. Ariely

Shayo M (2009) A model of social identity with an application to political economy: nation, class,
and redistribution. Am Polit Sci Rev 103(2):147–174
Sidanius J et al (1997) The interface between ethnic and national attachment: ethnic pluralism or
ethnic dominance? Public Opin Q 61(1):102–133
Sinnott R (2006) An evaluation of the measurement of national, subnational and supranational
identity in cross national surveys. Int J Public Opin Res 18(2):211–223
Smith TW, Kim S (2006) National pride in comparative perspective: 1995/96 and 2003/04. Int J
Public Opin Res 18(1):127–136
Smith TH, Schapiro S (2015) A compilation of documents used to develop the national identity III
questionnaire for the International Social Survey Program in 2014. NORC, Chicago
Solt F (2011) Diversionary nationalism: economic inequality and the formation of national pride. J
Polit 73(03):821–830
Staerklé CC, Sidanius J, Green EGT, Molina LE (2010) Ethnic minority-majority asymmetry in
national attitudes around the world: a multilevel analysis. Polit Psychol 31(4):491–519
Tilly C (1992) Coercion, capital, and European states, AD 990–1992. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA
Verkuyten M, Yildiz AA (2007) National (dis) identification and ethnic and religious identity: a
study among Turkish-Dutch Muslims. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 33(10):1448–1462
Weldon SA (2006) The institutional context of tolerance for ethnic minorities: a comparative,
multilevel analysis of western Europe. Am J Polit Sci 50(2):331–349
Wimmer A (2013) Ethnic boundary making: institutions, power, networks. Oxford University
Press, Oxford
Wimmer A (2017) Power and pride: national identity and ethnopolitical inequality around the
world. World Polit 69(4):605–639
Wright M (2011) Policy regimes and normative conceptions of nationalism in mass public opinion.
Comp Pol Stud 44(5):598–624