Measuring dimensions of national identity across countries: theoretical and methodological reflections

ABSTRACT

Two principal dimensions are commonly identified within the complex phenomenon of national identity: national boundaries and attachment to the nation. Few studies have sought to examine them together. By their combination, this study is based on the premise of the tension between a more open and inclusive view of the nation, as reflected in civic identity and patriotism, and a more closed and exclusionary conception, as reflected in ethnic identity and nationalism. The findings from a cross-national analysis provide only partial support for a comprehensive model of national identity and are discussed in light of the limitations of the measures.

KEYWORDS:

• National identity
• cross-national analysis
• civic identity
• ethnic identity
• patriotism
• nationalism

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Gal Ariely is senior lecturer at the Department of Politics & Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Employing cross-national analysis and experimental survey research Ariely examine political attitudes and national identity. In addition, his research addresses methodological questions of measurements across different contexts.

Notes

1 Some studies (e.g., Jones & Smith, 2001) distinguish between ascribed and voluntarist dimensions in line with the civic/ethnic divide.

2 ISSP Research Group (2015): International Social Survey Programme: National Identity III–ISSP 2013. National Identity II, 2003, ZA5950 & ZA3910 Data file Version. Distributor: GESIS Cologne, Germany.

3 According to Smith and Schapiro (2015), more than 500 papers based on the first two modules have been published.

4 The Amos 22.0 software package was employed for the estimation.

5 Although cross-country comparison assumes some level of within-country homogeneity, sub-national distinction must also be accounted for (Sarrasin, Green, Berchtold, & Davidov, 2012). This is especially important where the data are drawn from deeply-divided societies and collected via different languages in the same country. Additional analysis was thus conducted for within-country invariance in two deeply-divided societies. Analysis of the differences in countries such as Israel (between Jews [Hebrew questioner] and Muslims [Arabic questioner]) and Estonia (Estonians [Estonian questioner] and Russians [Russian questioner]) indicates sub-national group comparability.

6 While nationalism and patriotism were found to be closely related, previous studies have demonstrated that these two dimensions shape attitudes towards out-groups in divergent ways (De Figueiredo & Elkins, 2003; Wagner et al., 2012). Nationalism but not patriotism being integrally related to out-group devaluation, an additional model was constructed in which nationalism and patriotism predicted negative attitudes towards immigrants (they increase crime rates, take jobs away from people born in the country, are generally good for the country’s economy [r], and bring new ideas and cultures [r].) Analysis of the pooled sample indicated a strong positive coefficient between nationalism and xenophobia (.434) and strong negative coefficient with patriotism (−.365). These results indicate that despite the close link between nationalism and patriotism, the measurement model is commensurate with the findings of previous studies.

7 The ‘To have [country nationality] ancestry’ item was not included in the 1995 Module.

8 The correlation between the original items was positive (r = .099), however.

9 Simple means were employed for the patriotism and nationalism variables.