The measurement models for both nationalism and patriotism originally developed by Blank and Schmidt are broadly established. Despite their widespread usage in Germany and beyond, concerns have been voiced about the operationalisation of these nation-related concepts. However, in previous scholarship little attention has been devoted to systematically reviewing the models’ validity. This paper’s major goal is to contribute substantially to research on operationalising national attitudes by thoroughly examining how both nationalism and patriotism are measured and how valid the predominant measurement models really are. By running a confirmatory factor analysis, three measurement models based on the ISSP data of 2003 are replicated and empirically reviewed. By conducting a single-country analysis, the models are tested for the German case, including the evaluation of measurement invariance for both Eastern and Western Germany. Although the selected measurement models yield satisfying results, the paper identifies considerable shortcomings with regard to the way both nationalism and patriotism are empirically approached. It calls for a reconceptualising of the prevailing concept of pride and thus challenges the predominant operationalisation.

This article brings, for the first time, two of the most pivotal distinctions in nationalism studies into extended dialogue: the civic-ethnic distinction (CED) and the nationalismpatriotism distinction (NPD). By reviewing both the evolu-

No abstract

In research on national identity, scholars have developed a wide variety of approaches to measure and better understand this ubiquitous yet complex concept. To date, most of these approaches have been theory-driven, while only a very few have been data-driven. In this article, we aim to contribute to the latter by introducing a new data-driven method that has not been applied yet—that of non-linear principal component analysis (NLPCA). In contrast to other commonly used methods such as factor analysis, NLPCA distinguishes itself by making relatively few assumptions about the data and by allowing for greater flexibility when discovering underlying dimensions of such a complex concept as national identity. Drawing on the 2013 ISSP National Identity module, our analysis focuses on the case of Germany, also taking into account Western and Eastern Germany. Running an NLPCA, we find four dimensions that cover the multidimensionality of national identity: nationalistic attitudes, national pride and attachment, cosmopolitan beliefs, and membership criteria defining national belonging. This article contributes to the empirical debate on measuring national identity by suggesting a new and flexible methodological approach that better grasps the concept’s complexity and which we believe can move empirical research on national identity forward in and beyond Germany.

For more than two decades, the work of Blank and Schmidt has greatly influenced empirical research on national attachment. Distinguishing between nationalism, patriotism, and national identity, it rests on a set of item batteries that have since been taken up by numerous researchers. In this contribution, we argue that the categorization of most of these items is inconsistent with the perception of a nonexpert sample and, in some cases, even in direct opposition to it. To substantiate this claim, we present the results of an online survey of German university students (N = 424) who were tasked with assigning all items from Blank and Schmidt’s 1997 article to one of the three categories. As hypothesized, the majority of respondents assigned only a few items correctly—so few that their overall agreement with Blank and Schmidt was even lower than what would normally be expected from a random distribution. We also asked about item understandability and found that while some items were considered relatively difficult to understand, there was no obvious correlation between these and the miscategorized ones. Taking this discrepancy between academic and nonacademic concept use into account can further our understanding of national attachment and help us refine existing survey techniques.