Nationalism and patriotism: National identification and out‐group rejection

Abstract

It is argued that the differentiation between nationalism and patriotism proposed in the literature can be seen as analogous to judgments based on different types of comparisons: intergroup comparisons with other nations are associated with intergroup behaviour that corresponds to nationalism, whereas temporal or standard comparisons are linked with behaviour that corresponds to patriotism. Four studies (N = 103, 107, 96 and 105) conducted in Germany and Britain examined the hypothesis that national identification and in-group evaluation only show a reliable relationship with out-group rejection under an intergroup comparison orientation. Participants were primed with either an intergroup comparison, a temporal comparison or no explicit comparison orientation. A subsequent questionnaire assessed in-group (own country) identification, in-group evaluation (i.e. national pride) and rejection of national out-groups. Across all four studies, both in-group identification and in-group evaluation show a stronger correlation with out-group derogation if participants were primed with an intergroup comparison orientation compared to temporal and control conditions. Results are discussed with regard to nationalism and patriotism as well as Hinkle and Brown's (1990) model on relational vs. autonomous orientations.

Values, identities and social constructions of the European Union among Turkish university youth

“…N-I identity and values related to rejection of outgroups constituted a package and predicted both positive and negative views of Europe. The finding that The N-I identity and the related value package was better at predicting negative than positive reactions was consistent with research on the association between nationalism and outgroup rejection (Leyens et al, 2003;Mummendey et al, 2001). Furthermore, supporting the view that identities may have social-structural antecedents (Deaux & Martin, 2003), the authoritarian-nationalistic package was related to a low level of urbanization.…”

“…This identity was grouped with ethnocentric, authoritarian, and antisecular values, i.e. values related to rejection of outgroups (Mummendey et al, 2001).…”

“…Thus, consistent with predictions, Kemalists were patriotic. However, the finding that patriotism had a positive loading on the factor including N-I and authoritarian values is against the distinction made between nationalism and patriotism (Mummendey et al, 2001). One explanation for this finding may be the argument that within the Turkish context, patriotism was introduced by the elites as part of a top-down process and consequently had authoritarian overtones (Kadıoglu, 1997;Kasaba, 1999;Keyder, 1999).…”

“…Nationalistic and authoritarian values were associated with discrimination against outgroups (Mummendey, Klink, & Brown, 2001). A distinction between patriotism and nationalism was made (Duckitt & Mphuthing, 1998).…”

National identifications and attitudes towards a “traditional enemy” nation among English children

“…Piaget & Weil, 1951;Jahoda, 1962;Lambert & Klineberg, 1967;. From the perspective of evaluating the findings of these earlier studies, this may be an unfortunate omission because social-psychological research with adults has revealed that the strength of identification with an ingroup can be an important influence on attitudes towards both the ingroup and salient comparison outgroups, with there being systematic differences in the attitudes of low and high identifiers (e.g., Jetten, Spears & Manstead, 2001;Mummendey, Klink & Brown, 2001;Perreault & Bourhis, 1998;Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001). Hence, in the present study, the strength of English children's national identification was assessed in order to ascertain whether there are any changes in the strength of national identification through the course of middle childhood, at the time when their attitudes to other nations are developing.…”