Who Is for (or Against) the National Flag? Ideological and Identity‐Based Motivators of Attitudes

Satherley, Nicole; Osborne, Danny; Sibley, Chris G.

doi:10.1111/asap.12169

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results show that the more blindly patriotic an individual, the more strongly that person defends their national identity following an attack on the ingroup symbol. This result is in line with Satherley et al (2018), who showed that attachment to conservative values impacts the desire to protect national symbols (refusal to change the national flag). As well as this desire to protect symbols, our studies show that the most blindly patriotic people react to attacks on national symbols, perpetrated by an ingroup member, by evaluating visible minorities more negatively and thereby increasing positive differentiation between the ingroup and outgroups.…”

Section: Symbol Desecration and Blind Patriotismsupporting

confidence: 88%

Don’t burn our flag: patriotism, perceived threat, and the impact of desecrating a national symbol on intergroup attitudes

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Desecration of national symbols is a recurring societal phenomenon that can lead to highly defensive reactions from some citizens, especially on the part of those expressing a strong attachment to the nation. In this paper, we investigated the effects of blind and constructive patriotism when faced with an ingroup (vs. outgroup) national flag burning on ingroup bias, taking into consideration the mediating role of perceived threat. In two studies (N = 252), the level of blind patriotism predicted stronger ingroup bias—due to more negative evaluation of visible minorities and/or more positive evaluation of the ingroup—when another ingroup member burnt an ingroup (vs. outgroup) flag. This effect was partly mediated by a greater threat to the group’s image perceived by blindly patriotic people when the ingroup (vs. outgroup) flag was burnt (Study 2). Study 2 also highlighted a main effect of the symbol: ingroup bias was stronger when the ingroup (vs. outgroup) flag was burnt. We discuss the implications of our findings with respect to the role played by modes of national attachment and the consequences of desecrating symbols.

show abstract

Section: Symbol Desecration and Blind Patriotismsupporting

confidence: 88%

Don’t burn our flag: patriotism, perceived threat, and the impact of desecrating a national symbol on intergroup attitudes

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bolstering the social identity account of party preferences, research reveals that citizens often adopt the policy positions expressed by preferred political parties, even if those positions run against their prior ideological proclivities. For example, partisan debates over changing the New Zealand national flag led centre‐right National supporters (who previously opposed change) to endorse change, even though conservative ideology was associated with opposition to change (Satherley, Osborne, & Sibley, 2019; Satherley, Yogeeswaran, Osborne, & Sibley, 2018). In the United States, Cohen (2003) found liberal and conservative students supported harsh or generous welfare policies (respectively) when informed that Democrats or Republicans supported those same policies (see also Barber & Pope, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideology before party: Social dominance orientation and right‐wing authoritarianism temporally precede political party support

Satherley

Sibley

Osborne

2020

British J Social Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although an extensive literature on political ideology and party support has developed, studies examining the temporal ordering of these variables remain lacking. We address this oversight and argue that because ideologies provide a framework for understanding the world, they should forecast changes in party support over time. Accordingly, a random intercepts cross-lagged panel model estimated the annual within-person associations between social dominance orientation (SDO), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and party support in nine waves of a New Zealand representative longitudinal panel sample from 2009 to 2017 (N = 31,537). As hypothesized, SDO and RWA predicted within-person increases in support for the centre-right National Party, but decreases in support for the centre-left Labour Party. Reciprocal associations from party support to ideology were approximately half the magnitude. These results provide some of the most robust evidence to date of the oft-assumed, but largely untested, premise that SDO and RWA predict change in party support.

show abstract

“…45 The waving of a white flag to signal surrender or defeat [ 102 : 56, 52 (c)]; the yellow flag flown alone on a sea vessel to signal absence of disease and request for pratique [ 30 (b)] or the display of the rainbow flag as the international symbol of LGBTQ + pride and gay community [ 74 : 553–572, 61 ]. More specifically, national flags present ‘very powerful,’ ‘pervasive’ symbols of ‘national identity’ [ 6 : 177, 169 : 207, 187 : 407, 182 : 85, 91], ‘nationhood’ and ‘unity’ [ 115 : 156].…”

Section: Findings: Animals Racist Words and The Symbolic Legacy Of Ap...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dismissals for Social Media Hate Speech in South Africa: Animalistic Dehumanisation and the Circulation of Racist Words and Images

Cornish

Tranter

2022

Int J Semiot Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social media is changing the way humans create and exchange information. Not all social media communications are, however, civil: the ‘dark side’ of social media cultivates various ‘anti-social’ exchanges including hate speech. Parallel accelerating social media use has been an increase in decision-makers having to consider the legalities of dismissing employees for social media misconduct. This paper through an analysis of first instance South African employee dismissal decisions, identifies an economy of hate within South African workplaces. In 30% of social media misconduct decisions (120/400), employees were dismissed for circulating racialised hate speech. This hate speech took three forms. First was the use of animality discourse and animal metaphors to dehumanise colleagues and employers. Second, employees used words that had specific racist connotations within South Africa. Third, there was the direct deployment of signs or symbols connected with South Africa’s racialised past.

show abstract

Who Is for (or Against) the National Flag? Ideological and Identity‐Based Motivators of Attitudes

Cited by 3 publications

References 42 publications

Don’t burn our flag: patriotism, perceived threat, and the impact of desecrating a national symbol on intergroup attitudes

Don’t burn our flag: patriotism, perceived threat, and the impact of desecrating a national symbol on intergroup attitudes

Ideology before party: Social dominance orientation and right‐wing authoritarianism temporally precede political party support

Dismissals for Social Media Hate Speech in South Africa: Animalistic Dehumanisation and the Circulation of Racist Words and Images

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About