SELF AND NAHUM

A STUDY 0? THE PSYCHOLOGIBAL NATURE
OF NATIDNAUSM AND PATRIOTISM

THESIS FOR THE DEGREE or PH.0.
MlCHlGAN STAYE UNIVERSITY
KENNETH w. TERHUNE

1 9 6 3

~~~~~

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
801: end lotion
A Study of the Psychological Nature
of Rationalill and Patriotism
presented by

Kenneth I. Icrhune

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Psychology

degree in

Major professor

[hm March 11, 1965

 

0-169

   
     

  

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

..,II- "I,-

.0 till.\- cl.

':l| 1

.'o. 4

- 0-0!

ABSTRACT

SE1? AND NATICN
A STUDY OF TEE PSYCHOIDGICAL NATURE

OF NATIONALISM AND PATRIOTTSM

by Kenneth W. Terhune

Nationalism and patriotism were defined and measured as psychological
variables for this study, and their relations to other variables of hypo-
thesized relevance were examined. Nationalism was defined as an aspiration
of greater strength or power for one's country. To it were related variables
in the categories (a) personality, (b) perceived characteristics of one 's
nation, and (c) self-nation relationships, under which patriotism was in-
cluded. Also examined was the relation of nationalism to an attitude of
International Cooperation.

Data were obtained by questionnaires administered to foreign and
American students. for which separate analyses were made. Nationalism
and several other key variables were assessed by specially devised
Guttmann scales.

Personality characteristics examined were Dogmatism and Status Admir-
ation. In Rokeach's theory Dogmatism includes the "belief in the cause,"
and through this aspect Dogmatism was enacted to correlate positively
with nationalism. Similarly, a characteristic of Status Admiration was
hypothesized as correlating with national status-seeking through national-
ism. Both variables were found to correlate significantly with the National-

ism measure, although only slightly for the Americans.

Kenneth W. Terhune

The individual's perceptions of three national characteristics were
hypothesized as related to nationalism. Nationalism was expected to be
stronger to the extent that the individual perceived his country as (a)
lacking in power, (b) low in status, and (c) threatened from without.
Results showed distinct differences between the foreign and American
students. For the foreign students, only the National Status variable
correlated significantly with Nationalism; for the Americans. only the
power and threat variables were so related. Ammg the latter, Nationalism
was associated with the perception of threat only among those attributing
high power to their country.

An incomplete sentence was used to assess the specific fears of the
subjects for their countries. Analyses showed that the foreign students'
fears applied mainly to internal matters, while the Americans' fears were
more externally oriented. The results thus suggest why Nationalism was
related to external threat only among the Americans. I

The self-nation relationships were delineated through three forms
of “involvement.“ Affective Involvement, or "Patriotism Type A,“ was de-
fined as a sentimental attachment to one 's homeland. Goal Involvement, or
"Patriotism Type B,” represented a motivation to help one '3 country progress.
Ego Involvement was specified as a relationship between the attributes and
achievements of one's country and one 's self-esteem. Also examined was
loyalty to cne's country relative to various other groups of varying in-
elusiveness.

In accordance with the literature, Ego Involvement was expected to
correlate most with Nationalism. Results, however, showed the relationship

to be but slight. Instead, Goal Involvement correlated most with Nationalism

Kenneth W} Terhune
for the foreign students, whereas Affective Involvement correlated most
for the Americans. As hypothesized, professed loyalty to country was found
strongest among those high on Nationalism, among both foreign and American
students.

The final variable examined, an International Cooperation attitude,
was found negligibly to correlate with Nationalism. This seems contrary
to common ideas about the relation of nationalism and 'internationalism.‘

While no hypotheses were made regarding specific nationalities, differ-
ences among the national groups appeared on several variables. Nationalism
scores, for example, tended to be higher among students from.underdeve10ped
countries. In contrast, national differences were negligible on the Inter-
national Cooperation variable. Results are suggestive, therefore, for fur-
ther research on national differences.

A review of the detailed findings led to the conclusion that the goals
of contemporary nationalism seem to be prosperity and recognition, rather
than raw national power. Hence, nationalism is strongest among the have-not
nations. American nationalism seems to be a Special case, defensive in
nature and associated with fear of losing the status and prosperity which
the United States enjoys. Personality factors also appear to be involved.
Regarding international relations, nationalism did not seem to be necess-
arily incompatible with international harmony.

Approved 4‘ V) Wadi/COMO»

Signature of Major Professor

Date M41?" 2/4 /?6:

 

SELF AND NATION
A STUDY OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NATURE

OF NATIONALISM AND PATRIOTISM

J
b

k

l.
Kenneth W2 Terhune

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1963

flu
\_6\

I’

I,

.; \k 1
U! ~92

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer gratefully expresses his appreciation to those whose
efforts contributed to this study. These include: Dr. Frederick B.
waisanen, chairman of the Guidance Committee; Dr. Harold H. Anderson
and Dr. Eugene H. Jacobson, Committee members; Dr. Donald M. Johnson,
'who cheerfully consented to a last-minute request to serve on the examine
ing committee; Dr. Harold H. Anderson and‘Dr. Gladys I. Anderson, who
generously allowed me the use of their office facilities; my Spartan
Village neighbors, whose efforts with the mail questionnaires were in-
dispensable; my foreign student subjects, whose interest made the study
possible; and my wife Joan, whose assistance and moral support were un-

ceasing.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY . . . . .

The Literature on Nationalism and Patriotism.

Theoretical Concerns. . . ... . . .
Nationalism...........

National Consciousness. . . .

Belief in National Superiority.

Belief in a National Cause. .
Summary...........
Patriotism...........
Identification . . . . . . . . .

Psychoanalytic Interpretations .

Research Related to Nationalism and Patriotism. .

Nationalism-Patriotism and its Manifestations.

Measurement of National Identification . .

Identification as National hvolvement.

Identification via the Self Concept

Identification as Shared Values . .

II. FORIMMT ION 0F. Tm PROBIEM. O I C O O O O O

The Conceptualization of Nationalism. . . .

Relation of Nationalism to Other Variables.

Personality Variables . . . . . . . . .

Dogmtism . . O . O O . . O . C . .
Status Admiration. e e e e e e e e e

Perceived Characteristics of Nation . .

iii

PAGE

N

mum

10

t:

l7
19

2h
25
26
27
28
29
31
31
31
34

CHAPTER

Power................
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Threat Orientation . . . . . . . . .
Relationships of Self to Nation . . . .
Affective Involvement . . . . . . . .
Goal Involvement. . . . . . . . . . .

Ego Involvement .. . . . . . . . . .

Differentiation of the Forms of Involvement

Forms of Involvement and Nationalism. . . .

Loyalty..................

Nationalism and Internationalism . . . . . . . .

III..POPULATION AND SAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . .
SamplingProcedure . . . ._. . . . . . . . .
Foreign Students . . . . . . . . . . . .

American Students . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-Responders: Qualitative Information . . .
Quantitative Comparison of Samples . . . . .
Foreign Students —— Distribution by Area

Foreign Students -- Sources of Financial

Support

Foreign Students -- length of Stay in U.S. . . .

All Subjects -— Distribution by Sex . . . . .

All Subjects -- Distribution by marital Status

All Subjects -- Distribution by Age . . . . .

All Subjects —- Academic Specialties . . . . .

All Subjects -- Occupation of Fathers . . . .

iv

PAGE

34
35
35

39
b0

41
1+3

45
1+8

35

51

53
53

55
57

58
59

CHAPTER

IV. METHODS EMPLOYED . . . . . . . . . . .
Scales Developed . . . . . . . . . . .
General Procedure . . . . . . . .
Nationalism.Scale . . . . . . . .
Goal Involvement Scale . . . . . .

Ego Involvement Scale . . . . . .
Affective Involvement Scale . . .
International Cooperation Scale .
Personality variables . . . . . . . .
Dogmatism . . . . . . . . . . . .
Status Admiration . . . . . . . .
Perceived Characteristics of Country .
National.Power . . . . . . . . . .
National Status . . . . . . . . .
Threat to Country .. . . . . . .

Relation 63 SSE to Nation.) 0 e e e e

CorreSponding Characteristics of’Nation and Self

Loy a lty O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Other Measures . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nbaning of’Nationalian . . . . . .
Aspects liked . . . . . . . . . .

V} RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Meaning of Nationalism . . . . . . . .

Relation of Nationalism to Personality
Nationalism and Dogmatism . . . .

Nationalism and Status Admiration

PAGE

63
63
63
68
7o

72
72
7a
71.
7a
75
75
75
75
77

78
78
78
80

81
82
83

CHAPTER PAGE

Nationalism and Perceived Characteristics of One's Nation
NationalPower...................
NationalStatus ..................
ThreattoCountry .................

Nationalism and the Relationships of Self to Nation . .
Differences in the Forms of Involvement . . . . . .

Intercorrelations of the Forms of Involvement . .
Form of Involvement and Goal Achievement Milieu .
Form of Involvement and Cultural Milieu . . . . .
Form of Involvement and Identification . . . . .
Form of Involvement and Dogmatism . . . . . . .
Form of Involvement and National Status . . . . .
Form of Involvement and Other Variables . . . . .
Form of Involvement and Nationalism . . . . . . . .
Loyalty and Nationalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nationalism and Internationalism . . . . . . . . . . .
Nationalism and International Cooperation .. . . . .
Relations Between Two Kinds of Internationalism . .
Internationalism and Forms of Involvement . . . . .

A Multiple Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . .

Differences byNationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nationalism ....... ............
InvolvementwithCountry . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Internationalism ...6. ............
Perceived Characteristics of Country . . . . . . . .

Hierarchyofloyalties............o.

vi

84
84

85

89

92
92

95
96

98
98

101
101
101
101
103
103
105
105

108
108

CHAPTER

VI. DBCIBS ION O O O O O O O O O O 0

Interpretation of the Findings

What is Nationalism?

Nat ionalism's Function

Nationalism and Personality .

Nationalism: Obstacle to International Harmony?

The Results in the Perspective of Extent Literature

Contemporary Nationalism

Patriotism: Different From Nationalism? . .

Measures of Nationalism . . . .

Nationalism and Identification

Loyalty........
Limit ations of the Study

The Samples . . . .
Instruments . . . .
National Power .
Dogmatism . . .

Threat Measure .

0

Identification Measure

Involvement with Country

VIIQSWOOOOOOOOOOOOO

APMDICBQQQOOOOOOOOOOO

vii

§§EEEEEE§

118

119
119
120
120
121
121
121
121
122
123
121+
130
136

TABLE

9.

10.

11.

13.
1a.
15.
16.

17.

IJST OF TABLES

Response rates among foreign students . . . . . . . . .
Distribution of foreign students by area . . . . . . .
Governmental financial support for foreign students in

theUnitedStateSeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Governmental support for M.S.U. responders and

responders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Proportions of foreign students who have been in the

United States over two years . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PrOportions of males in samples and among foreign stup

dentsintheUnitedStates eeeeeeeeeeeeee

non-

Distribution of responders and non-responders by

maritalstatus....................

Preportions of individuals under age 25 among subjects

and among foreign students in the United States . . . .

Distribution of foreign and American subjects by field

of study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Distribution of subjects by father's occupation
The Nationalism Scale . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Goal Involvement Scale . . . . . . . . . .
The Ego Involvement Scale . . . . . . . . . .
The Affective Involvement Scale . . . . . . .
The International Cooperation Scale . . . . .
The Status Admiration Scale . . . . . . . . .

Average ratings of nationalism on the Semantic

Differ-

ent 18-1 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O C 0

viii

PAGE

51

54

55

56

57

58

59

. 73

TABLE PAGE
18. Contingency tables of Nationalism.and National Status
scores for foreign students . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
19. Nationalism and external threat: sentence completions 87
20. Fears for their country mentioned by foreign and
American students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
21. Inter-correlations of forms of involvement with country 92
22. Correlations of forms of involvement with liking of
the Cultural Milieu in one's country . . . . . . . . 94
23. Affective Involvement and rating of Cultural Milieu
bycountry..................... 95
24. Correlations of forms of involvement with.nogmatism.. 97
25. Correlations of forms of involvement with National
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
26. Correlations of forms of involvement, overall liking
of country, and loyalty to country . . . . . . . . . 98
27. Correlations of involvement and Nationalism . . . . 99
28. Correlations of Nationalism with loyalty to country 100
29. Relationships between Nationalism and relative loyal-
ty to country vs. rest of world . . . . . . . . . . . 100
30. Relationships between Internationalism types A and B 102
31. Form of involvement with country and Internationalism
types A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
32. Countries ranked by average Nationalism scores . . . 104
33. Ranks by country on forms of involvement . . . . . . 105

3A. Ranks by country on International COOperation Scale . 107

TABLE PAGE

35. Assessment of country on different variables . . . . . 109

36. Hierarchies of loyalty by country . . . . . . . . . . 109

37. Relevance of certain variables to Nationalism . . . . 128

FIEURE

1.

LIST OF FIGURES

Focus of the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesized scattergram relating nationalism and Dog-
matism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXpected relation of nationalism to the perceptions of
external threat and power of one's nation . . . . . . .
Expected relationship between Internationalism types

”A" and 'B” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relation between Nationalism and External Threat for
Americans perceiving their country high and low in power
Relation between foreign students' Goal Involvement
scores and rating of their countries' Goal Achievement
Milieu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal Involvement and rating of Coal Achievement Milieu
bycmmUy .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ..

Interrelationships of several variables and Nationalism

PAGE

28

33

36

93

93
113

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX

A.

EXplanatory letter Enclosed with Foreign Student

Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Questionnaire Used in the Study . . . . . . . . . .
Scale Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Special American Versions of the Nationalism, Ego

Involvement, and Affective Involvement Scales . . .
Analysis of the Non-Scale Items . . . . . . . . . .
Short Form of the Dogmatism Scale Used in This Study
Coding Scheme for Threat Analysis . . . . . . . . .

Correlation matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xii

PAGE

137
138
IAS

154
156
162
163
165

CHAPTER I

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

In this research an attempt is made partially to fill in a rather large
gap in empirical knowledge of the nature and meaning of nationalism and
patriotism. These phenomena are here conceptualized psychologically, to
be measured and related to other psychological factors of anticipated re-
levance. Using as subjects American and foreign college students, scales
were developed to measure nationalism and three forms of personal involve-
ment with country, with patriotism.subsumed under the latter. Nationalism
was then related to the forms of involvement, as well as to psychological
characteristics of the individual and characteristics of the nation as per-
ceived by the individual. Finally, the relation of nationalism to inter-
nationalism was investigated. Correlation analysis was employed empirical-
ly to establish the meanings of the variables and to examine hypothesized

relationships.

The literature on Nationalism and Patriotism

NMch interest has been generated over the years in the subjects of
nationalism.and patriotism, as they have gained the attention of repre-
sentatives of all the social sciences, including historians, political
scientists, sociologists, and social psychologists. The signal importance
attributed to these phenomena is revealed by such statements as "Nationalism.
and patriotism are unquestionably among the most powerful.motivations in the
'world today" (Krech and Crutchfield, 1948, p. 589) and "There can be no

doubt that nationalism is by far the strongest social force of our time”

(Hertz, 1941, p. 1409). Their treatment, however, has been considerably
less through empirical research than through discursive analysis, which
has seldom been raised out of the morass of definition. "In one sense,"
stated Whitaker, 'the study of the subject is itself a study in definition
and meaning” (1961, p. 3). Because conceptualization has usually included
what seem to be psychologically different phenomena, confusion results.

In this chapter, extant theory and research on nationalism and patriot-
ism will be reviewed, to prepare for the following chapter in which the prob-

1cm for study will be formulated.

Theoretical Concerns

Nationalism

While nationalism has been described variously as a process or social
movement, a feeling or emotion, a motivation, a "social force,“ an objective,
a means (Whitaker, 1961), most viewpoints as to its nature can be encompass-
ed by describing it as an ideology, a set of beliefs which tend to appear
in most movements called nationalistic. These beliefs generally focus on
the nation as a social object, and on its relation to other nations. National-
ism is usually considered a modern phenomenon, having developed within the
last 150 years (Kohn, 1955; Kedourie, 1960). However, as Kohn pointed out,
it is modern only in the sense that it emphasizes or exaggerates beliefs
about the nation which originated with the ancient Hebrews. These are (a)
the emphasis on a common stock of memory of the past and of hopes for the
future, (b) the idea of the chosen people, and (c) national messianism,

taking the form of belief in a messianic mission, which becomes a symbol of

national pride, a call to greatness and overreaching power (Kohn, 1955, p.11).

The modern counterparts of these beliefs will.now be discussed as (a) national

consciousness, (b) beliefs in the superiority and special endowment of one's

own nation, and (c) beliefs in the great cause of one‘s nation.

National consciousness. National consciousness represents a perception

of or striving for a distinct national identity, synonyms for which are “na-

tional personality," "national character," or "cultural distinctiveness.'l

Claims to such distinctiveness usually emphasize that (a) certain character-

istics are shared in common by all members of the nation and (b) these

characteristics are unique, peculiar to the particular nation. Specific

manifestations have been mentioned by Hayes (1961), Kedourie (1961), Kohn

(1955), Shafer (1961), Wirth (1936), and Znanieki (1952), as sunmiarized

below:

(a).

(b) e
(c).

(d) .
(e).

(f)e

Common and distinct histogy--belief that the members of the na-
tion have the same ancestors, who have worked together, suffered
together, fought together and died together to build the nation.
Common cg§t0m3,_manner; traditions

Common idegls and valgg§7--may include notion that the nation
was founded and built upon certain ideals, e.g. "life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.”

Common langgage

Common territor1--usua1ly placed in a historical centext, as
the land which the forefathers cultivated and defended, and in
which lie their remains. It is maintained that the land in-
habited by the people belongs to them.

Cgmmon 1iterature--inc1uding folk tales and lore.

‘While these beliefs have long been held among peoples of the world,
in modern nationalism they tend to be greatly stressed, with the intention
of achieving national solidarity, increasing cohesiveness to unite behind
some national cause. In the extreme, zealots combine fact with fiction to
produce a national mythology. .A glorious history may be portrayed, in which
courageous ancestors defend the motherland against invading infidels, na-
tional saints and heros are exemplified as ”the ideal Frenchman," I'the true
German,“ etc., and the people are claimed to share ”common blood' in a myth
of racial unity. Such beliefs are inculcated in the children, often through
the educational system. Finally to increase its saliency, national unity
is expressed through symbols, patriotic songs and national.holidays. Such
are the analyses given by Gredzins (1951, 1956), Hedourie (1960), and
Znaniecki (1952). The manifestations of these beliefs may appear at any
time in a nation's history, but they seem to be eSpecially important in the
formation of a new nation. E. C. Hughes, in a personal conversation with
Strauss (1959), suggested that the forming of a new nation from.a hetero-
genous population, as in Africa, is especially likely to involve creation
of a national mythology.

Sometimes national uniqueness may be so glorified that the goal of
purity and perfection is sought. The ideals of the nation are described
as important to all of humanity (Russell, 1917), and the peculiarities,
the idiosyncrasies which distinguish nations are held as things holy, to
be fostered and preserved so that by each nation reaching the perfection
of its kind, universal harmony can be attained. This requires that the
national culture, including language, be cleansed of foreign secretions
and borrowings. Kedourie (1960) described the German.nation.as a supreme

example of this striving. The claim of the German philosophers, he said,

was that "to Speak an original language is to be true to one's character,
to maintain one's identity" (p. 67). He quoted Fichte as saying, "The
separation of the Germans from the other European nations is based on Na-
ture--through a common language and through common national characteristics
which unite the Germans, they are separate from.the others" (p. 68).

Be ’ ti 6 t . It has been shown that the extreme
form of national consciousness is a glorification of that which is perceived
as unique in one's nation. From.here it is but a small step to make compari-
sons favorable to one's own nation and unfavorable to others, thus judging
one's own country as superior. Halbwachs (1958), in fact, considered this
to be virtually a universal phenomenon. He maintained that, in general,
every nation selectively perceives only those attributes in which it excels
other nations. In a word, this is ethnocentrism. It ranges from merely
disregarding other nations to outright rejection of the values, ideals,
mores, and goals of other countries as inferior to those of the homeland.
Grodzins (1956), Hertz (1991), and Shafer (1961) all mentioned these beliefs
as characteristic of nationalism. Icheiser (1941) distinguished between
vociferous rejection of other nations and the more unconscious acceptance
of national.values because they ez:e "right” and ”good.” Only the latter,
which he considered more dangerous, did he label ”ethnocentrism." but general-
ly they seem to be the same. Icheiser also noted the cognitive element of
nationalism in the form of distorted stereotypes of other nations, and the
attribution of moral motives to the actions of one's own nation while "see-
ing through" the actions of other nations to recognize their base and sel-
fish motives.

The full flavor of this belief in national superiority is captured in

the ideas of Fichte, as presented by Kedourie: ”...only the German, the

original man who is not enmeshed in a lifeless, mechanical organization,
considers Fichte, 'really has a people and is entitled to count on one,
and he alone is capable of real and rational love for his nation'“
(1960, p. 67).

Belief in a national cause. The characteristic which is most com-
monly attributed to nationalism is the belief in and pursuit of some na-
tional cause. A simple analysis of this aspect is difficult because it
involves a complexity of goals and underlying motivations. Essentially,
however, the goals may be viewed as the aim to raise or preserve the na-
tion's power or status. Generally the cause is a call to action, the
repercussions of which are very likely to be felt by other nations. The
saliency of this characteristic of nationalism probably eXplains its in-
terest to most writers on the subject. The following analysis, there-
fore, is based on the discussion of several authors, including Braunthal
(1961), Fellner (19u9), Grodzins (1951, 1956), Hertz (1941), Kedouriel
(1960), Kohn (1955), Mergenthau (1961), Mbrray (1959). Russell (1917),
Shafer (1961), Wirth (1936), and Znaniecki (1952).

In broadest terms, underlying the devotion to the national cause
is the conviction that the nation has the right to be autonomous, to de-
termine its own fate, that it need not depend on nor be subservient to
other nations, economically or politically. This belief is commonly
held with distrust or animosity toward other nations which represent
actual or potential blocks to such sepirations. It is for this reason
that nationalism is often regarded as a divisive force, as for example,
by Braunthal (1961), Kohn (1955) , and Morgenthau (1961).

The causes espoused in nationalism may be categorized into two

general types, one based solely on national consciousness, the other on
beliefs in national superiority as well. The former pursues the doc-
trine that humanity is naturally divided into nations because of the dis-
tinct characteristics of different groups of peOples. It therefore be-
hooves each of these groups to form its own national self-government,

the only legitimate form of government (Kedourie, 1960; Kohn, 1955).

This is essentially what Mbrgenthau (1961) described as "the old national-
ism.” He added that the doctrine holds that the nation is the ultimate
point of reference for political loyalties and actions, beyond which it
recognizes that there are other nationalisms with similar and equally
justifiable goals. ‘With this ideology rooted in national consciousness,
the cause is manifested in two different sub-types:

(a)‘Q9§l3 to attain sovereignty. A group whose members perceive
themselves as unique and sharing common characteristics may be
subjugated to another group, e.g. as a colony or province. By
proclaiming their identity from the dominating group, they de-
mand and fight for their right to establish themselves as a
separate, independent nation.

(b) Ggal: to preserve national values. An already independent na-
tion may perceive its autonomy, its solidarity, its national
values threatened. Such threats may appear not only in the
form of a military conqueror, but also in the form of infiltra-
tion such that traditional values will be lost. The cause is
to preserve the traditional values, to eliminate the contamina-
tion of foreign influences. Fear of communist subversion in
America, fear of "westernization" in Africa and Japan, fear of

"non-Nordic” values in Hitler Germany are examples. The cause

then is to maintain the traditional values, to defend against
the contamination of foreign influences-~in essence, to pre-
serve the identity of the nation, and possibly to prevent loss
of status.

The second major category of causes includes those based on the be-
lief that not only does one's group share unique characteristics and
values, but that the group is superior to other people. This seems most
likely when the group already exists as an independent nation, with well-
established national institutions, symbols, and so on. By the proclaimed
inherent superiority of its peoples, the rights of the nation are believed
to override the rights of other nations. This belief assumes a religious
form, as the nation is deified, endowed with a glorious mission, and is
supported by the conviction that it is on the side of God, history, or
destiny. The cause thus is to raise the nation to the heights of grand—
eur which destiny has provided for it. This coincides with whathorgen-
thau (1961) called ”the new'nationalism," in which the doctrine is that
”the nation is but the starting point of a universal.mission whose ulti-
mate goal reaches to the confines of the political world.” It ¥c1aims
‘ for one nation and one state the right to impose its own values and stan-
dards of action upon all other nations” (p. 183). Goals of power and
prestige are sought, usually in the form of territorial eXpansion. The
full flavor of this expression of nationalism is eloquently captured in
the words of Senator Albert J. Beveridge, in a Speech made before Con-
gress in 1900:

God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic
people for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-
contemplation and self-admiration. No! He has made us the mas-

ter organizers of the world to establish system where chaos
reigns. He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm

the forces of reaction throughout the earth. 'He has made us
adept in government that we may administer government among
savage and senile peoples. were it not for such a force as
this the world would relapse into barbarism.and night. And of
all our race He has marked the American people as his chosen
nation to finally lead in the regeneration of the world. This
is the divine mission of.America, and it holds for us all the
profit, all the glory, all the happiness possible to men. ‘we
are trustees of the world's progress, guardians of its righteous
peace. The judgment of the Master is upon us: "Ye have been
faithful over a few things; I will make you ruler over many
things."

It is apparent that this belief in the superiority of one's own na-
tion precludes any possibility of internationalism.based on the accept-
ance of the equality and brotherhood of all men. Indeed, the cause of
the nation feeds on hostility toward the outgroup, as expressed in a
poem.by the German poet Arndt, who‘wrote that in the German fatherland
"...every Frenchman is called enemy land] every German is called friend“
(Kedourie 1960, p. 69).

‘Whether or not causes of this nature are the natural outcome of
other eXpressions of nationalism is a moot_point. 'Wirth (1936) suggested
this possibility, as did Mbrgenthau (1961), who maintained that the only
obstacle preventing today's oppressed from.becoming tomorrow's oppressors
is a balance of power. The point is not the concern of only the historian
and student of social movements, for the psychologist may question
whether there is an underlying continuity of motivation.

An extreme form of nationalism based on superiority notions arises
when the nation comes to be identified with the body politic, the state.
The goal of glory for the nation becomes the exaltation of the state,
which demands the supreme loyalty of the people. While claiming to re-
present the peOple as a whole the state demands that self-interest and

loyalty to primary groups be subordinated to the cause of the state. The

10

individual is encouraged to submerge his own identity in that of the na-
tion. As Kedourie put it, the belief is that "the destiny of man is
accomplished, and his freedom.realized by absorbtion within the state, be-
cause only through the state does he attain coherence and acquire reality”
(1960, p. 67). Fellner commented similarly on the national cause:

By creating the ideal nation, which is greater and nobler than

any one individual in the nation, every individual felt greater

and nobler himself; and he gains strength and self-importance

from raising himself up to the deity he made for himself. And

serving the allapowerful 'God,‘ the servant adopts the master,

and himself becomes godlike. By sacrificing himself with en-

thusiasm.he experiences the thrill of being in unity with the

mighty one: in his sense of union he enjoys the power of being

divine.

(Fell-hero 19,499 p0 270)

A byaproduct of extreme nationalism seems to be the explicit expres-
sion of codes ornorms of behavior for the individual citizen vis-a-vis
his country. This was suggested by Guetzkow,1 who maintained that the
bounds of loyalty and disloyalty come to be sharply defined.

It seems that at this point the belief in the superiority of the na-
tion goes beyond any moral considerations. Allegiance becomes unquestion-
ed, and as Russell (1917) pointed out, one's nation is always to be sup-
ported in any quarrel, no matter how the quarrel may have originated.

This is the philosophy that ”might makes right" and "my country, right or
wrong.’I

Summagy. There is little evidence that a less variegated and more
precise definition of nationalism has been established by even the most

recent thinkers on the subject. Rather, each new idea seems to have been

added to an ever-expanding omnibus conceptualization of the phenomenon.

 

1. Guetzkow, H. Symposium.on "Psychology and the Study of Political
Behavior,“ Michigan State University, Feb. 24, 1962.

11

To illustrate this tendency, and as a review of considered aspects of
nationalism, Shafer's definition is presented below; He offered the
following conditions and beliefs; not all are claimed to be necessary,
but nationalism is allegedly stronger the more of these that are present.

1. A certain defined (often.vaguely) unit of territory (whether
possessed or coveted).

2. Some common cultural characteristics such as language (or widely
understood language), customs, manners, and literature (folk tales and
lore are a beginning). If an individual believes he shares these, and
wishes to continue sharing them, he is usually said to be a member of
the nationality.

3. Some common dominant social (as Christian) and economic (as
capitalistic or recently communistic) institutions.

4. A common independent or sovereign government (type does not matter)
or the desire for one. The "principle" that each nationality should be
separate and independent is involved here.

5. A belief in a common history (it can be invented) and in a common
origin (often mistakenly conceived to be social in nature).

6. A love or esteem for fellow nationals (not necessarily as indi-
viduals) e

7. A devotion to the entity (however little comprehended) called the
nation, which embodies the common territory, culture, social and economic
institutions, government, and the fellow nationals, and which is at the
same time (whether organism or not) more than their sum.

8. A common pride in the achievements (often the military more than
the cultural) of this nation and a common sorrow in its tragedies (parti-
cularly its defeats).

9..A disregard for or hostility to other (not necessarily all) like
groups, eSpecially if these prevent or seem to threaten the separate na-
tional existence.

10. A hope that the nation will have a great and glorious future
(usually in territorial expansion) and become supreme in some way (in
'world power if the nation is already large).

(Shafer, 1961, p. 5)

12

Patriotism

Patriotism.has been given less attention than nationalism.in the
literature, and seldom is a clear distinction between the two concepts
made. Indeed, those works eSpousing the virtues of patriotism.(e.g.
Stewart and Desjardins, 1923; Wingfield-Stratford, 1913) proclaimed be-
liefs about the homeland which have been discussed in the above review
of nationalism. The question presents itself, consequently, is there a
difference between the two?

A common definition of patriotism is that it is love and devotion
to one's homeland, usually involving loyalty to its institutions and zeal
for its defense (English and English, 1958; Jones, 1923; Hayes, 1961;
Kedourie, 1960). It is sometimes mentioned as a component of nationalism.
Osgood (1960), for example, stated that nationalism.includes ”intense
patriotism." Hayes maintained, in effect, that patriotism.p1us national
consciousness equals nationalism, while Kedourie added the ingredient
of xenophobia to produce nationalism.

‘writers do not always make clear their meaning of "homeland." Some
mean quite literally the land or territory belonging to the nation, while
others use the term in the broader sense of "country" or “nation." Firth
(1958), for example, discussed the patriotism of primitive societies as
involving a strong tie with the territory on which they have shared com»
mon residence and ownership. The cathexis with which the land is invest-
ed is revealed by the fact that travelling natives when near death fre-
quently express desire to be buried on their own land, and a tribe will
fiercely fight back an enemy so as to allow a chief to die on home soil.
Such sentiments are not dissimilar to those found in more advanced socie-

ties.

13

An effective tie with one's native soil, traditions, culture, and
compatriots was presented as one aspect of nationalism by Bruanthal
(1961), Kohn (1955), and Shafer (1961). They did not, however, give
this the separate label of ”patriotism? Their discussions were in much
the same vein as those by Morray (1959), Russell (1917), Stewart and Des-
jardins (1923), and Wingfield-Stratford (1913), who, however, portended
to discuss "patriotism" and did not use the term “nationalism." Finally
to confuse the picture, Grodzins (1951, 1956) and Halbwachs (1958) dis-
cussed patriotism as embodying the aSpects mentioned in our analysis of
nationalism, but did not mention Specifically any affective components.

Semantic problems aside, running through literature is the view
that there endsts an affective tie between some individuals and their
country, which seems to be a phenomenon distinct from national conscious-
ness, beliefs in the superiority of one's country, and adherence to a
national cause. For now, we shall refer to this as patriotism.

Patriotism has not been elaborated upon by the writers, except to
specify some of the aspects of the homeland which come to have affective

meaning to the individual.

1. The 1gnd, the "native soil." This includes the pleasant associa-
tions with the land where one has lived--its beauties and its
products.

2. One's compatriots. This has been described as feeling of
solidarity, eSprit de corps, group morale.

3. Traditions, ipstitutions. Included here would be customs,
mores and other familiar practices of one 's homeland.

Associated with the love of country is a strong desire to protect
it when threatened from without, and a sense of duty or obligation to
one 's compatriots. Generally, this affective tie is described as rela-

tively independent of the government of the nation, but involves the

14

more familiar, intimate, personal association with one's country. 'When
a nation is threatened in wartime, this appeal seems to arouse more zeal
for defense than does the cause of preserving a certain form of govern-
ment or economic system, abstractions which have less personal meaning
for the individual. Wingfield-Stratford (1913) also noted that the appeal
of patriotism.is such that it is relatively independent of principles of
justice or devotion to the abstract cause of humanity. Patriotism.does
not, however, seem to be necessarily incompatable with such notions.
Patriotism.also has its extremes, as extolled by zealots. Thus for
Wingfield-Stratford (1913) patriotism "is but the highest form of love
for a created person" (p. xviii) which bids a man "to love his country
as he loves his God, with all his heart, and with all his mind, and with
all his soul, and with all his strength" (p. xxxiv). Such fervor leads
men to say as did Horace, ”Sweet it is and fitting to die for one's
country," or with the eloquence of RobeSpierre: "0h, sublime people!
.Accept the sacrifice of my whole being. Happy is the man who is born
in your midst; happier is he who can die for your happiness" (quoted by
Kohn, 1955, p. 27). Horray (1959) added a somber note by suggesting that
in such patriotic passion it may be sweet and fitting to kill for one's
country. At this extreme point one finds it difficult to discern a differ-
ence between patriotism and'what were previously described as the extremes
of nationalismn
‘Does patriotism.necessarily beget aggression toward other nations?
As more affective attachment to homeland there seems to be no necessary
component of hostility any more than affection for one's family leads
one to aggress against other families. Thus, Stewart and Desjardins

(1923) considered affection for homeland to be "static" patriotism.

15

(Their "dynamic" patriotism is more like nationalism as discussed earlier).

Agentificatigp

A mechanism mentioned repeatedly in analyses both of nationalism
and patriotism is that of the individual's identification with his home-
land, in the sense that to a certain extent he experiences the life of
the nation as if it were his own. Several writers (Bruanthal, 1961;
Grodzins, 1956; Krech and Crutchfield, 1948 ; Mbrray, 1959; Russell, 1917)
considered identification in the more'limited meaning of gaining pride,
pleasure, satisfaction from.the positive accomplishments of the nation
and of fellow nationals. Krech and Crutchfield suggested thsat _a___ll
citizens experience identification with the power and prestige of their
nation, which gives them.vicarious satisfaction for their own thwarted
personal needs for power and prestige. Grodzins (1956) maintained, hows
ever, that identification that is based only on the satisfaction of needs
is delicate, likely to fade once the nation fails to produce a satisfactory
balance of gratifications.

A more all-encompassing form.of identification.was mentioned by
Fellner (l9h9), Grodzins (1952, 1956), Kedourie (1960), Kohn (1955),
and Shafer (1961). Here, the person gives up his individuality by
psychologically submerging his identity into that of the nation. The
name of the nation becomes intimately woven with the self, the individual
makes the nation's goals his own goals, and in so doing experiences his
own fulfillment. He no longer feels himself as a unique entity, but
rather at one with a common personality. His personal doubts are dis-
sipated as the national cause give direction and purpose to his life.

The nation's symbols and achievements are his own, as are its sorrows

16

and defeats.

This relation of individual to nation is that which is encouraged,
if not demanded in the extreme statism form.of nationalism described ears
lier. It has often been considered one of the general characteristics
of nationalism. Kohn, for example, maintained that in modern.nationalism,
the masses feel "their own life--cultura11y, politically or economically--
to depend upon the fate of the national body" (1955, p. 10). Benda went
so far as to make identification in the form of pride the central aspect
of nationalism; the individual.wants his nation powerful "far less on
account of the material results which will accrue...than on account of
the glory, the prestige which the nation will acquire" (1961, pp. 26—27).
This, Benda asserted, is a far stronger passion than self-interest.

This submerging of the individual's identity into the national
cause clearly resembles the psychology of the ''true believer" described
by Hoffer (1958), the Iauthoritarianpersonality" of Fromm (19hl) and
Adorno et a1 (1950), and the “closed mind” of Rokeach (1960). All of
these described the insecure, self-hating, doubt-ridden individual who
seeks to escape from.himself. Such a person will seek to regain for him-
self power and self-esteem by uniting himself with some cause, particular-
ly any cause which offers power and prestige of a superordinate group.
Nationalism.may conveniently provide such a cause.

Both Grodzins (1951) and Guetzkow (1955) have distinguished the
two forms of identification we have discussed. The first, in which the
individual identifies with the nation because he gains satisfaction from
its accomplishments was considered an "indirect nation-person tie" by
Grodzins, and “loyalty as means to other ends" by Guetzkow. The second

form, in which the individual identifies so completely that he regards

17

his own fate as completely entwined with the destiny of the nation is
labeled a "direct nationaperson tie“ by Grodzins, or "patriotism as re-
ligion.” Guetzkow considered this a ”loyalty as end value," an autono-
mous need in which the individual's identification continues although

the nation may no longer satisfy his needs. Whether these manifestations
are discrete forms or simply different levels on a continuum remains a

matter for empirical determination.

Psychoanalytic lgtegpretatigns

A few writers have endeavored to analyze the individual's psycho-
logical relation to his homeland using the concepts of the clinical
psychologist, usually based in Freudian theory. Appel viewed chauvin—
istic nationalism, isolationism, and demands for sovereignty as basically
pathological manifestations. In all of these he saw too much influence
of the family, childhood, and the past. His main concern was on striv-
ings for sovereignty, which he interpreted as “a regressive drive for
the security of the old, the accustomed, the familiar" (1945, p. 360).
Emphasis on sovereignty was likened to the condition of manic delusions
of grandeur and narcissism. .Appel asserted that it is atavistic, anach—
ronistic, and unrealistic because in today's world nations are by necessity
interdependent, and no nation has absolute power over its own destiny nor
can it live in isolation.

Patriotism has come under the focus of Freudians Jones (1923),
Roheim (1950) and Feldman (1955). Jones delineated three sources of
patriotism, as follows:

a. Eeglings abggt the self--Inc1uded here are self-love and self-

interest. The self becomes identified with one's fellow citi-

zens and the state is the magnified self. Jones feels that
this is the most important source of patriotism.

18

b. Feelings about the mother-AHere, the nation becomes identified
with the mother, and is referred to in the feminine gender.
Names such as ”la dolce France" and 'Bharat Hata" (Mother In-
dia) and "Mother Russia” are vivid examples.

 

c. Feelings about the father--Patriarchica1 conceptions identify
the head of state with the father, and the country itself is
the father's land. Jones considers this the least important
source of patriotism.

 

It was Jones' suggestion that the type of patriotism common in different
countries will be related to the types of family relationships character-
istic of each.

Roheim was more exclusive in putting the "earth goddess” at the
core of all patriotism. The land is the symbol of the mother. By being
a member of the nation the individual masters the Oedipus complex.and
identifies with the father. He then owns the land and has a right to
it. ”To be separated from the nation is a castration threat and means
being guilty of oedipal desires" (1950, p. 15). In this interpretation,
a nation's claim to greatness is a censored representation of the claim
to be truly masculine and virile. And while the nation or ingroup sym»
bolizes the security of the mother's womb, other nations are outgroups
which represent the bad, dangerous world outside the womb. The head of
state is the father, and to bow down to him.is to identify with the
aggressor.

Feldman seemed much in agreement with Roheim, but he took issue
with Jones on the centrality of self-feelings in patriotism. He main-
tained that self-love basically involves identifying one's self with
its maternal source. Therefore all patriotism is associated with the
mother or father. The true matriotic Spirit involves loyalty to the

country, not to its institutions, office-holders, or the “state.“ In

19

"Fatherland" is engendered the idea that the land is owned by the
father, presumably the state.

While not a psychologist, Horray (1959) based his notions on
Freudian theory. He proposed that patriotism is fundamentally a pass-
ion of brotherhood based on love of one father, while nationalism is a
modernization of the primitive urge to live together in groups, the
horde instinct. Cohesiveness within the group is fostered by Eros,
the life instinct, while hostility toward all outgroups is the result
of Thanatos, the death instinct.

'Hhile the research to be presented here will.not be oriented with-
ing the Freudian framework, we wish to point out the notions of national-
ism.and patriotism which the Freudians share with others.

1. There is a distinction made between loyalty to the land and
loyalty to the state, which correspond roughly with previous distinct-
ions of nationalism.and patriotisnn

2. A psychological connection between the self and the nation is
posited.

3. There is a suggestion, at least by Appel, that nationalism is

incompatible.with internationalism.

Research Related to Nationalism and Patriotism

To date, research on nationalism and patriotism has not been ex-
tensive, and it generally has not grappled with the problem of defining
the terms, nor attempted to distinguish between the-u Relevant research
can be placed into two categories: (a) that attempting to measure na-

tionalismapatriotism.and its manifestations, and (b) measurement of

20

national identification.

N ism-Patriotism d its manifest t

Because instruments measuring nationalism or patriotism seem to
be qualitatively similar, although labeled differently, they are here
designated as nationalismppatriotism scales. Likewise, there has not
been a clear distinction between the concepts in studies of their mani-
festations. All studies appear to tap in large measure an underlying
ethnocentrism or authoritarianism.

One of the earliest attempts to measure American "patriotismI
was made by Thurstone (1931), who developed a 20-item.scale in two forms.
The items appear to have a strong authoritarian-dogmatic bias, with the
extremes making blindly pro- and antieAmerican statements. For example,
the highest-scoring item on form A states ”I'm for my country, right or
wrong,"while the lowest-scoring item states ”I haven't an ounce of res-
pect for the American people." Even intermediate items do not always
evade dogmatism; e.g. one item is "In America there is rightly no room
for Old World sentimental idealism.“ Thurstone (193“) factor-analyzed
a number of his scales, resulting in two orthogonal factors which he
labeled nationalimntinationalism and radicalism-conservatism. The
patriotism scale was about equally loaded on nationalism.and conservatism,
and it correlated -.44 with intelligence. The scale with the highest
loading on the nationalism factor was attitude toward war.

Hunter (1932) explored the various meanings of patriotism as em.
bodied in news items, editorials, and letters to the editor concerning
certain national crisis situations. His content analysis led him to

the following typology of "patriotic" behavior.

21

a. State Supremcy: Giving to the state a supreme, full, sub-
missive and unquestioning allegiance.

b. Institutional Loyalty: Giving loyal adherence to the general-
ly prevailing forms of nondpolitical social life as valuable
or even necessary to the well-being of country and political
States

c. National Egocentrism: Considering the institutions of the
national group, both the governmental and the other social
institutions, as the best to be found anywhere.

d. Eclectic Institutional Loyalty: Welcoming revaluation and
modification of loyalties to the general social institutions
of country to meet new needs and demands.

e. Critical-Mindedness toward the State: Holding a critical
attitude toward the authority, form and procedure of the state
and its government.

f} National.Self-Sufficiency: Intent upon building and maintain-
ing the national group as a complete self-sufficing unit.

In none of these six types of "patriotism" did Hunter find a
general loyalty to the country or nation-state as an abstract entity,
but rather the pursuit of particular interests only. He concluded that
such a broad meaning of patriotism is not legitimate.

Stagner (1990) analyzed "nationalistic opinions" which were actual-
ly items from a questionnaire on Methods of Preventing‘war. One item
advocating the teaching of patriotism in schools was found to correlate
positively with opposition to socialism and communism, with avoidance
of "entangling alliances," and with militarism. The same item correlated

negatively with items advocating the teaching of internationalism and a

"United States of the‘Wbrld." Judging by the items and their inter-

correlations, the scale probably assessed a complex of attitudes similar
to Thurstone's Patriotism.Scale.
Ferguson (19h2) factor—analyzed Thurstone's scales on attitudes

toward law, censorship, patriotism, and communism. The factor found

22

common to the four scales was labeled "nationalism,” and a new scale
was derived, using items from the original scales, so as to measure the
common factor more directly. Few of the items refer Specifically to
the natim. Despite Ferguson's labeling, the content of the items in-
dicate that his scale is basically tapping authoritarianism of the
political right.

Levinson (Adorno et al, 1950) recognized that his patriotism scale
was part of a broader ethnocentric idealbgy. He suggested that his
scale really measures ”pseudOpatriotism," interpreted as "blind attach-
ment to certain national cultural values, uncritical conformity with the
prevailing group ways, and rejection of other nations as outgroups.”
This is opposed to "genuine” patriotism, which Levinson described as
“love of country and attachment tc»national.values Iwhic§7 is based on
critical understanding." “The genuine patriot," he stated, "can appre-
ciate the values and ways of other nations, and can be permissive toward
much that he cannot personally accept for himself. He is free of rigid
conformism, outgroup rejection, and imperialistic striving for powerI
(Adorno et al, pp. 1076108).

Ievinson's scale items express opinions that nations are hierarchi-
cally arranged from superior to inferior and the superior ones should
dominate; militarism is advocated while deviants and foreign influences
are rejected. The underlying ethnocentrism of these items is revealed
in the .92 correlation of the patriotism scale with the Ethnocentrism
Scale developed by Adorno and colleagues. The correlation is due in part
to the fact that some patriotism items are included in the E scale, in-
cluding an item.about national sovereignty, and another stating that

America is as close as possible to a perfect society. It is also

23

interesting to note that some patriotism items are included in the
Politico-Economic Conservation scale reported by Levinson (Adorno et al,
1950). Levinson later L195?) referred to his 'pseudopatriotism? scale

as one measuring nationalism. He then developed an "Internationalismp
Nationalism.Scale' composed of nine foreign policy items similar in na-
ture to those of the original Patriotism Scale, and three items advocat-
ing ”internationalismP policies (reducing military expenditures, negotiat-
ing with the Chinese communists, and general de-emphasis of military force,
and stressing more negotiation in foreign policy). With high scores in-
dicating nationalism, this new scale again correlated highly (.77) with
the Ethnocentrism.Scale.

Scott (1960) also measured attitudes toward various areas of for-
eign policy, using eight Guttmann-type scales. One of these was called
“nationalism" and its five items in varying degrees stress American in-
terests over those of other countries. This scale clustered with an
"independence” scale which measures beliefs in soveréignty, and with a
"power" scale concerned with national status. Scott correlated his
foreign policy scales with others measuring supposedly analogous values
in the interpersonal realm. (The latter deal.with values admired in
other peeple). Almost all correlations were low; What is interesting
is that both the ”nationalism” and "power" scales correlated about equal-
1y (around .22) with the personal status and loyalty scales. As the lat-
ter included items related to personal status and group identification,
it appears that there is a common underlying syndrome involving admira-
tion of status in other peOple (suggesting desires for self—status) and

concern with national status and national self-interest.

2“

One of the most recent studies on nationalism is Doob's (1962)
research on the views of South Tyrolians. His method included content
analysis of interviews, a sentence completion test, and children's es-
says. Referring to nationalism as a "syndrome,” he included elements
of ethnocentrism. patriotism, and incitement to action. Thus, his list-
ing of the important components of nationalism is as follows:

1. Strong, favorable reactions to numerous subjectively distinctive
aSpects of an identifiable society as well as other reactions,
usually unfavorable in part, to one or more foreign societies.

2. Strong cultural convictions concerning the need to gain control
or to continue to control the power structure of their society

for themselves and their peers.

3. Strong beliefs that [the aforementioned] convictions are
variously, meaningfully, and deeply justified.

Several studies have attempted not to measure nationalism or
patriotism directly, but rather some of their manifestations. Horowitz
(1940) found tJIat a nationalistic response in the form of judging the
American flag as the "best looking" of several was found to appear at
about age six and to increase thereafter with age of the child. Kline-
berg (1950) reported a host of studies on national stereotypes, which
usually are more favorable to compatriots. Bjerstedt (1960) reported
considerable variation among different nationality groups in their e1-
pressions of militaristic national aspirations and tendencies to view

other nations in terms of black-white stereotypes.

Egasngemgnt of National Identifngtign

Several studies have measured aSpects of the individual's rela-
tion to his country which may be subsumed under the rubric "identifica-

tion." Approaches have varied somewhat, so they shall be discussed

here respectively as (a) identification as “national involvement,"

25
(b) identification via the self-concept, and (c) identification as
shared values.

gfientification gs national involvement. In a study of prejudice,
Morse and Allport (1952) hypothesized that anti—Semitism would be asso-
ciated with "national involvement," which was defined as "the degree of
importance of the nation to the individual." This was measured by six
items (reported in GuetZkow, 1955) measuring respectively salience of
American identification, emotional involvement in country, belief in
military preparedness, national self-interest, national rectitude, and
belief in the nation as a superordinate entity. The item.intercorrela-
tions ranged from .37 to .70, leading Morse to conclude that the scale
was not unidimensional. The content of the items indicates that national-
ism as well as identification may have been tapped.

In a study on foreign students in the United States, Morris (1960)
found that national involvement was a major intervening factor affecting
hostile reactions toward this country. He posited two main aSpects of
national involvement: (a) the degree to which the student's fate is tied
to the fate of his own country, and (b) the degree to which the student
personally feels attack, blame, or praise directed at his country or
countrymen. Morris contended that this is independent of liking or ad-
miration for homeland or degree of correspondence of own with national
values. Findings were that the more involved the student was with his
country, the more sensitive he was to the status which he perceived
Americans to accord his homeland. If the student felt that Americans
accorded less status to his country than he did himself, he was found

likely unfavorably to regard Americans.

26

Identification via the self concept. MCClintock and Davis (1958)
had foreign students list fifteen self-characteristics, including na—

tionality, in order of their importance to their self-concept. Measure-
ments were taken twice, separated by a fiveamonth interval. It was
found that the nationality attribute increased in importance for those
who were physically isolated and for those who were less favorable to-
ward the United States. MCClintock and Davis also assessed identification
with a six-item scale measuring unwillingness to change citizenship,
effort to keep informed about home country, belief in the advantage of
revealing one's national origin, pride and shame regarding acts of comp
patriots, and perceptual saliency of nationality. (Note the similarity
to Morris' measures of national involvement). The attribute of nation-
ality was found to increase in importance for those who scored higher on
the identification scale items. It seems possible that MCClintock and
Davis may be measuring the same thing (national identification) with
two different indices, namely, by the identification scale and by the
rank importance of nationality in the self-concept. In this case, their
last finding may simply reveal a polarizing tendency for high identifica-
tion to increase with duration of foreign sojourn.

The twenty-statement test was used by Kuhn (1960) to assess the
self-concepts of.American subjects. He found that use of nationality
to identify oneself was rather infrequent.

ggentification as shared values. In a nine-nation survey report-
ed by Buchanan and Cantril (1953), respondents were asked whether they
had more in common with their countrymen than with those of their social
class in other countries. More people responded affirmatively than

negatively in every country. This tendency was greater in the middle

27

class than in the lower class, and for those with greater education.

A study on Japanese students by Bennett, Passin and MbKnight (1958)

had as its central focus Ithe search for identity" of the subjects.

Identification was measured by the subject's perceived degree of agree-

ment between his own.values and those of most Japanese in nine content

areas. Relevant interpretations by the authors were as follows:

(a).

(b).

(c).

(d).

In the search for a Japanese national identity amidst the
conflict of Western and oriental values, “national identity
has for many come to be equated with personal identity.”
”The search for identity is, then, more than a nationalistic
preoccupation; it is, for many Japanese, tantamount to a
search for the self" (p. 25).

Identification with home country may be attained by the
individual who is alienated from traditional values through
identifying with important groups and forces in his country.

Identity tends to be a crucial problem mainly for those
who are strongly concerned with humanistic ideals and as-
pirations. The individual whose focus is mainly on his
professional career and not upon ideals or cultural identi-
fication is most likely to take his national identity for
granted.

Identity and status appear to be thoroughly intertwined.
The authors stated that a keen interest of the students was
in the problem of a personal and national status, and its
inpact upon his goals and ideals. A common motive for the
Japanese students to visit America was to learn “Am I, or
are we, as good as Americans?" (p. 100).

CHAPTERII

FORMULATION OF THE PFDBLEM

Having reviewed the literature on nationalism and patriotism, the
problem for research may now be formulated. Nationalism will be cmcept-
caused as an orientation toward one ‘s country in which one aspires for
it a position of greater strength or power ammg nations. The psychologi-
cal nature of nationalism will be examined by relating it to certain psycho-
logical variables of anticipated importance. These variables fall into
three types or categories, specifically (a) personal characteristics,

(b) characteristics of the nation, as perceived by the individual, and

(c) the individual's psychological relationship to his country. (Patriot-
ism, as comonly discussed, will be interpreted as falling within the
last category.) This focus of the research my be illustrated schemati-

cally as in figure I.

NAT ALM

as a function of

A. / T \ Be
m c. m
Psychological as perceived
characteristics Relationship of ' by individual
Individual to his

Nation

 

 

h

 

 

Figure 1. Focus of the research

In addition, we shall briefly examine what has commonly been
considered a most important consequence of nationalism, its implication

for international relations. This will be accomplished by relating

28

nationalism to a form of internationalism, an attitude which will

be defined and measured.

The Conceptualization of Nationalism

As was shown in the review of the literature, the phenomena of
nationalism and patriotism have been given broad, and often vague and
confusing definitions, in which a continuum for ordering individuals
or nations is difficult to distinguish. Shafer's (1961) omnibus inter-
pretation clearly exemplifies the pot-pourri of phenomena that have been
included under the rubric of 'nationalism." Notions of national con-
sciousness, ethnocentrism, patriotism (as variously defined), nativism,
chauvinism, statism, and imperialism have all been thrown in as components.
This had led some writers to distinguish "types” of nationalism, and to
separate an ”old" from a "new“ nationalism. To obtain a quantitative
measure of nationalism, a more precise definition is obviously needed.

Hertz (1941) pointed out that words ending in "ism" commonly denote
a collective striving or school of thought, characterized by a very
strong, and usually one-sided, accentuation of a principle. Accordingly,
nationalism would denote a mentality (Hertz's term) stressing national-
ity in a one-sided, exclusive way; it is characterized by a predominance
of the striving for power and domination, and the subordination of all
other values to these aims. Empirical evidence for this interpretation
was shown earlier by Scott's (1960) finding that nationalism and power
orientations in foreign policy were correlated. Hertz's definition seems
more amendable to Operationalizing for research than other more global

and variegated conceptualizations. Of the three general phenomena that

30

have been considered aSpects of nationalism, namely national conscious-
ness, belief in national superiority, and adherence to a national cause,
it emphasizes the last. This definition seems preferable, because it
stresses the dyngmic of nationalism, in that it pertains to goal-seeking
for one's nation toward the end of greater power. This dynamic aspect
is vital to international relations, for it is a factor in activities
between and gmggg.nations. National consciousness, in contrast, seems
to be more passive, being an awareness of national characteristics. This
is indeed an important problem, but we prefer not to deal with it here be—
cause it is a topic mainly pertaining to the unity and integration githig
nations. likewise, we prefer not to treat nationalism in terms of the
beliefs in national superiority, for this seems to be a special case of
ethnocentrism. a problem already widely explored. Both national con-
sciousness and ethnoCentrism have been enlisted in service of the national
cause, another reason why we wish to concentrate directly on the latter.
Nationalism will thus be conceptualized as a cognitive and conative
phenomenon, with the emphasis on the latter. Cognitively, it involves
the perception of one's nation as positioned along an ordering of nations
according to their strength or power. Conatively, it involves a seeking,
an aSpiration, a motivation directed toward the goal of increased strength
for one's nation relative to that of other nations. In the Osgoodian
sense, it seems mainly related to the potency dimension and secondarily
to the activity dimension. Briefly, our definition is as follows:
Nationalism: an orientation of the individual toward his country
in which his aSpirations for his country are that it gain greater potency
or power vis-a-vis other nations.

As a check on this definition, the consensual meaning of nationalism

31

'will be examined. It is eXpected that most subjects will consider na-
tionalism to be high on the potency dimension and fairly high on the
activity dimension. Strong nationalists will prdbably evaluate national,

ism as better on the evaluation dimension than people low in nationalism.

gypgthesis 1, On the three Osgood dimensions, the consensual mean-
ing of nationalism is that it is high in potency and activity, but highest

on the former.

fiypothesisglg. Individuals high in nationalism evaluate national-

ism more favorably than do those low in nationalism.

Relation of Nationalism to Other variables

While undoubtedly social, cultural, political, and historical fac-
tors contribute to the formation of a nationalist orientation, this study
focuses on psychological (or social psychological) factors. The antece-
dent variables are placed into three main categories: personality vari—
ables, perceived characteristics of one's nation, and the relationships

of one's self to his nation. Each type will be considered in turn.

Pergggality variable;
Qogmgtism. The concept of Dogmatism has been develOped by Rokeach

(1960), as an outgrowth of earlier formulations on the authoritarian peru
sonality (Adorno et a1, 1950; Fromm, 1951: Hoffer, 1958). Rokeach's
theory analyzes belief systems in terms of various structural character-

istics, such as isolation, differentiation, narrowing, and so forth.

32

These are the dimensions by which Rokeach distinguishes the "open“ from
the “closed“ mind. To measure the degree of Openness or closedness in
the belief-disbelief system of any individual, he has developed the Dog-
matism Scale. A high score on this scale is indicative of a relatively
closed mine. The scale is also considered by Rokeach to be a measure of
general authoritarianism, without the bias toward authoritarianism of
the right which is inherent in the California F scale (Adorno et a1, 1950).
Common to the theories of the authoritarian personality and the dog-
matic personality is the notion that such an individual is insecure, with
feelings of inadequacy and self-hatred. As compensation for this low
self-esteem, the individual becomes obsessed with power and status, and
is prone to join causes to identify with something greater than his own
despised self. It is on this point that we see a possible link between
nationalism and dogmatism. Nationalism provides a cause for the dog-
matic individual to espouse, for by promoting the power and status of
his country, he can compensate for his feelings of impotency and low
status. The discussion of identification in Chapter I revealed that
many other writers consider such processes to be paramount in nationalism.
Because nationalism is but one of several causes that the dogmatic
individual may choose to espouse, it would not follow that all dogmatic
people are necessarily nationalistic. Consequently, the expected relation
between the two variables is as shown in figure 2. This is not a genuine
curvilinear relationship, for predictions cannot be made from all values
of either variable; a person low in nationalism may or may not be dog-
matic, while a person high in dogmatism may or may not be nationalistic.

What seems to be the most feasible hypothesis is as follows:

39

Dogmatism -—>

Nationalism

 

 

Figure 2. Hypothesized scattergram relating
nationalism and Dogmatism

Hypothegis 2. Degrees of nationalism and Dogmatism are likely

in all combinations except strong nationalism and low dogmatism.

Another theoretical characteristic of Dogmatism is relevant to
nationalism. Dogmatic thinking is Said by Rokeach to involve the accept-

ance of belief systems in toto; this is "party-line" thinking. If the

 

nationalist is indeed dogmatic, then we might expect to find him en-
thusiastically endorsing all aspects of his country, without discriminat-
ing as to which aspects he likes and which he dislikes. From another
standpoint, if the individual is compensating for low self-esteem by
identifying with his country, it is to be expected that he would'have

a high overall evaluation of his country.

gypfihesis :1. Highly nationalistic individuals have a more favor-
able general evaluation of their country than do individuals low

in nationalism.

3h

Status Admiration. 'we might expect that a person who aSpires for

 

a position of greater power or strength for his nation to have a general
respect for power. Scott (1960) found such a tendency in his study,
wherein the admiration of high status in others was most highly corre-
lated with the espousing of nationalism and power orientation in foreign
policy (and, as was pointed out earlier, the latter two aSpects were in-
tercorrelated); Such a viewpoint is found also in thertheory of Adorno
et a1 (19 50), in which the authoritarian personality is supposed to be

oriented toward power and "toughness." Therefore, we shall submit:

gypothesis 4. There is a positive correlation between national-

ism and admiration of status in others.

Perceived Characteristics of Natigp

Egfigg. It is likely that the seeking of greater power for one's
nation is directly related to the perception of the power which the na-
tion does have presently. By power is meant a combination of potency
and activity. (This is analogous to power in the physical sense, which
is the product of force and movement over a distance through time.)
An inverse relation is expected; the individual will most likely seek
greater power for his country when he perceives that it in fact has

little power.

Hypothesisgj. Perceived power of one's nation is negatively

correlated with degree of nationalism.

Status. Perceived national status has already been shown by Morris
(1960) to be related to foreign students' attitudes. National status may

also be related to nationalism by making three assumptions. The first is

35

that the need for status and recognition is a basic human motive. The
second is that those perceiving their countries as having low status
will be motivated to see that status raised. The third is that national-
ism may be instrumental toward raising the national status. On the basis

of these assumptions, an inverse relationship between nationalism and per-

ceived national status is expected.

Hypothesis 6. Degree of perceived status of one's nation is

negatively correlated with nationalism.

Threat orientation. As noted earlier, many writers maintain that
devotion to the cause of nationalism is commonly held with distrust or
animosity toward other nations which represent actual or potential blocks
to national aSpirations. It may be expected, therefore, that if one per-
ceives his nation as relatively weak among nations, other nations may re-
present a greater threat to the continued existence and viability of his
own. A perception of external threat would then be grounds for seeking

greater strength for one's own nation.

fixpothesisAY. An awareness of external threat to one's nation
is associated with greater nationalism; this relation is intensified
when one perceives that his own country is relatively lacking in power.

This relation is illustrated in figure 3.

gelationshipg of Self to Natigg

The review of literature revealed that many writers mentioned
identification with nation as an aSpect central to nationalism. ‘we inter-
pret identification as connoting a type of relation between the individual's

self and his country. In this section, the relations of self to nation

36

 
    
 

 

 

High
Nation leek
E
H
H
(U
33
+. Nation
:2 Powerful
Low
Tittle lush

Perceived External Threat
Figure 3. Expected relation of nationalism to the perceptions
of external threat and power of one's nation.
‘will be considered so as to form Specific hypotheses regarding types of
relationship and nationalism.

Consider first the self. Some minor thinkers in the social
sciences hold that a person is strongly motivated to establish his iden-
tity and a sense of his own worth (sometimes referred to as validation
of the self). Erickson (1959) developed this as a central theme; both
Cooley (1902) and Fromm (1949) submitted that a sense of self-identity
is one of man'sbasic needs. These theorists, as did Mead (1934), agreed
that the sense of self is gained from or related to the groups of which
one is a member, and both Cooley and Erickson Specifically mentioned
that identification with country can be part of the self-concept.

Just what is ”identification?” This term has had many usages,
as given by English and English (1958), Erickson (1956), Hall and Iindsey
(1957). Kagan (1958), Krech and Crutchfield (1948), Newcomb (1950).

Strauss (1959), and Thibaut and Kelley (1959). (English and English

37

give no less than ten different definitions of the concept!) Commonly

it indicates a relation between two individuals, in which one individual
takes over the features of another individual and makes them part of his
own personality; the one person then vicariously experiences the effect
associated with the successes and failures of the model. In a more active
sense, the identifying individual may internalize the goals and values of
the model.

One may identify with a group as well as with a single other in-
dividual (a relevant consideration in "reference group” theory.) The
term is often applied in the same way as in person-person identification.
It may also mean simply "belonging to" a group or ”Ibering values and/or
characteristics with" the group. The most profound psychological relation
to the self is however, the individual experiencing his group membership
as part of his self concept. As Krech and Crutchfield (l9e8) stated,
the individual feels that the group is ”his" group, its welfare "his”
welfare, its achievements "his” achievements. "we" and "our" feelings
are involved. The weaning here is very similar to "ego involvement" or
”self involvement,” terms which designate a relation between the person
and some task, situation, or other persons which affect his evaluation
of himself (English and English, 1958; Newcomb, 1950; Sherif and Cantril,
1947; Strauss, 1959).

To relate these notions to nationalism, let us breedon our con-
siderations somewhat. Instead of concerning ourselves just with identi-
fication, let us consider more generally the relationships that can ob-
tain between the individual and a group of which he is a member. Noting
the concept of "we feeling” brought in by Krech and Crutchfield, we are

led to contemplate how the concept of "group cohesiveness" bears on the

38

selfanation relationship.

In a review chapter on group cohesiveness, Cartwright and Zander
(1953) cited three ways in which an individual may be attracted to a
group. The first is that the individual may simply likg_the group memp
bers. This is similar to Guetzkow's (1955) notion of "loyalty as an
autonomous need," in which the nation is evaluated as "good,” a vain.
which is emotionalized and reinforced irreSpective of the nation's suc-
cess or failure in meeting the needs of its members. The nation tends
to be idealized, its values and standards being regarded as wise and fair.

A group may also be attractive, according to Cartwright and Zander,
because it mediates the attainment of the individual's personal goals.
Similarly, Guetzkow Spoke of "loyalty through attachment to means."
Again, Morris (1960) stated that an aSpect of ”involvement with country"
is the degree to which the individual's fate is tied to or dependent on
the fate of his country. Unlike the first type then, this form of at—
traction depends directly on the ability of the group to mediate goal-
attainment.

Cartwright and Zander mentioned that a third form of group attract-
iveness is through the prestige or social status it confers on the in-
dividual. In a similar vein, Guetzkow stated that a form of loyalty
obtains when the individual gains vicarious satisfaction in experiencing
the accomplishments and virtues of the group as his own. To Guetzkow,
this is "identification." Guetzkow submitted that this kind of loyalty
is likely to be strongest when the object of attachment has an aura of
success. Under a separate heading, he cited loyalty as self-avoidance,
in which the individual submerges his identity in devotion to a cause.

This seems to be merely an extreme form of identification. Similarly,

39

Morris presented as an aspect of "involvement" the degree to which the
individual personally feels attack, blame, or praise directed at his
country or compatriots.

Evidence of the separateness of these three forms of group at-
traction was_provided in a group experiment by Back (1957). By varying
instructions, he induced in his subjects either an interpersonal-liking
orientation, a task-directed orientation, or a prestige orientation.
These three methods had similar effects on group cohesiveness, but differ-
ences in specific intra-group behaviors were manifested.

we do not mean to inply in this discussion that the cited three
forms of attraction to groups are the only ones mentioned by others.
They have been delineated here because they appear repeatedly in dis-
cussions of cohesiveness, loyalty, identification and "national.involve-
ment." It seems, therefore, that these relationships of person to group
may prove to be factors relevant to nationalism, in ways that shall be
hypothesized shortly. At this point we shall simply note that the no-
tions of "identification'' as involved in nationalism seem.to pertain to
the second and third forms of group attractiveness. Morris, as has been
noted, combines them into one concept of "involvement with country.” we
also detect in discussions of "patriotism” a referral to the first and
second kinds of relationship.

These variables will now be defined for relation to our study.
Analogous to the three forms of group attraction, we shall define three
forms of involvement with country, namely Affective Involvement, Goal
Involvement, and Ego-Involvement.

Affective Involvement. This is simply an emotional, sentimental

relationship between the individual and his country. He feels that his

country is "home," it is a source of security, fond memories, and fami-
liarity. The country is ”motherland." 'we eXpect that this effect is
directed toward both the physical environment and toward family and friends,
and perhaps generalized to all compatriots. It is probably, according to
the congruency tendency in person perception (Taguiri, Bruner, and Blake,
1957), that the individual will also perceive affect directed toward him

by his compatriots. Briefly, our definition is as follows:

Affective Involvement: the mutuality of affect experienced by

the individual between himself and his country, represented by

degrees of liking.

This variable may also be considered "Patriotismp-Type.1.”

Goal Involvement. This aspect is cognitive in the sense that the
individual perceives his country as a facilitator, external to himself,
of his personal goal attainment; he perceives his country's progress as
helping him to achieve his goals. The involvement is conative in that
the individual is motivated to help his country attain its goals, which
will thereby help him personally. The definition follows:

Goal Involvement: the perception by the individual of a direct

connection between his country‘s progress and his personal goal

attainment, accompanied by a motivation to help his country at-

tain its goals, and indexed by the degree to which the individual

expresses a desire to participate in his country's goal attainment.
This variable may also be considered "Patriotismp-Type B.”

Ego Involvement. This is the form of involvement most directly
related to self-evaluation or self-esteem. The individual perceives that
his importance, value, worth as an individual stems directly from the at-
tributes and achievements of his country. Unlike the previous two kinds
of involvement, there is little mutuality, for the emphasis is on what
the individual gains from his country in identity, status and esteem.

In addition to this cognitive side, there is the self-directed affect

41

(pride, shame, etc.) associated with the country. Affective Involvement
differs from Goal Involvement, because in the latter the country as ex-
ternal facilitator need not reflect on the individual's evaluation of
himself. Briefly then, the definition is:

Ego-Involvement: the extent to which nationality is part of the

individual's self-concept, such that his self-evaluation is de-

pendent on the evaluation of his country, and he experiences self-
directed affect in regard to his country.

An extreme form of ego-involvement occurs when the individual‘s
identity is completely submerged into that of the nation. This is
Hoffer's "true believer" type, portrayed as follows:

In every act, however trivial, the individual must by some ritual

associate himself with [the groufi7. His joys and sorrows, his

pride and confidence must Spring from the fortunes and capacities

of the group rather than from his individual prospects and abilities.

(Hoffer, 1951, p. 61)

Such are the three forms of involvement with country proposed for
examination. While they are considered different, they are expected to
be related. Therefore, the first set of hypotheses regarding them will
aim at explicating their meaning and delineating their differences.

Differentiation of the forms of involvement. It is anticipated
that because of the intimate link between self and nation in Ego-Involve-
ment, the ego-involved person will tend also to be effectively and goal-
involved with his country. The latter variables however will less likely

be connected.

hypotheses 8. Ego-involvement is correlated more with affective-

involvement and goalpinvolvement than the latter are with each other.

To distinguish between Affective Involvement and Goal Involvement,
we shall posit, after Guetzkow, that the former is more autonomous and re-

latively independent of the satisfaction of material needs. we see the

to

latter, however, as more directly related to material need satisfaction.
Thus Affective Involvement will be associated more with the liking of
one's compatriots, the land in one's country, the customs, ideals and
values of the nation. (These aSpects shall henceforth be referred to
as the Cultural Milieu.) Goal involvement will be associated more with
liking of jdb Opportunities, the economic system, security offered, and

the freedom and rights offered by the nation (the Goal-Achievement Milieu).

Hypothesis 9a. Goal Involvement correlates more with liking of

 

the Goal Achievement'Milieu than does Affective Involvement.

Eypothesisg9b. Affective Involvement correlates more with liking

of the Cultural.Milieu than does Goal Involvement.

By definition, Ego Involvement implies a close connection between
evaluation of self and nation. Therefore, the highly ego-involved in-
dividual should show a high correlation between assessed characteristics
reapectively of self and nation than should the low ego-involved person.
Degree of Affective Involvement or Goal Involvement should show no such

relationships.

hypothesis 10. Degree of EgowInvolvement is correlated with cor-

 

respondence of perceived characteristics of self and nation, while
degree of Affective Involvement and Goal Involvement is not so

correlated.

Of the three forms of involvement, we expect Ego-Involvement to
be most associated with dogmatism. According to theories of the authori-

tarian-dogmatic personality, such an individual is supposed to be

43

characterized by self-avoidance through submerging his identity in an
external social Object. He would thus be ego-involved with that object,
and dogmatism.represents a defense of his tenuous self-esteem. Relevant
here is Lambert and Bressler's (1955) study of the "sensitive area com-
plex" of Indian students, in which the shbjects' dogmatic defensiveness

seems to reveal a strong ego-involvement with their country.

flypothesis ll. Ego-Involvement is correlated more with dogmatism

than are Affective Involvement and Goal Involvement.

we further eXpect the form and degree of involvement to be a func-
tion of the perceived status of one's country. He who evaluates himself
by the prestige of his country will more likely identify with his country
if it has high status. On the other hand, there need be no connection
between status and affective involvement with country. For the person
who feels that his welfare depends on that of his country and who seeks
to help his country progress, we expect that low status of his country

will make him more likely to be so motivated.

gypothesis 12. Perceived status of country is positively correlated
'with Ego-Involvement, negatively correlated with Goal Involvement,

and not correlated with Affective Involvement.

Forms of involvement and nationalism. Having delineated the

three forms of involvement of self with nation, we DOW’prOpOSe to examine
their relation to nationalism.
Assuming that the ego-involved individual is one who seeks to gain

personal status and prestige through his country, he may be eXpected to

be most zealous in seeking increased power for his nation, as suggested
by Benda-(1961).:

One goal-involved with his country will be concerned with its pro-
gress, but not necessarily through increasing its power internationally.
Hence, Goal Involvement prdbably correlates with nationalism, but not to
the same degree as Ego-Involvement. Finally, Affective-Involvement is
eXpected to least correlate with nationalism, for the power of one's

country is unlikely to be involved in sentiment toward the nation.

flypothesis l3, Nationalism.correlates most with Ego-Involvement,

next with Goal Involvement, and least with Affective Involvement.

Lgyal y. Another way of looking at the relation between self and
nation is through the relative loyalty to one's nation as opposed to
various other groups of which one is a member.

Just what is the psychological meaning of "loyalty?" English and
English (1958) defined it as "an attitude or sentiment of firm attachment
to a person, group, institution, or ideal." Guetzkow's definition is
more extensive:

Loyalty: An attitude predidposing its holder to respond toward

an idea, person, or group with actions perceived by the holder

to be supported of, and/or with feelings which value the con-

tinued existence of, the object toward which the attitude is

directed. (Guetzkow, 1955, p. 8).
we might think of loyalty as a form of identification, or extension of

one's self-concept to social Objects external to the individual. By

 

2. Suggestive here is a study by Sherif and Sherif (1953), in which
two groups of boys were put into conflict. It was found that those socio-
metrically of low status were the most ardent in promoting the cause of
their own group. This might be considered to be analogous to national-
ism on the part of these boys.

’45

this token, we might eXpect the nationalist, whom we have already posited
as highly ego-involved with his country, to eXpress higher loyalty to his
country than he who is not nationalistic.

According to Hertz (l9hl), nationalism is a mentality stressing na-
tionality in a one-sided exclusive way. Our own definition of nationalism
Specifies that it involves promoting the power of one's country relative
to that of others. Therefore, in a hierarchical listing of groups to
which one feels some degree of loyalty, the highly nationalistic person
may be expected to place his country higher in the ranking than would
the low nationalist. Especially we predict that the nationalist would

be more loyal to his country than to the rest of the world.

hypothesis 1“. Degree of nationalism is positively correlated

 

with the rank of nation in the individual's hierarchy of loyalties.

Hypothesigliha. The higher his nationalism, the more likely will
the individual place loyalty to country over loyalty to the rest

of the world.

Natiggalism and Lgtemationglism

Nationalism has commonly been assailed as the source of internation-
al difficulties. This was the concensus, for example, among four Michigan
State University professors speaking at a recent seminar on the United Na-
tions (Michigan State News, February 16, 1962). Nationalism and interna-
tionalism have sometimes been considered polar opposites, as for example
by Levinson (1956), who constructed a bi-polar nationalism-international-
ism scale. An occasional voice, however, denies this as a necessary re—

lation; Emerson (1961) asserted that nationalism gm be a stepping stone

46

toward a collaborative world order.

It appears that part of this confusion is due to differing defini-
tions of nationalism (see Chapter I) as well as of internationalism.
While it is not the purpose of this research to examine the various mani-
festations of "internationalism," two different forms seem apparent. The
first ("Internationalism, Type.A") is an interest in internationalism co-
operation as a means to progress and peace; internationalism in this sense
can be simply an expediency. The second form ("Internationalisn.Type B”)
is more idealistic, in that it adheres to a moralistic belief in the equal-
ity of man, and holds that all mankind should be united in pursuit of comp
mon goals. This is essentially the advocacy of "one world." Whereas the
individual eSpousing the first kind of internationalism can still believe
that nations should maintain their sovereignty and each pursue its separ-
ate goals, the believer in the second kind holds that national interests
are anachronistic, and should be subordina ted or eliminated in favor of
the international cause. A pilot study of internationalistic items by
the investigator revealed tentative dimensions which seemed to reflect
these two opposing viewpoints.

For our purposes here, we shall examine the first kind of inter-
nationalism, in anticipation of refuting the common notion that national-
ism and internationalism.are necessarily opposed. For this purpose we

submit the fellowing definition:

Internationa'lism Typegg: a belief in and advocacy of the in-
ternational cooperation of nations for the attainment of goals.

we expect that some nationalists will be so concerned with the na-
tional cause that they will exhibit little interest in international co-
operation, but there will be many others who advocate both nationalism

and international cooperation.

1*?

mothesis 15. Nationalism and Internationalism Type A are

slightly negatively correlated.

we have already predicted that the nationalist will express great-
er loyalty to his nation than to the rest of the world. The person.who
is more loyal to the world than to his country is exhibiting what we
consider as Internationalism Type B. He will probably score high on
"type A“ internationalism, but the converse does not necessarily hold.

Hence, the hypothesis is formulated as follows.

motmsis 16, Degrees of internationalism types "A“ (inter-
national c00peration) and "B" (one world) are likely in all
combinations except high on “type B" and low on “type A.“

(See figure 4).

1

/

  

 

 

Type B - One world

/

mum- —-
International Casperation

Figure 4. Expected relationship between Internationalism
types "A" and "B.“

 

 

CHAPTER III

POPULATION AND SAMPLE

The papulation used in this study comprises students from six
world areas and thirteen countries studying at Michigan State University
and the University of Michigan during the academic year 1961-1962. Ac-
tually, two samples were obtained, one consisting of foreign students
and the other of Americans. Foreign students were chosen for two rea-
sons: (a) because it was expected that foreign students would provide
considerably wider ranges on the variables under examination (an expecta-
tion later verified by the data), and (b) because it is anticipated.that
foreign students represent a pool from which many leaders of their re-
Spective countries will be selected and whose attitudes regarding na-
tionalism may have important consequences. Sampling from such a hetero-
geneous pepulation does have a drawback however, in that the general re-
sults may conceal national variations in the relations among the variables
studied. For this reason, an American sample was selected to provide one
large culturally homogeneous sample for comparison with the heterogeneous
foreign sample.

Two universities were employed for selection of the foreign stu-
dents so that a substantial number of foreign students would be available
for drawing the samples. Michigan State University and the University of
Michigan were readily accessible, and both had fairly large bodies of for-
eign students (about 6&0 and 1410 reSpectively). The six world areas were
chosen to include all the major cultural-geographical areas represented by

foreign students at the two universities. Within each area, samples were

48

49

selected from each of the two countries with the largest representation,

to maintain sample sizes sufficient to detect any unusual national.ten-

dencies. (Three countries were selected from the Far East because of

its extensive geographical and cultural distances; North America was re-

presented only by Canadians because of the planned United States sample.)

Planning for a total foreign sample of about 200, an effort was made to

obtain data from 17 students from each of the following countries:

North America:

South America:

western EurOpe:

Middle East (including
northeast Africa):

Africa (south of the
Sahara):

Far East:

Sampling_Procedure

Canada

Colombia
Venezuela

England
Germany

Egypt
Iran

Guinea
Nigeria

India
Japan
Korea

Foreign stgdents. In choosing the subjects, names were system-

atically sampled from.the listings by country in the foreign student

directory of each university.3

Both directories contained current

listings. As data was obtained by mail questionnaire, 331 names were

selected, with an expected 60 per cent return (based on a pilot study).

 

3x Stratified sampling was not considered practicable for (a) it
would have further reduced the limited sample sizes from several countries,
(b) there was insufficient advance information for such purposes, and
(c) the self-selection by the mail survey respondents could upsdzthe

strata.

To maximize the rate of return of the questionnaires, each pros-
pective subject was called by phone to solicit his c00peration. Deepite
repeated calls, only 136 persons were reached, of whom six declined to
participate (mainly on grounds that they were too busy). A few reserved
decision until they examined the questionnaire. The effect of the phone
calls is uncertain, for 63 per cent of those called and accepting return-
ed their questionnaires, while 57 per'cent of those not called responded.
Cultural factors may have operated, for gll those called from.Canada and
England responded, compared to 37 and #5 per cent reSpectively for those
not called. In contrast, considerably more responses were obtained from
those p23 called among German, Iranian, Japanese, and venezuelan students.

Further to increase the rate of return, an explanatory letter ac-
companied each questionnaire. A process was used in which each letter
appeared individually written. To gain the subject's c00peration, an
appeal.was made to his interest in international relations, which could
have biased the sample somewhat. (A COpy of the letter appears in Ap-
pendix A). After one week, a follow-up letter was sent.

Of the 331 questionnaires sent out, ten were returned by the post
office. Seven subjects declined to answer because they were becoming
United States citizens or were too busy; two refused because they ob-
jected to the questionnaire. In all, a reSponse of some sort was obtain-
ed from 62 per cent of those who apparently received the questionnaire.
After deleting unuseable questionnaires (incomplete, wrong country, etc.),
the final foreign sample comprised 177 subjects. Table 1 summarizes the
foreign student reSponse.

As table 1 reveals, the number of questionnaires sent to students

from.Nigeria and Guinea is considerably below the desired 31 per country.

 

 

No. sent Refusals by Number

Question- mail or Returned Questionnaires useable
Country. naire * telephone -- n % Questionnaires
Canada 30 0 .18 60.0 17
Colombia 26 l 14 #2.3 1H
venezuela 31 O 21 67.7 16
Germany 30 4 21 70.0 19
England 30 1 18 60:0 1?
Guinea 8 0 2 25.0 2
Nigeria 10 2 3 30.0 3
Egypt 32 1 12 37.5 11
Iran 30 l 23 77.4 22
India 31 0 23 74.2 21
Japan 31 1 19 62.5 18
Korea 31 2 17 54.8 17
TOTALS 320 13 191 59.7% 177

I"Less returns by post office

Table 1. Response rates among foreign students

This was necessary because few students from these countries were available.
American Students. The American sample comprised Michigan State

University students from undergraduate psychology and sociology courses.

One of the sociology courses was given off-campus and was composed general-

ly of older students. After deleting foreign students, immigrants and in-

complete questionnaires, a sample of 185 remained,

52

N — : ta v

A8 one of the problems of the mail questionnaire is that responders
may differ from non-responders in important ways, an effort was made to
learn the reasons for not returning the questionnaire. It is important
to point out here that because of scheduling difficulties, it was ne-
cessary to mail the questionnaire a few days before final examinations,
an unfortunate circumstance which probably reduced the rate of return.

To check on the reasons for not reSponding, 28 of the non-responders
were called by telephone about three weeks after the questionnaires had
been mailed. Most students were away for the summer, and only four were
reached. Q16 claimed not to have received the questionnaire, another
had anonymously returned his, and a third said he had been too busy.

The fourth student was from Africa, to which we shall now give special
attention.

As table 1 shows, the three African countries (Egypt, Guinea, and
Nigeria) had the lowest return rates. As results were similar on a pilot
study, further investigation seemed warranted. Various sources of in-
formation were used, with results as follows:

Nigerian who refused to answer questionnaire: “no time”

Another refusing Nigerian (pilot study): ”I am a Civil Servant of

my country and any statement I make has to go through the Head or

up Department....I cannot, by Law make any statement criticizing

IV country....MOst of the questions are formed in a way I do not

like and hence I cannot answer them even incognito.‘I

Another refusing Nigerian: 'I am indisposed to political dis-
cussions."

Non-responding Nigerian (by phone): Disposed of questionnaire
without reading it, because he didn't know purpose for which it
would be used. Stated that Africans, including Egyptians, are
'touchy," emotional in outlook. Africans are suSpicious of soc-
ial scientists because they have been studied too much by them,
smetines given unfair interpretations, no longer want to be

 

....

53

"guinea pigs." Suggested that reSponses by those who did return
questionnaires may be atypical.

African informant not in study: Africans are suSpicious. Feel
Negro is exploited in United States. Studies by social scient-
ists have given unfair treatment to.Africans, so Africans do not
‘wish to c00perate in further studies. was informed by a Nigerian
that he didn't intend to return questionnaire.
Egyptian reSponder: Egyptians are often supported by their govern-
ment, feel obligated to present a "good front? are hesitant and
guarded about making statements which may be wrongly interpreted.
(Comment: Egyptian students were indeed found to be supported by
their government more than those from other countries. Also, their
responses were very extreme, expressing strong liking and support
of their country.)
These reSponses clearly suggest a “sensitive area complex," which
may explain the low return rate for Africans, and which could bias the
reSponses. It is possible also that samples from other countries may

have to.a degree been similarly affected.

ngntitative Qomparisgp of Samples

Because it is possible for sampling bias to creep in through a
number of ways, the sample compositions were analyzed on a number of
variables. Where possible, information was obtained on the foreign
responders (mainly from the questionnaires), the foreign non-responders
(lainly from.the directories), foreign students in the United States,
and on the American subjects. Data on all foreign students in the United

States was obtained from the Institute of International Education report,

 

_Qpen Qgprs 1962, which gave statistics for the academic year 1961-1962.

Foreign students--distrigutign by area. In table 2 the distribu-
tion of foreign students from.different geographical areas is presented.
(Egypt is included with Africa to conform with the I.I.E. notation) It

can be seen that the distribution of respondents corresponds generally

54

with the all-America distribution from the I.I.E. (There was no deliber-
ate attempt, of course, to achieve this.) Comparison of responders with
non—responders from each area shows that proportionally more Europeans

and Middle-Easterners responded than not, while most Africans failed to

 

 

 

respond.
Roseign Foreign Foreign
Responders A;Non—resoonder§, Allemggiga_
North America 9.Q% 9.3% 11.5%
Latin America 18.3 17.1 17.2
EurOpe 20.2 16.3 11.7
Near and Middle East 12.0 5.4 14.2
Africa (including 8.9 25.6 6.8
Emt)
Far EaSt 30.9 260“ 37s].
Other -- -- 1.6
10073 100% 100%

Table 2. Distribution of foreign students by area

Fgreigp students~-sources of financial support. As our Egyptian infor-
mant (mentioned earlier) suggested that source of financial support could

possibly affect results, information was obtained7ihis. The I.I.E. sta-
tistics in table 3 lends credence to the report of our informant, for the
Egyptians receive considerably more financial support from their own
government than do students from elsewhere. Additional information was
obtained on the sources of support for Michigan State University reSponders
and non-responders, which unfortunately does not include Egyptians. Num-

bers supported by governments in this group are too low to give statistics

by country, so table 4 gives only the overall sample proportions. The figures

55

are not conclusive, for the "non-responders" may include some students
who returned their questionnaire anonymously. In general, however, the
I.I.E. and M;S.U. figures suggest that a slightly lower rate of reSponse

may be found among those supported by their own government.

Foreign.A11~America

 

 

Ownlgevtl_ U.S.,ggz§.
Canada 3.0% 2.5%
Colombia 9.9 8&4
‘Venezuela 14.5 1.9
Germany 3.8 17.6
England 1.4 15.0
Guinea 3.5 36.2
Nigeria 16.3 14-3
Egypt 42.9 11.8
Iran 10.4 2.2
India 1.6 11.4
Japan 1.7 12.5
Korea 2.6 8.1

Table 3. Governmental financial support for foreign
students in the United States. (Non-listed
sources are self or private agencies).

Forgigg students-.1ength of stgy in the United Stgges. Previous
studies (Kiell, 1951; Ioomis, 1948; Sewell and Davidson, 1956;‘watson
and Iippitt, 1955) on foreign students have shown that attitudes toward
the United States vary as to the length of time in this country. As this

could affect the rate of reSponse to the questionnaire, figures on this

56

Foreign Responders 103% 5.2%
Foreign Non-responders 12.3% 7.0%

Table 4. Governmental support for N;S.U.
reSponders and non-responders.

were assembled (table 5). While the comparison does not include non-re-
sponders, the figures show consistently that the responders have been in
this country considerably longer than the national average for their re-
spective countries. It seems that for whatever their reasons, the newly-
arrived are less inclined to respond to the questionnaire. Possibly the

problems of adjustment mitigate against this,

 

Foreign Foreign

Respgnders All-America
Canada 70.6% 38.2%
Colombia 64,3 24.2
venezuela 81.2 43.3
Germany 52.6 15.6
England 64.8 22.8
Guinea 0 6.8
Nigeria 66.? 32.1
Egypt 72.? 26.3
Iran 54.6 54.7
India 42.8 29.5
Japan 66.? 31.2
Korea 88.2 53.8

Table 5. Proportions of foreign students who
have been in the United States over
two years,

57

All sgbiects--distribgtign by sag. Table 6 shows that the samples

are composed primarily of males. Comparing responders with non-respond-
ers, it can be seen that males responded proportionally more than females,
except among the Canadians, English and Germans and Indians. Here again,
cultural factors seem to be operating. Table 6 also shows that the for-

eign sample contains proportionally more males than does the American.

 

 

Responders-- Foreign
% mgl§§_ Non-responders All-America

Canada 77% ZL%%%%§- §8§%%%§
Colombia 93 75 82.2
venezuela ' 88 81 88.4
Germany 74 83 72.8
England 71 73 76.9
Guinea 100 100 94.8
Nigeria 100 100 93.5
Egypt 100 95 85.3
Iran 91 80 91.8
India 95 100 88.?
Japan 83 69 72.9
Korea 82 64 82.8
All roman 85.3 84.5 83.6
U.S.A. 61.0 -- --

Table 6. PrOportions of males in samples and among
foreign students in the United States.

All sgpject§--distribution 9y marital status. No data has been fur-

nished by the I.I.E. on the marital status of foreign students across the

58
country, but we can at least compare reSponders with non-responders on
this variable. Table 7 reveals a tendency for married students to re-
Spond more than single students, with the main exception to this being

the Egyptian sample.

 

Single Single
__ responders non-resoonders

Canada 65% 92%
Colombia 64 75
venezuela 53 71
Germany 74 75
England 59 67
Guinea 100 100
Nigeria 33 63
Egypt 60 37
Iran 83 80
India 76 73
Japan 78 100
Korea 59 77
A11 foreign 66.7 73.0
U.S.A. 64.0 --

Table 7. Distribution of reSponders and non-responders
by marital status. -

All ggbjggts--distribgtion 91 ggg. No information was available
on the non-reSponding foreign students, so it is difficult to determine

whether this factor influenced tendency to respond. The I.I.E. census
has not published figures on age since the academic year 1953-19543 so
these figures are given for comparison. Table 8 shows that the foreign

sample is older than the American, but there is considerable variationu

59

from country to country sampled. There appears to be little corresnond-
ence between the sample statistics and the proportions by age among

foreign students in 1953-54.

Foreign-all America

 

_7 Rasponders 1953-54
Canada 66% 64.4%
Colombia 57 74.8
venezuela 63 72.8
Germany 63 54.5
England 41 ‘ l+9.5
Guinea 50 -
Nigeria 67 39.8
Egypt 9 29.8
Iran 73 51.0
India 40 42.9
Japan 17 47.6
Korea 12 55-5
Total foreign 46.9 57.5
U.S.A. 69.7 1.;

Table 8. Proportion of individuals under age 25
among subjects and among foreign students
in the United States.

All:subjects--academic specialties. Classifying the subjects
according to field of study reveals that the foreign reSponders, more so
than non-reaponders, are represented in education, social science, and
the humanities. Table 9 shows also that a somewhat lower reSponse rate

was obtained from among the physical and natural sciences and engineering.

Broadly Speaking, it seems that those in the human-oriented fields were
more prone to respond than those in the non-human—oriented fields. The
American sample is also shown to be heavily weighted in the human-orient-

ed fields, to be eXpected in light of the courses from which they were

 

drawn.

Foreign Foreign Roreign
_fi ReSponders Non-responde;§__Allzgmgzigg__figgegigag§_
Education 7% 4% 5.2% 25.7%
Business Administration 6 6 8.8 14.7
medicine 2 5 7.1 0.7
Phys. and Nat. Science 9 12 16.2 1.5
Social Science 17 11 14.5 29.4
Engineering 28 33 22.4 1.5
Humanities 10 4 19.2 16.2
Agriculture 9 7 3-3 0
Other .12 as do. 1943.

100,4 100% 10073 10035

Table 9. Distribution of foreign and American subjects
by field of study.

All ggbjects--occupation of ggther. To provide an indication of
social class, occupations of father was obtained from all participants.
(This was not available from.non-re5ponders nor in the I.I.E. census.)

No attempt was made to place these into social classes, for occupations
are likely to vary as to social status in different countries. The occu-
pations were placed into the categories resulting from.a survey by Hatt

and North (Bendix and Lipset, 1953). The groupings listed in table 10

61

are ordered according to their prestige or "general standing” among a
national cross-section of Americans.

It is apparent from table 10 that the foreign sample is rather
an elite group. The occupations fall more into the prestigeful positions
(by American standards) which are likely to be accorded very high status
in some of the underdevelOped countries. Fathers of the American sample
also dominate the prestigeful positions, but not to the extent of the

foreign group.

 

Roreign

Responders Agggiggg§__
Executives & Government Officials 6.3% 3.3%
Professional and Semi-professional 39.6 . 25.3
Proprietors, Managers & Officials 29.9 22.7

(except farm)
Clerical, Sales, & Kindred'WOrkers 4.2 9.7
Craftsmen, Foremen & Kindred workers 4.2 14.3
Farmers & Farm.Managers . 13.2 6.5
Protective Service Workers 1.4 2.0
Operatives; Factory werkers 0 9.?
Farm Laborers 0 0.7
Service workers (except domestic & 0 3.2
protective)

laborers (except farm) 1.4 2.6

Table 10. Distribution of subjects by father's occupation.

Summagy. There are several indications that the reaponders differ—
ed from the non-responders. It seems that they are perhaps less defensive

about their countries and thus more willing to answer questions; possibly

62

they include more of those not supported by their home government;

they probably have been in this country longer than their non—reSponding
counterparts; they include generally a greater proportion of women and
married students; and they tend to be studying social sciences and
humanities more than engineering or the physical and nainnral sciences.
‘we do not know, of course, the extent to which these factors affected
our findings. Caution is suggested in the generalizing of the results

until further studies are made.

CHAPTER IV

METHODS EMPLOYED

All the data for testing the hypotheses were collected by means
of a questionnaire, mailed to the foreign students and administered to
the American subjects in a single class period. (A copy of the question-
naire is given in Appendix B) The analysis of the questionnaire data

will now be described.

Scales Developed

‘ggperal_procedure. Five Guttmann-type scales were developed for
measuring reSpectively nationalism, the three forms of involvement with
country, and "international cooperation.” The scales were tried first
in a pilot study, administered to 63 foreign students and 25 American
students. The foreign students were all from.Nichigan State University
and represented the same countries as in the final stud , except that
Brazilian students were used instead of Venezuelans, and students from
Kenya rather than Guinea were sampled. The final sample did not include
Brazilians and Kenyans because there were insufficient numbers available
at the two universities sampled.

The pilot study was used to determine the potential scalability
of the variables and to develop first approximations of the final scales.
As a result of the initial scaling, additional items were written to con-
form to refined definitions of the variables. The items were then ad-

ministered to the foreign and.American subjects. (Part I of the

63

64

questionnaire in Appendix B presents the items.) Scales were formed
from the foreign student reSponses and verified by checking their
scalability with the Americans. The method for deve10ping the scales
was as follows.

The subjects were required to state their degree of agreement or
disagreement with the scale items through selection of one of five ans-
wers (see Appendix B). A total score was obtained for each subject on
each potential scale by summing his reaponses, weighting them from zero
for "strongly disagree" to four for "strongly agree.” All subjects were
then ranked in order of total score on each scale and an cptilumupoint
determined for combining the five reSponse categories into two categories
of agreement-disagreement. Dichotomous responses were necessary for scal-
ing by the lingoes Multiple Scalogram Analysis (to be discussed shortly),
but beginning with multiple choice items allows for greater flexibility
of scale development (Willis, 1960). It also saves the respondent the
frustration of having to state simple agreement or disagreement and less-
ens the danger of falsification when the subject does not know whether
his response will be scored agree or disagree.

The main bases for determining the cutting points were (a) least
error for each item (waisanen, 1960), and (b) avoidance of extreme imp
balance (say, .90 - .10) in the proportions of subjects agreeing and
disagreeing with a given item. Occasionally different cutting points
met the requirements about equally, whereby the following criteria in-
fluenced the choice.

(a) Consistency. To facilitate interpretation of a given scale
score, it was considered desirable to keep the cutting points of all

items as much alike as possible. It seems, for example, better to avoid

65

having the ”agree" category meaning "strongly agree" for one item, and
anything other than "strongly disagree" for another. This situation
can create bizarre effects, such as shifting a mild item into an ex-
treme position, or viceaversa.

(b) Marginal pwuhgm. An attempt was made to maintain a wide
range of marginal.p0pularities, so that the scale would discriminate
along a full continuum. Likewise, dichotomizations causing two or more
items to have nearly equal popularity were avoided as much as possible,
for this was found to increase error and lower reproduceability.

Having established the cutting points, the subjects' responses to
each potential scale were submitted to Michigan State University's MISTIC
computer and scales determined by the Lingoes Multiple Scalogram.Ana1ysis
program. In using this program, the allowable error per item is entered
as a parameter, and the program then determines the Guttmannscales that
can be formed from.the items submitted. (For details of the method see
Lingoes, 1960.) It computes first the largest scale (in number of items)
that can be formed without exceeding the allowable error. When this has
been achieved, another scale is selected from the remaining items; thus
no item appears in more than one scale. The process continues until no
more scales of at least three items can be formed. For each scale the
Coefficient of Reproduceability is calculated.

A trial and error method was found necessary in using the program,
for it use not possible to determine in advance the degree of reproduce-
ability a certain allowable error would effect. An effort was made to
obtain scales which had at least five items (for reliable measure) and a
Coefficient of Reproduceability approaching .90, the standard Guttmann

criterion. Reproduceability below .85 was considered unsatisfactory.

66

This somewhat lenient criterion was employed because errors were scored
by the Goodenough method, which counts more errors than the standard
Cornell technique (Edwards, 1957).

The Multiple Scalogram.Analysis was employed (a) because its com-
puter program saves time, (b) because a large initial pool of items can
easily be handled, and (c) because it shows whether there are more than
one dimension in the item pool. These advantages were in fact realized,
but often the resulting scales were unsatisfactory for one or more of
the following reasons:

(a) High reproduceability was sometimes obtained only with a scale
of few items, undesirable because this could have occurred by chance.

(b) While adequate in length and reproduceability, a scale may con-
tain items of only high or low popularity, thus not discriminating at one
end of the continuum.

(c) The program sometimes reflects items (i.e. counts agreement:

3

as disagreements and vice versa) in order to form.a scale. This was
considered undesirable, for the meaning of a reflected item in a con-
tinuum is difficult to understand.

(d) The program sometimes produces scales with items reversed in

order of papularity, which an ideal Guttmann scale should not have.

These characteristics are built into the program and sometimes

 

b. An eXperiment was run in which three hypothetical ”scales" of
ten items each were formed. The 'reSponses" of 23 subjects were devised
so that each scale would have perfect reproduceability (R = 1.00). ”Scores”
of the subjects were randomized so that the three scales would be uncor-
related. The 30 items were then submitted to the computer for Multiple
Scalogram Analysis. The analysis did result in the formation of three
scales which correSponded highly (but not perfectly) to those intended.
However, on two of the scales, several items were reflected, so that the
resulting score for each ”subject“ corresponded poorly with the score ob-
tainable by not reflecting items.

67

cannot be avoided. However, it was often found that the resulting
scales could be improved by eliminating or adding selected items, by
eliminating reversals, or by not reflecting any items. By ”improved"

we mean scales longer in length and/or in range of item popularity,

with higher Coefficient of Reproduceability, with items ordered by
popularity, and without reflected items. To double-check on these
scales, the selected items only were resubmitted to the computer, and
usually it would form the scale in the way intended. If not, the in-
vestigator's version of the scale was checked for mistakes, and if there
were none, that scale was accepted.

At this point another criterion for the scale was checked. The
Coefficient of Scalability was computed for each, as a measure of rela-
tive improvement that results from a knowledge of both category fre-
quencies and scores, rather than from either of these alone (Nenzel,
1953). The acceptable level of this index is not yet established, but
Menzel suggested a value of .60 - .65. Menzel did not use the conserva-
tive Goodenough scoring of errors, a method which seems to make it ex-
tremely difficult to meet his criterion. Consequently, some of the
scales had low Coefficients of Scalability.

Schuessler (1961) has proposed a method for checking the statisti-
cal significance of a scalogram. In finding that the scales were signi-
ficant at extremely high levels (beyond .001), it was realized that such
a test is not legitimate in testing a scale of selected items, for the
statistical prerequisite of allowing chance to Operate is not met. Only
when unsatisfactory items have not been eliminated is this legitimate.
Consequently, Schuessler's test was applied to the replication with Ameri—

can subjects on scales that were formed from the foreign student re5ponses.

68

In this case, even the scales of relatively low reproduceability were
significant. Perhaps an even more convincing indication that the scales
were not the result of chance is the very fact that they were found to
scale again on the Americans.

The scales finally accepted are by no means ideal Guttmann scales.
Sometimes the undesirable characteristics of the NSA.scales could not be
eliminated. The Coefficients of Reproduceability are not always as high
as we would prefer, and some of the scales are better considered quasi-
scales. Occasionally scales contain items close in popularity which
leads to increased error. In general, however, the scaling of the vari-
ables was considered successful, considering that the subjects were from
different cultures, and their meaning systems and comprehension of English
undoubtedly varied. For continued use the scales should preferably be re-
fined further, by trying new items, administering to new samples, manipu-
lating item cutting points, end so forth. But for our purposes here,
which is more to test hypotheses than to develop elegant instruments, the
scales were considered adequate.

Egtiggali§m4§azhe. In the pilot study, 38 items were devised
representing the gamut of characteristics that have been claimed for
nationalism. These included chauvinism, national ethnocentrism. patriot-
ism, beliefs in sovereignty, and national consciousness. The only pro-
mising scale that appeared was one whose items corresponded essentially
with the definitionxdfnationalism.submitted in chapter II. Consequently,
the items most consistent with that definition were selected, and new
items written. (Additional guidance on possible items was obtained from
the pilot study, in the forms of answers to incomplete sentences such as

"My country needs ....” "I hope that my country will....” and "W

69

country's place in the world....") These scaled rather well in the

final study, and the resulting Nationalism Scale is presented in table 11.

of I'YES“ ("strongly agree").

 

Table 11. The Nationalism.Scale

Agreement
Item Categorieg,
1. My country should strive for power in the world. YES
2. My country should be more forceful in influencing
other countries, when it believes it is in the right. YES
3. It is only natural that my country should put its own
interests first. YES
h. To the degree possible, my country should be both
economically and politically independent of all nations. YES
5. my country should guard against nations which may try to
push it around. YES
6. The best way for my peOple to progress is to maintain
themselves as a distinct and independent nation. ?, yes, YES
7. My country must seek to control its own destiny. yes, YES

Note that in five of the seven items, "agreement'' was an answer

This cutting point, established by the

principle of least error, indicates that the other answer categories

failed to discriminate subjects as well.

While the items scaled rather well for both foreign students and

Americans, item.# had low popularity among the Americans,

the most extreme item for them.

and is thus

While this does not affect the scale

scores for Americans, it does change the interpretation of the scores.

Thus, only an American with a scale score of seven is likely to have

agreed with item four, while a foreign student with a score of four or

above is likely to have agreed with that item.

70

The scale characteristics of the Nationalism Scale are presented
in Appendix C. An American version of slightly higher reproduceability
is given in Appendix D; for comparing foreign and American results, only
the general version is used in the analysis.

The Nationalism Scale has certain advantages over previous scales
portending to measure nationalism or ”patriotism," such as those by Thur-
stone and Levinson. The following are its desirable characteristics:

(a) While we cannot categorically state that the Nationalism.Sca1e
has no cultural bias, it does seem.1ess culture—bound than the other
scales. The items do not mention any Specific country, group, nor ideology.
In contrast, the Patriotism.sub-scale of the F-scale has an item referring
to "native, white, Christian.Americans," and the Thurstone scale mentions
the United States, the "democratic ideal,” and the ”Old‘World."

(b) The Nationalism Scale is not time-bound, as it does not
refer to Specific events nor contemporary institutions.

(c) As a Guttmann scale, subjects' scores are more meaningful and
we may have greater confidence in the unidimensionality of the vari-
ables measured.

(d) An attempt was made to avoid building in relationships to other
variables to be examined. Thus, while Levinson (1957) made nationalism
and internationalism apposite poles of his scale, this was avoided in
the Nationalism Scale. (As will be shown later, levinson's assumption
was not justified by our data.)

Goal Igvolvement Scale. The Goal Involvement Scale' is pre-
sented in table 12. Results were similar for the foreign students
and Americans on this scale, with the exception that very few
Americans reSponded affirmatively to item 1. (See Appendix C.)

The scale proved to be the best possible for Americans,

71

 

Agreement

Jfl“ Calm
1..A main factor in my choice of occupation is whether

it will benefit my country. YES
2. I can best achieve my personal goals through the pro-

gress of my country. YES
3. Since I live in my country, I want actively to partici-

pate as a citizen in its national life.‘ YES
#. I feel that, as a citizen, I have a definite duty to my

country. YES
5. my homeland needs my services. yes, YES

6. I would like personally to help my country attain its
goals. yes, YES

 

*Revision of item.from‘Thurstone Patriotism.Scale, form.A.

Table 12. The Goal Involvement Scale

i.e.. no improved American version could be devised.

Egg lpvglvement Scale. The Ego Involvement Scale was the least
satisfactory scale, being but a crude quasi-scale. Not only were the
Coefficients of Reproduceability and Scalability low, but the range of
items marginals includes mainly the less popular items (See Appendix C).
we can only Speculate on the reasons for difficulty here, but in addition
to inadequate definition, the variable may deal with feelings not fully
at the level of awareness, or which one does not readily admit. Table 13
presents the scale.

It was found possible to develop an improved American version of
the scale (Appendix D), which is better in that it has higher reproduce-
ability, it has more items, and a better distribution of item marginal
popularities. (This suggests that the concept of ego-involvement may

have different meanings for different cultures, hence making a cross-

72

 

Agreement

Item gategories
1. A person who praises my country praises me. YES
2. The main way for me to gain self-esteem is through the

status and prestige of my country. yes, YES
3. An outstanding accomplishment of my country gives me a

great feeling of pride. YES
4. I would feel ashamed if one of my country's leaders did

something disgraceful. YES
5. I gt-ain my identity from my country. yes, YES

Table 13. The Ego Involvement Scale

cultural scale difficult to obtain.) For testing hypotheses, only the
general scale was used.

ggfective IQVleement Scale. The Affective Involvement Scale,
shown in table 14, proved to have satisfactory characteristics for both
foreign and American samples. While it does contain an item exceeding
the standard bounds on popularity (item 6), the Coefficient of Scalability
is nevertheless fairly high. (The Coefficient of Scalability, unlike the
Coefficient of Reproduceability, is not spuriously inflated by extreme
item marginals.) A check on item 6 showed that it had only a third of
the errors expected by chance.

An improved American version of the Affective Involvement Scale
is presented in Appendix D. It has the desirable features of more items,
greater range of item pepularities, and higher reproduceability than the
general'version.

International ngperation Sgalg. In the pilot study, one main
dimension was formed from among 22 general "internationalism" items.

These items were identified as dealing mainly with international c00peration,

73

 

 

Agreement
altemg Categogi§§_

1. I am never as comfortable among foreigners as I am

with my fellow countrymen. yes, YES
2. When I die, I want it to be in my homeland. YES
3. I doubt that there are any other countries where I could

live as happily as in my own. yes, YES
Lt. My country is the only place where I can be completely

"at home." 1.3653153
5. my closest friendships are with my countrymen. yes, YES
6. I love my country. yes, YES

Table 1%. The Affective Involvement Scale
Agreement

M CW
1. The world would be a better place if international bar-

riers were removed, such as tariffs and immigration

restrictions. YES
2. My country should participate more actively to help ac-

hieve peaceful solutions in conflicts among nations. YES
3. My country should actively strive to improve the United

Nations. YES

4. It is in the best interests of one's own country to be con-
cerned with the welfare of other nations as well. YES

5. All nations, including my own, have something to contri-
bute to the world. YES

Table 15. The International COOperation Scale

while a second three-item dimension suggested the theme of subordination

of national interests such as through a world government. The decision
was made to concentrate on the former, and the International Cooperation
Scale (table 15) resulted. The Coefficients of Reproduceability and
Scaleability indicate that this is only a quasi-scale, but the items

scaled equally well for Americans as for foreign students. .All items

7L.

were endorsed by the vast majority of subjects, so in every case only

the YES answer ("strongly agree") was scored as an agreement.

Personality variab1e§
Dogmatism. The measure of dogmatism used was Schulze'ss ten-item

version of Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale (see Appendix F). The short form,
which correlated .76 with the full scale, was intended by Schulze to form
a Guttmann scale. In this study, however, no unidimensionality among the
items was found, so simple summated scores were used.

As an additional measure of dogmatism, to the questionnaires for
Americans were added the seven Dogmatism items espousing "belief in the
cause.‘3 These were assumed to bear most directly on the rationale re-
lating dogmatism and nationalism.

§E§E2§ Admiration. To measure status admiration, a five-item "sta-
tus" measure developed by Scott (1960) was used. The items were slightly
reworded, and five response categories were employed. As Scott had found,
the items formed a Guttmann scale (table 16). Reproduceability coeffi—
cients were .88 for the foreign students, .90 for the Americans. The
first two items reversed in order for the Americans, slightly changing

the meaning of the high scale scores.

 

5. R.H.K. Schulze is a graduate student in the Department of
Sociology and Anthropology at Michigan State University.

6. Schulze had Obtained a Coefficient of Reproduceability of .83.
and this likely would have been lower had the more conservative Good-
enough scoring been used. Apparently, the Dogmatism Scale is too hetero-
geneous in content such that a unidimensional scale is not feasible.

7. These are items 37-h3 of the Dogmatism Scale, Eorm.D (Rokeach,
1960). They appear in Part IX of the questionnaire in Appendix B.

75
Agreement
Item Cgtegories
1. I admire people who have the respect of important people. YES

2. I admire people who gain recognition for their achieve-

ments . YES
3. I admire people who show great leadership qualities. YES
h. I admire people who are in a position to direct and mold

other's lives. . yes, YES
5. I admire peOple who have the ability to lead others. yes, YES

Table 16. The Status Admiration Scale

Pergeived Characteristics of Cguntgy

Ngtional Power. Each subject was required to rate his country on
the evaluation, potency, and activity dimensions of the Semantic Differ-
ential. In accordance with the rationale, a "power" score was obtained
by multiplying the potency and activity ratings of each subject.

Nggional Status. Morris's (1960) method was used for each subject's
assessment of the status of his country (see Part V of questionnaire in
Appendix B). Morris had found that political standards, cultural stan-
dards, and the standard of living were considered important criteria for
international comparison by foreign students, and these criteria gave the
greqtest Spread of description. As in Mbrris' procedure, a total status
score was obtained by simply adding the three ranks assigned by the in-
dividual to his own country.

Threat to country. An incomplete sentence was used to assess the
national threat most salient to each subject. The statement beginning
"I fear that my country will..." was included with two other incomplete

sentences, as not to make obvious our interest in just one area. The

answers were then content analyzed into categories of external threat,

76

internal threat, or no threat. (See Appendix G for coding scheme.)
An inter-coder agreement of 88 per cent was obtained for mention of
external threat.

For the American subjects, an additional threat measure was em-
ployed. On the basis of what is known about issues of concern to the
American public today, and also from answers to the incomplete sentences
used in the pilot study, a list of current sources of internal and ex-
ternal threat to the United States was compiled. The sources of possible
external threat were: ‘Wbrld Communism, the Afro—Asian Bloc. Socialism
in the werld, Communist Bloc Nations, and the European Common Market.
Listed as possible internal threat were: the John Birch Society, Ameri-
can Liberals, Medicare, Unions, and American Communists. The subjects
were requested to rate each of these on the evaluation, potency, and
activity scales of the Semantic Differential, and on a "threat” scale
(see part VIII of questionnaire in Appendix). A similar procedure was
not ineluded in the foreign student questionnaire because a set of threat
sources for all the countries represented was not considered feasible.

For each American subject, an internal and external threat score
was obtained by summing the "threat scale" ratings for each respective

l"w’aisanen'se interpretation

set. To check on the meaning of "threat,'
that threat is a combination of "bad" and "strong" was employed. By
scoring as ”plus" all degrees of "good" and ”minus" all degrees of "bad,"
and multiplying these values with the rating of potency, an auxiliary

measure of threat was obtained for a subject's reSponse to a given concept.

The two measures were compared for three "external threat sources," namely

 

B. Dr. Frederick R. Waisanen, Department of Sociology and Anthro-
pology, Michigan State University.

77

werld Communism, Socialism in the werld, and the Afro—Asian bloc.
These were arbitnarily selected, and were considered sufficient to

determine the meaning of threat to the subjects.

Relgtion of Self to Natigp

The three scales for measuring the forms of involvement with country
have already been described. Additional measures of the relation of self
to nation were as follows:

Corresgonding chgracteristics of nation and self. Hypothesis 11
stated that degree of ego-involvement correlates with a correspondence
of the perceived characteristics of nation and self. To test this, each
subject was required to rate himself and his country on the evaluation,
potency and activity dimensions of the semantic differential. The degree
of correSpondence of selfanation characteristics was obtained simply by
obtaining the differences in the ratings of self and nation on each
characteristic. This proved to be an unsatisfactory measure, as most
subjects were found to rate themselves and their country similarly, hence
there was little discrimination among the scores. It was concluded that
the data was inadequate to test Hypothesis 11. More will be said on this
later.

Lgyalty. To determine the "hierarchy of loyalties" for each sub-
ject, a measure of relative loyalty was obtained for six concepts. These
included "myself," ”11y family," "my state or region," "my country,” "rry
continent,” and "the world." Choice of these concepts was made to in-
clude increasingly larger concentric elements of the individual's social
world, in the manner suggested by Allport (1954). The subjects were pre-

sented with each concept paired once with every other, with the order of

78

presentation randomized. Instructions were as follows:

Below you will find pairs of words referring to yourself and

different groups. Now suppose that in your work you found

yourself in a situation where you had to make a decision such

that only one of the pair would benefit. For each pair, circle

the one you would decide in favor of.

On the basis of his choices, it was possible to establish a rank
order of loyalties for each subject. Any concept could be chosen as many
as five times or not at all; a rank was assigned to each concept by the
number of times it was chosen. Most subjects were found completely con-
sistent, in that each concept was chosen over any below it in the rank
order. If any two concepts were chosen the same number of times, their
relative ranks were established by which concept was chosen when the two
were paired together. Occasionally three concepts were chosen the same

number of times with no clear ordering among them. In these instances,

the three concepts were ranked equally.

Other measures

Meaning of nationalism. To obtain a consensual measure of the
meaning of nationalism, the subjects were asked to rate the concept
"nationalism" on the three Semantic Differential factors of evaluation,
potency, and activity. Averages were then computed on each of these
dimensions for those scoring high (5, 6, or 7) and those scoring low
(9, l, or 2) on the Nationalism Scale.

Aspects liked. All subjects were asked to rate how well they
liked each of twelve characteristics of their country on a seven-item
Scale. (See Part III of the questionnaire in Appendix B.) As Hypothesis

:3‘predicted that nationalism would correlate with fine number of aspects

79

liked about one's country, the total of the ratings was used to index

the latter. To test the hypothesis independently of the varying character-
istics from country to country, all subjects "liking scores" were con-
verted to T - Scores, based on the distribution of responses for each
country.

Hypothesis 11 related two forms of involvement with country to
liking of the "cultural milieu" and the "goal achievement milieu." To
assess liking of the "cultural milieu," a sum was made of each subject's
ratings of his fellow countrymen, the land in his country, its customs
and traditions, and its ideals and values. These were the first four
characteristics listed in Part III of the questionnaire. Likewise, a
score for liking of the "goal achievement milieu" was formed by summing
ratings of the economic system, job opportunities, security, and freedom
and rights in the subject's country. These values were not converted to

T-scores, for national differences were considered relevant.

CHAPTER'V

RESUEIS

A majority of the hypotheses were completely or partially supported
by the results, and the totality of findings help to clarify the psycho-
logical nature of nationalism in a way not possible with previous non-em!
pirical analyses. In addition to the tests of hypotheses, some additional
findings will be presented to facilitate understanding of the relation—
ships examined.

All analyses were replicated separately on the foreign and American
subjects. Distinct differences between the two groups were found on
several of the relationships, indicating that nationalism functions some-
what differently for the Americans than for the foreign students. Further-
more, the Americans did not exhibit the range of variation as did the for-
eign students on several of the variable, including the main nationalism
measure. Consequently, the correlations were not always as high for them,
and in a few instances, the American group did not enable adequate tests
of the hypotheses. The foreign group was considered, therefore, to pro-

vide the more general analysis.

Meaning of Nationalism

The consensual meaning of nationalism to the subjects was found to
accord with the definition submitted in Chapter II. As predicted (Hypo-
thesis l), the subjects assessed nationalism as both potent and active.

Somewhat different from the prediction was the finding that the subjects

81

considered nationalism about equal in activity and potency; those high
in Nationalism (scoring 5, 6, or 7 on the scale), however, considered
nationalism as significantly more potent than did those with low National-
ism Scores (0, 1, or 2). Table 17 shows these relationships.

Hypothesis la was supported as stated, for high scorers on the Na-
tionalism Scale evaluated nationalism as significantly better than did
the low scorers. The former considered nationalism as definitely "good,"
while the latter's ratings were near to neutral. In a sense, this in-

dicates reliability in the measure of nationalism.

 

 

Foreign Students ._lgmggigang________
High Low High- High Low High-
NationalismNationalism LOW’ Nationalism. Nationalism. Low
(n = 49) (n = 7n) (n = 14) (n = 97)
Eval- 1.84 0.19 1.65!” 2.00 0.67 1. 33"
uation
Potency 5.71 5.0a 0.67" 5.64 R81 6.83*
Activity 5.52 5.08 0.44 5.50 5.05 0.1»5

 

‘Significant @>.05 ‘* Significant @ .Ol ‘** Significant @ .001
Table 1?. Average ratings of nationalism on the Semantic Differential.

(The scales ranges from +3 to -3 for evaluation; 1 to 7 for
potency; l to 7 for activity).

Relation of Nationalism to Personality

The results indicated that nationalism is indeed associated with
the personality syndrome considered authoritarian or dogmatic. Consist-
ent with the hypotheses, scores on Nationalism were found generally cor-

related with the Dogmatism measures and Status Admiration. Contrary to

82

expectation, however, there was little indication that strong national-
ists exhibit the assumed dogmatic characteristic of overrating their

country. The details on these findings fbllow.

Nationalism and Dogmgtism

Instead of the somewhat curvilinear relation predicted between Na-

 

tionalism and Dogmatism, a direct linear correlation was obtained. The
coefficient was +.#8 (significant at .001) for the foreign students, but
only +.13.(significant at .05) for the Americans. Plotting the scores
revealed no tendencies for curvilinearity.

According to the rationale presented, the component of Dogmatism
expected to correlate most with nationalism is "cause eSpousal." This
was found. The analysis, which was limited to the American subjects,
showed the Cause ESpousal and Nationalism measures to have a +.20 corre—
lation (significant at .01), which is somewhat higher than the American
correlation of +.13 between Nationalism and general Dogmatism.

It is necessary to interject a comment regarding the low Dogmatism
correlations for the Americans. An obvious explanation is that the small-
er range of Nationalism.scores for the Americans would tend to depress the
correlation. But it is also likely that the Americans were more knowledge-
able regarding the Dogmatism Scale and hence more guarded in their ans-
wers. That this is a real possibility is indicated by the fact that
several Americans recognized the Dogmatism items. ‘More than one come
plained that they had answered these questions “at least ten times" be-
fore (and suggested that researchers devise new items!). Although these

subjects were eliminated from the sample, it is probable that many, if

83
not most, of the Americans had previous exposures to the Dogmatism
Scale and knew what it was supposed to measure.

Hypothesis 3 concerned the tendency to overrate all aspects of
one's country, an assumed dogmatic characteristic. Results were as pre-
dicted, for Nationalism correlated positively with the total scores of
aspects liked. Magnitudes were, however, only +.13 for the foreign stu-
dents, and +.23 for the Americans. While these are statistically signi-
ficant at the .05 and .01 levels reSpectively, a trivial amount of vari-
ance on the Nationalism Scores was accounted for. Furthermore, dogmtism
seems an insufficient elqflenation for general liking for one's country,
as the "liking scores” correlated with Dogmatism only +.21 and -.16 hr
the foreign and American students respectively. (Notice, however, the
difference in sign for the Americans.) In conclusion, it appears that
Dogmatism was directly associated with Nationalism, but neither National-

ism nor Dogmatism accounted much for general liking of country.

N sm St 1: dmi t

The test of Hypothesis it confirmed Scott '5 (1960) finding that na-
tionalism was related to the admiratim of status. The Nationalism and
Status Admiration scores correlated +.llvl and +,21+ (both significant at
.001) for the foreign and American students respectively. The latter
was remarkably close to Scott's obtained +.25 correlation between the
status variable and his nationalism measure. (Scott's subjects were
also American students.)

Are Status Admiration and Dogmatism part of the same psychological
syndrome? The answer seems to be that the two concepts are related, but

not sufficiently to be considered nerely 'the same thing.“ Status

|u_

84

Admiration and Dogmatism were correlated +.l45 and +.26 (both significant
at .001) for the foreign and American groups reapectively. Each variable
thus accounted for a minor portion of the variance on the other, but the
conclusion seems tenable that we are dealing with two different personal-

ity factors.

Nationalism and Perceived Characteristics of One's Nation

All three of the national characteristics variables proved to be
related to nationalism, but there were distinct differences between the
foreign and American groups. For the foreign students, perceived nation-
al status was the single national characteristic related to nationalism;
for the Americans, national status was of no consequence. In contrast,
both perceived power and perceived threat were related to nationalism
for the Americans, but not for the foreign students. The results were

as follows.

W

Nationalism, as an aSpiration for greater national power, was ex-
pected to correlate negatively with the extant power perceived for one 's
nation. This hypothesis was not supported. For the foreign students, a
correlation of -.07 between Nationalism and rated power (potency X acti-
vity) was not sigxificant; however, a positive correlation of .33 (signi-
ficant at .001) was obtained with the Americans.

Further analyses still failed to reveal any relation between per-
eeived power and Nationalism with the foreign students. There was no

indication of a curvilinear relationship, nor did examination by country

85

reveal a tendency for correlation within national groups. For the for-
eign students, therefore, the null hypothesis is considered tenable.

The American results will be discussed in Chapter‘VI.

Nt St

Among the foreign students, a highly significant negative relation—
ship was obtained between Perceived National Status and.Nationalism.
Table 18 shows the contingency table for the lh8 foreign students‘who
ranked their country on the three status criteria. (The remaining 29
did not understand the question or declined to answer on grounds of in-
sufficient knowledge.) The consistent tendency was for those with high-

er Nationalism.5cores to rank their country lower'in relative status.

 

 

Status-Rank o 1 2 3 h 5 6.7
1-9 11 16 19 11 9 5 5
lb or more 1 2 13 12 12 24 8

 

Proportion
scoring 1.9 92% 89% 59% 48% 43% 17% 38%

 

X2 a 22.5 Significant e .001.

Table 18. Contingency table of’Nationalism.and National
Status scores for foreign subjects.

The product-moment correlation similarly reveals the relation be-
tween status-rank of country and Nationalism. A coefficient of -.h3 was

significant at the .001 level, for the foreign students.9

 

in As a low status score indicates high national status, the corre-
lation here was numerically +.43. All correlations reported on national
status were reversed in sign to conform to the meaning of the status score.

The Chi-square provides a more legitimate index of relation on statistical
grounds, for the National Status measure as an interval scale is questionable.

86

For the Americans, there was an absence of a significant relation
between Nationalism and Perceived National Status. Part of the reason
for this could be the fact that the Americans had a limited range of
status scores (most ranked their country at the upper extreme). This is
not the complete explanation, however, for the range of status scores was
sufficient to yield significant correlations with other‘variables (see

W

Perceived threat was first examined by content analysis of comple-
tions to the sentence beginning "I fear that my con.tntry‘will...'l There
was no statistically significant relation between threat and nationalism.
but the American results did reveal a tendency for a relation in the hypo-
thesised direction. It can be seen in table 19 that the Americans with
high Nationalism.scores (five or above) mentioned external threat pro-
portionately more than did those scoring zero on the Scale. In compari-
son, the foreign students showed no such tendencies.

The American findings with the sentence completions were given moms
conclusive support by the direct threat ratings. This method, in which
the Americans rated the threat of different sources, revealed a +.36 cor-
relation (significant at .001) between.Nationalism and external threat.

A +.l6 correlation (significant at .05) was obtained with the internal
threat measure. For the Americans-then, there were consistent indications
that nationalism was associated with the perception of external threat to
one's country.

Hypothesis 7a predicted that the relation between threat and na-

tionalism would be intensified for those who perceived their country as

8?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t :
Nationalism Score
0 1 2 3 4 5 6.7
External Threat u 5 12 9 6 9 2 2 =- 1.2
(not signi-
No Exter. Threat 10 16 27 18 21 2n 1:» ficant)
n 11+ 21 39 27 27 33 16
% Exter. Threat 29% 210% 31% 33% 22% 27% 13%
mricans:
Nationalism Score .
o 1 2 3 n 5 5.6.7
External Threat 1 13 12 21 3 8 2 = 1.6
m. (not signi-
No Exter. Threat 11 27 3h 30 1).; 6 ficant)
n 12 no '46 51 22 11+
$ Batter. Threat 3% 33% 26% 41% 36% 57%

Table 19. Nationalism and external threat: sentence completions

low in power. Results, however, contradicted the hypothesis. While
analyses of the sentence completions failed to reveal any relations,
the threat ratings did. In the American sample, those who had "power
scores” of ’49 (the highest possible) were compared with those scoring 30
or below. A +.30 correlation (significant at .01) between external threat
scores and Nationalism was obtained for the former, but a non-significant
oorrelatim of +.O’+ was found for the latter. Figure 5 shows the regress-
ion lines.

The meaning of threat for the Americans was checked by examining
their potency and evaluation ratings of World Commmism, Socialism in the

World, and the Afro-Asian Bloc. While the direct threat ratings and the

   

 

3 Perceived High

(084 - Power(r-+.30)

E

.43“

r4

2

.22-

...)

:9

“ 1 F Perceived Low _//

 

Power ( r . +.O4)

O I 1 L 1 I 1
O 5 10 15 20 25 30

External Threat Score

 

 

Figure 5. Relation between Nationalism.Score and External
Threat Score for Americans perceiving their country
high and low in power.

ExP products were significantly related (chi-squares were significant
at .001), the relationships were not clear-cut. Thus, 58 per cent of
the Americans scored no threat for Socialism.by the EXP method, but
rated some degree of threat on the Threat Scale; the same thing was true
for 70 per cent of the Americans in rating the Afro-Asian Bloc. The
direct threat rating seemed therefore to be the more precise measure
of threat.
To gain an increased understanding as to the nature of the fears
or threats mentioned by the Americans and foreign subjects, further con-
tent analyses were made on the answers to the statement 'I fear that my
country will...." Answers given by the two samples are shown in table 20.
The Americans feared mainly that their country would become involved
in war, that it would degenerate into a weaker position, and/or that it

‘would err in its foreign relations. In contrast, the foreign students

'0'.

 

Foreign
M St dent
Confrontation of Specific intemal
problems or obstacles 20.14% 7.5%
Dangerous forces within country 17.5 10.8
Inadequate progress of country 16.1! 2.7
Degeneration of country 13.0 21.6
Poor foreign policy 10.7 31-9
Involvement in... lbs 19.5

Table 20. Pears for their country mentioned by
foreign and American students

feared that their respective countries would fail to achieve adequate
progress, and the t they would face specific obstacles and dangerous
forces within their countries. In light of these findings, it seems
less surprising that nationalism is associated with the perception of

external threat for the Americans, but not for the foreign students.

Nationalism and the Relatiorehifis 0‘ Self to Nation

As discussed in Chapter II, the variables delineating relationships
of self to nation were three forms of involvement with country and loyal-
ty. Before relating these to nationalism, the basic differences among
the forms of involvement were explored. They were found to differ in
various ways, although not always as hypothesised. Upon. relating the
forms of involvement to nationalism, results once again were found to
differ for the foreign and Amrican students. Instead of the hypothesized
importance of Ego Involvement to nationalism, results showed that national-

ism was associated most with Goal Involvement for the foreign students,

while Affective Involvement was the form most related to the nationalism
of the Americans. In both groups, however, nationalism was associated

with loyalty to country. The details will now be presented.

1‘ einthFrmsf vove t
The three forms of involvement were found to have a complexity of
relationships with each other and with other variables, in ways not al-
ways as predicted. Results showed that often these variables operated
differently for the foreign and American students. In an effort to
clarify the nature of the forms of involvement, below are summarized
their distinctive relationships.
1. The three variables were, as expected, related to each other.
In accord with the prediction, the relation between Goal Involvement
and Affective Involvement was rather slight. Ego Involvement, on the
other hand, was found to correlate substantially with both of the other
forms.
2. Goal Involvement was related to other variables in unique ways
for the foreign students. as follows.
(a) A U-shaped relation obtained between Goal Involvement and
ratings of the Goal Achievement Milieu, such that liking of
the Goal Achievement Milieu was associated with either a
very high or very low degree of Goal Involvement. The fac-
tors governing this relationship seemed to be the length of
time a country hasbeen independent and its relative prosperity.
(b) Greater Goal Newt was found among those who perceived
their country to be low in status.

(c) Goal Involvement was associated more with loyalty to country

91

than were the other forms of involvement.

In contrast, all the above relationships were only slight, if not
negligible, for the Americans. It seems, therefore, that Goal Involve-
ment is a relatively unimportant variable for them.

3. Affective Involvement was expected to distinctively correlate
with liking of the Cultural Milieu of one's country. In fact, however,
the relationship was slight, and Affective Involvement was not die-
tinguished from Goal Involvement in this regard. There was some evidence
that the Affective Involvement measure taps a deeper sentiment than mere
"liking,” for while the nationality groups exhibited little differences
in Cultural Milieu ratings, there was a distinct spread in the average
Affective Involvement scores.

The mly other distinctive feature of Affective Involvement was its
relation to Dogmatism, in interaction with nationality. Among the foreign
students, all forms of involvement correlated about equally with Dogmat-
ism; among the Americans, however, Affective Involvement was associated
more with Dogmatism than were the other forms of involvement. later
analyses of nationalism and internationalism will reveal further the
special importance of Affective Involvement for the Americans.

1!. Ego Involvement failed to reveal any distinctive relationships,
probably due to the fact that it correlated substantially with both of
the other forms of involvement. There was a slight tendency for it to
correlate more with liking of the Cultural Milieu. In general, however,
the analysis did not reveal Ego Involvement to be an especially salient
variable in the analysis of nationalism.

The results for the specific hypotheses regarding the forms of

involvement will now be examined.

92

Eterigmlgtigns of the fgms 9f invglvegggt. Hypothesis 8

states that ego-involvement is related more to the other forms of in-
volvement than they are to each other. This was supported. Table 21

shows this was true in the case both of zero-order and partial correlations.

Foreign Zero Order Correlations Partial Correlations
Stgdegts: Aff. Inv. Ego Inv. Aff. Inv. Ego Inv.

 

 

Goal Inv. L+.5 use] 456141. I Goal 111qu 452qu .Meee I

Ego Inv. I +.61*“I Ego Inv. r +,u1s«I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agricang: Aff. Inv. Ego Inv. Aff. Inv. Ego Inv.
Goal Inv. L+.16s I +.51~* I Goal Inv.I -.os I+.5o«-I
Igo Inv. rh‘B‘m‘I Ego Inv. I +.41“*J

 

I"Signif. @ .05 “ Signif. @ .01“‘Signif. ® .001

Table 21. Inter-correlations of forms of involvement with country.

Fo ve t d e eme i . Hypothesis 9a
predicted that Goal Involvemert would correlate higher with liking of
the Goal Achievement Milieu than would Affective Involvement. This in-
deed was found, but somewhat differently than anticipated. The foreign
students ' ratings of the Goal Achievement Milieu and Affective Involve-
ment correlated -.18, while a .31 curvilinear correlation obtained with
Goal Involvement. (Both were significant at the .01 level.) The U-shaped
relation is shown in figure 6.

Understanding of the U-shaped relation is fostered by plotting the
average goal-involvement and goal-milieu scores for each nationality in

the sample (figure 7). Resulting is an exaggeration of the U-Curve, with

Rating of Goal Achievement Milieu

93

 

 

. 3°-
0
«4
.325?
.p
a 20L
% \/
as 15-
a}:
as 10-
“H
628 5_
o
o 1 J L 1 l J
_o 1 2 3 n 5 6

Goal-- Involvement Score

Figure 6. Relation between foreign students! Goal Involvement
scores and rating of their countries' Goal Achievement
Milieu.

N
W

15

10

\l

 

 

1 l I l L l l

0 l 2 3 4 5 6

Goal Involvement Score

Figure 7. Goal Involvement and rating of Goal Achievement
Milieu by country.

91+

only the Americans deviating substantially. (For the Anericans, there
was only a +.15 correlation between Goal Involvement and rating of the
Goal Achievement Milieu.) In general, subjects from long-independent
and prospering nations (Canada, England, Germany, Japan) highly rated
their country ' s Goal Achievement Milieu, but had low Goal-Involvement
scores. The newly independent natims (Egypt, Guinea, India, Nigeria)
tended to be high on both variables. The long independent but generally
underdeveloped countries (Colombia, Iran, Korea, Venezuela) scored low-
set on Goal Achievement Milieu and moderately on Goal Involvement.
Plotting the relationships of Ego Involvement and Goal Involve-
ment with liking of the Goal Achievement Milieu failed to show aw
curvilinear relationships. This supports the contention that Boal ix-
volvement is a variable distinct from the others.
WW- Hypothesis 913 Pradicted
that Affective Involvement would correlate higher with liking of the
Cultural Milieu of one '3 country than would Goal Involvement. This was

not supported by the results, shown in table 22.

Foreign

Students Americans
Goal Involvement 4.,15s .... 25”.
Affective Involvement 41,151- 45311:“
Ego Involvement +.25*" +,33eee

* Significant @ .05 ”*Significant @ .001

Table 22. Correlations of forms of Involvement with
liking of the Cultural Mlieu of one's country.

95

Affective involvement seems to tap a deeper sentiment than mere
'liking." Examinatim of the results by country (table 23) shows that
while students from the different countries varied considerably in
Affective Involvement, there was little variation in rating of the Cul-

tural Milieu.

 

Affective Rating of

W
Venezuela 3.8 25. 5
Colombia 3.6 22.2
Korea 3.6 22.9
Iran 3.6 21.1%
U.S.A. 3.5 23.8
Egypt 33 23.3
India 3.0 23.5
Guinea & Nigeria 2.8 25.0
Japan 2.8 22.5
Canada 1.8 23.3
Germarv 1.5 23.6
England 0.9 23.5

Table 23. Affective Involvement and rating of
Cultural Milieu by country.

www- In formulating Hepa-

thesis 10, it was assumed that Ego Involvement was tantamount to "identi-
fication,” in that the attributes of the model would be perceived as
one's own. It was expected that individuals highly ego-involved with

their country would rate themselves and their nation similarly, on the

96

three main dimensions of the Semantic Differential. However as men-
tioned in Chapter III, most subjects rated themselves and their country
similarly, so there was little discrimination among individuals. (For
example, the mean differences between self and ration for foreign stu-
dents were .9. 1.1+, and 1.14 on the evaluation potency, and activity
dimensions respectively.) Consequently, scores on the three forms of
involvement failed to correlate with any of the difference scores be-
tween self and nation (except for a trivial +.13 correlation betwaen Goal
Involvalent and potency differences) for the foreign students). For the
interested reader, the correlations of forms of involvement and differ-
ence secs-es are presented in Appendix H.

Another, perhaps the most crucial, methodological problem is that
the concepts of evaluation, potency, and activity may have different mean-
ings when applied to self and to nation. Smith (1962) reported in a re-
cent factor analytic study, that the evaluation, potency, and activity
dimensions were reapectively loaded on factors of social worth, physical
potency, and self-confidence when applied to the self. It is doubtful
that these same meanings would be applied to one 's nation.

It is concluded that the methodological problems alone render
Hypothesis 10 inadequately tested. Reconsideration of the hypothesis
will be given in the next chapter.

WWW. Little empirical support was
given to the hypothesis that Ego Involvement is the form most correlated
with dogmatism. Table 2 4 shows that the Dogmatism Scale correlated some-
what more with Ego Involvement for the foreign students, but this was not

so with the Amricans. For them, Affective Involvement correlated most

97

with Dogmatism. But for the foreign students, the most tenable overall
conclusion appears to be that the three forms of involvement with country

are about equally correlated with dogmatism.

Foreign Students Americans
Goal Involvement +,!+8*“ +,02
Ego Involvement +.51"" +.19“
Affective Involvement +J45‘“ «l-.33"“"I

“Significant @ .01 “W Significant @ .001

Table 24. Correlation of forms of involvement with Dogmatism.

d N t S . Hypothesis 12 was sup-
ported to the extent that the _o_11e_r_ix_)g of the three forms of involvement

in their correlations with National Status was as predicted. For example,
Goal Involvement would be expected to correlate more negatively or less
positively with National Status than would the other forms of involvement.
However, the Specific directions of the correlation for each form of in-
volvement failed to agree with predictions (table 25). Notice that the

American correlations were all opposite in sign to those of the foreign

Predicted Obtained Correlations
Correlatig Foreign Stui ents Americans
Goal Involvement - 3.531!” +.o5
Affective Involvement 0 -.W" +.O7
Ego Involvement + "29.“ +34.“

***Significant G .001

Table 25. Correlations of forms of involvemnt with
National Status.

98

students. For them, the lower they considered the national status, the
lower the degree of involvement (significant only for Ego Involvement).
As national status correlated negatively with liking of one 's country
(including the Cultural Milieu and Goal Achievement Milieu), it may be
that low involvement for the Americans implies dislike of their country.
(It may be recalled that most Americans imputed very high status to
their country.) In general, however, it must be concluded that the low-
er the perceived status of me's country, the greater the involvement.
F e a . To further understanding
of the nature of the forms of involvemnt, table 26 presents their cor-
relations with the two remaining orientation-to-country variables. Ego
Involvement was shown consistently to correlate highest with overall
liking. Loyalty was correlated more with all forms of involvement for

the foreign students than for the Americans.

 

Overall Liking Loyalty to
ME Oman—._.
Foreign Foreign
t r s 6
Goal Involvement 4521" +.21+"* +.52‘” 4519“
Ego Involvement 4327'“I 4532““I +.39”" +.28“*
Affective Involvement +.22“ +.29*“ +.33*“ -I-.16"I

“Significant @ .05 *‘Significant @ .01 *"Significant @ .001

Table 26. Correlations of forms of involvement, overall liking
of country, and loyalty to country.

WW As the previous analyses
shaved, Goal Involvement seemed to have special significantefor the for-

eign students, while it appeared that Affective Involvement may have been

99

more important for the Americans. These indications were reinforced by
the relations between the forms of involvement and our main variable of
interest, nationalism. Findings were that Goal Involvement correlated
most with Nationalism among the foreign students, while Affective Involve-

ment correlated most among the Americans (see table 27).

 

Foreign
Monte “Americag
Goal Involvement +.39“* +.lO
Ego Involvement +.13* +.13"'
Affective Involvement $.21“ 4.35:"

I"Signif. @ .05 I“Signizt'. @ .01 "”Signif. @ .001

Table 27. Correlations of involvement and Nationalism.

Contrary to Hypothesis 13, Ego Involvement bore only a slight m-
letion to Nationalism. It appears that the source of nationalism has
relatively little to do with the evaluation of the self. What it does

involve will be discussed in the next chapter,

We:
As predicted in Hypothesis 11%, results showed that the more national-

istic the individual, the higher he was likely to place his country in his
hierarchy of loyalties. This is consistent with the notion that national-
ism involves emphasizing the interests of one's country over other interests.

The correlations showing this relationship are in table 28. In addi-
tion to the Coefficients of Linear Correlation, biserial correlations were
also computed. The latter is cruder in that the ranks of country were

simply dichotomized, but it is more legitimate statistically.

100

Foreign Students Americans
r "391"" -,18‘""
f e 3 8‘ .. - e 1.5

’ bis
I""‘Significant @ .01 “* Significant @ .001

Table 28. Correlations of Nationalism with loyalty to country.

Note that there was but a slight relation between Nationalism and
loyalty for the Americans. This may be due in part to the concentration
of low Nationalism scores in the sample.

mpothesis 1% was addressed to the relative loyalty to country vs.
rest of the world. Correlations of +.32 (significant at .001) and +.21
(significant at .01) were obtained for the foreign students and Americans
respectively. A high Nationalism score thus indicated greater loyalty to
one's country than to the rest of the world. The relatimship is shown
more clearly by comparing individuals with extreme scores on the National-

ism Scale (table 29).

 

 

 

 

Nationalism Score Nationalism Score
0,; 6:7 6.2
Country Before 'QI'L
'"brld 31% 88% 53% 100%
World Before 59¢ 12$ 45% 0%
Country
n=36 n=l6 n=53 n=l+
Fore 1m Students ricans

Table 29. Relationships betwaen Nationalism Score and
relative loyalty to country vs. rest of world.

101

Nationalism and Internationalism

 

As was stated in wapter IV, we expected to refute the common no-
tion that nationalism and internationalism are necessarily opposed. To
be cautious, however, Hypothesis 15 predicted that the Nationalism scores
would be slightly negatively correlated with the International Coopera-
tion scores. Instead, there was a slightly positivg correlation between
the We variables for the foreign students, and a non-significant cor-
relatim for the Americans. The values reSpectively were +.12 (signifi-
cant at .05) and -.07.

It is concluded that, while the Specific hypothesis is not tenable,
there was support for the general expectation that nationalism and inter-

national cooperation a re not incaapatible.

s wee Tw nds te at one s
Earlier, International Cooperation was designated as l'Il’nternationalu
ism Type A“ and loyalty to world before country as "Internationalism Type
B.‘ As predicted in Hypothesis 16, these variables were found to have a
non-linear relation to each other. Table 30 shows that loyalty to world
before country was infrequently conkined with high International Coopera-

tion scores. To test the significance of this, it was necessary to can-

pute chi-square for this combination versus every other combination. As

table 29 shows, all were significant.

 

While no hypotheses were made as to the relationship of involvement

Foreign Students

World Before
Country

Country Before
World

Americagg

World Before
Country

Country Before
World

102

International
Cooperation

. 0.1.2

3

Inii

 

l?

A B

#0

 

71

 

 

D

’49

 

 

International

Cooperation

 

O 2 3 .4 .5
H: B
21

42

 

T

65

C

 

 

D

57

 

 

X2 A-B = 8.5 (P <.01)
X2 11.0 = 31.9 (P <.001)
X2 11.11 = 1M6 (P <.001)
X2 A-B = 6.3 (P <.o5)

X2 A-C = 21.5 (P <.001)
X2 an - 18.0 (P <.001)

Table 30. Relationships between Internationalism types A and B.

with country and internationalism, investigation of this proved inter-

esting. Of the three forms of involvement, “teatime. Imam con-

sistently seemed least amenable to internationalism (table 31). To

speculate on this , it may be that Affective Involvement is allied with

ethnocentrism.

 

International

Coons

 

Goal Involvement
Ego Involvement

Affective Involvement

 

Foreign

Students

+. 23“
£24“:-

+.02

 

  

World Before

  

 

 

 

-.26eee]

 

“'Signif. @ .01

*"Signif. e .001

Table 31. Forms of involvement with country and
Internationalism types A and B,

103

A Multiple Regression Analysis

With all the variables that have been related to nationalism, it
was considered desirable to determine the variance on the Nationalism
Scale that had been accounted for. As the foreign students provided the
more general sample, a multiple regression equation was established, us-
ing some of the best predictor variables. Resulting was the following

equation.

Nationalism Score = 1.2143 + .304 (Goal Involvement)
+.180 (Ego Involvement) +.106 (Affective Involvement)
+.l60 (Status Admiratim) +.030 (Dogmtism)
-.003 (Rating of Cultural Milieu) -.039 (Rating of Goal

Achievement Milieu) +.017 (National Status)

The Coefficient of Multiple Correlation resulting with this equat-
ion was +.68. Thus, almost half the variance on the Nationalism Scale
was accounted. for. As suggested in Chapter II, it is probable that
mob of the remaining variance is due to unique nationality factors,

such as cultural, political, and historical influences.

Differences by Nationality

While the limited samples of foreign students from W0 universities
cannot be considered representative of their reapective countries, exam-
ination of the variations across national lines is suggestive. The rather

large differences indicate that nationality is a major factor. The

101+

findings are presented here so that they might suggest avenues for fur-
ther research, and so they may facilitate understanding of the results

or this Study e

W
The several countries represented in the sample ordered similarin

on Nationalism through both the pilot study and main studies. This com-
parison is legitimate, for the pilot study measure of nationalism was

similar to the final Nationalism Scale. Table 32 shows the ranks by country.

2110': Study Main Stm

Egypt (6): 3.86 Venezuela (16): 4.69
Iran (7): 3.86 Egypt (11): n.09
Korea (6); 3.50 Iran (22): 3.86
Japan (8): 3.50 Korea (17): 3.82
Colombia (5): 3.00 0610mm: (12:): 3.79
India (8): 3.00 India (21): 3.67
Kenya 8: Nigeria ' Guinea 8: Nigeria

(6): 2.83 (5) 23.60
Brazil (1:): 2.83 Japan (18): 2.72
Canada (6): 2.33 U.S.A. (185): 2.1:3
U.S.A. (27): 2.07 Canada (17): 2.06
England (2): 0.50 Germany (19): 1.1:2
Germany (ll): 0.25 mgland (l7): 1.1+].

Table 32. Countries ranked by average Nationalism Scores.

The Japanese groups were the only ones which changed much in

105

relative position across the two studies. Note that the upper part of
the lists includes the generally underdeveloped countries, while the
countries low on nationalism comprise the industrialized, pro3pering
nations (of. figure 7.). An interesting finding is that the German stu-
dents, from a country formerly epitomizing nationalism, scored extremely
low on the Nationalism Scale. These students my be atypical, but their

scores may also reflect the outlook of "the new German."

v e t h C t
The three forms of involvement all showed considerable variation
by country. Table 33 shows that while the orderings were similar fcr
the three variables, some countries changed position by several ranks.

Egypt, for example, moved from rank 1 on Goal and Ego Involvement to rank 6

WW eme *5 W W
Egypt: 1+. 54 Egypt: 3:55 Venezuela: 3.75
Venezuela: 1+. 37 India: 2.90 Colombia: 3.614
Guinea 8: Colombia: 2.57 Korea: 3.59
Nigeria: 4.20
Colombia: 14., 14 Iran: 2 . 50 Iran: 3 . 55
India: 3.91 Venezuela: 2.25 U.S.A.: 3.47
Inns. : 3.68 Guinea 2 Egypt: 3.27
Nigeria: 2.20

Korea: 3.06 Korea: 2.21 India: 2.95
U,S.A.: 2.64 Japan: 1.89 Guinea 8:

Nigeria 2.80
Japan: 2.00 U.S eAe 3 1072 Japan: 2078
Canada: 1.53 ’ Germany: 1.05 Canada: 1.76
Germny : 1A2 mglarxi: 0 . 91+ Germany: 1.1+?
England : 0 .94 Canada: 0 .76 England: 0 . 94

Table 33. Banks by country on forms of involvement.

106

on Affective Involvement. These variations provide further evidence
of the differences in the three forms of involvement.

If the ”sensitive area complexfl described by Lambert and Bressler
(1955) corresponds to Ego Involvement with country, then our results
accorded with their findings. Their description was based mainly on
Indian students in the United States, and, as table 33 shows, the In-
dians scored very high on the Ego Involvement Scale.

Note that the American average is well.up in the ranks of the
Affective Involvement Scale. It will be recalled that Nationalism
was most correlated with this form.of involvement for Americans. These
facts indicate that Affective Involvement may be a key variable in the

American's orientations to their country.

te ti

Differences across nationalities were small on the International
COOperation Scale. As table 3% shows, there was no strong tendency for
nations to rank according to their stage of development or industriali-
zation.

Notice that the two countries highest on the Nationalism.Scale
(Egypt and Venezuela) were also highest on International Cooperation;
likewise German.students scored extremely low on both scales. These
same countries retain.similar positions on the involvement scales, which
may indicate response set. From.the considerations in Chapter III, the
extremes of the Egyptian students may be the result of their attempting
to present a "good front.”

To shed some light on the meaning of the German reSponses, it is

helpful to consider other characteristics of the German sample. First,

107

Egypt 3 .- 1'8

venezuela 2.75

Japan 2.72
Guinea &
Nigeria 2.60
U.S.A. 2.58
India 2.52

England 2,h7
Korea 2.41
Iran 2.23
Colombia 2.21

Canada 2.12

Germany 2.00

Table 3“. Ranks by country on International
COOperation Scale.

they had the highest refusal rate, with four students expressing unwill-
ingness to answer the questionnaire. Second, comments written by several
of the German students partially revealed their attitudes. Following

are excerpts:

"Em reactions...are probably not typically German,
since most Germans are more nationalistic than I am....
I was torn between a feeling to reunite with East Germany
(a nationalistic feeling) and a feeling of international-
ism.to form one big European nation.”

"There can be no understanding among nations as long
as they are so different in their basic characteristics....
mankind will have to wait 200 years before there is real
understanding among nations, but by then we probably have
no nations any more....'

"I have an inherent ambivalence towards Germany...I
think the same picture would be repeated in the question-
naires of Irany Germans in nw age group.” (Age: 31)

108

"Merely by requesting such data you engender enough
resistance to potentially distort the accuracy of any ans-
‘wers you might get.”

"At exam.time...I was tempted to throw the question-
naire in the waste basket."

A few other German students indicated possible hostility by criticiz-
ing the methods of the research. From these qualitative findings, it seems
that (a) there was a certain hostility, resistance, or defensiveness regard-
ing questions about their country; and (b) there was an uncertainty of
their own feelings toward their country and to the rest of the world.

These indications appear consistent with the positions of the Germans on

the several scales.

rcei d r te st cs t

(The nationality groups also varied considerably in assessments of
their respective countries, as shown in table 35. That the status, power,
and ”liking” variables were somewhat related is shown by the similarity
of ranks for any given country. The rather unrealistic assessment of
their country's power by the Egyptian students is another example of
their extremeness of response. It may be that their rating here was
based on Egypt's power among the African.and Middle Eastern nations. The

Egyptians were not extreme in rating their country's status.

re 0 a t

The various countries snowed interesting variations in their hier-
archies of loyalty. As can.be seen in table 36, country and family com-
manded a strong loyalty for most of the students. Relatively low in rank

were loyalty to continent, state or region, and self. Exceptions to the

Status-Score
U.S.A.: 3.9
England: 4.7
Canada: 6.1
Germany: 6.3
India: 7.6
Japan: 8.7
Egypt: 9.1
Guinea &

Nigeria: 1200

Iran

Korea:
Venezuela: 13 .6

Colombia: 13.9

‘Wbrld
Continent
Country

State

Family

Self

12.6
13.2

U.S.A.

3.8
4.1
2.7
4.1
2.3
3.9

Table 36.

1.8
4.1

Hierarchies of loyalty by country.

109

flower of Country

U.S.A.:

Egypt:

Germany:

England:

Canada:
India:

Guinea&

Nigeria:

Japan:

Colombi

a:

‘Venezuela:

Korea:

Iran:

Colombia
venezuela

U
0

\0
U
H

3.4
2.4

3.7
2.5
3.8
2.7
4.3

4.1
2.9
5.2

E

3.8
3.8
3.6
4.9
“1.9

209

41.1
35.5
28.7
28.3
27.9
27.8

25.u
20.6
15.4
12.9
11.5
11.0

England

2.4
3.7
3.1
4.6

2.7
u.u

Table 35. Assessment of country on different

4.5

Total Liking Score
Guinea &:Nigeria: 73.0

U.S.A.:
Egypt:
England:
India:
Canada:

Germany:

Japan:
Colombia:
venezuela:
Korea:
Iran:

variables.

Iran
India

3.4 n.o
u.5
2.3
3.8
2.6

3.7

3.8
2.7
3.9
2.9
4.4

Japan

u.u
4.8
2.8
net
1.7
2.7

70.2

57.6
52.8
49.8
49.0
47.6

Korea

4.8

2.4
4.1
1.8
3.4

110

last were Japan and Germny, where self was second only to family.

Note also that the world was relatively low in the loyalty ranks.
England was the lone exception, for the English students on the average
assigned to the world their primary loyalty. Overall, only 32 per cent
of the foreign students placed the world before their country, as did

34 per cent of the Americans.

CHAPTER'VI

DISCUSSION

This chapter presents first an interpretation of the findings, in
an attempt to form a cdherent picture of the psychological nature of ne-
tionalism.and patriotism. Some of the speculations will be based on in-
complete evidence, so more solid conclusions must await further research.
After that, the findings will be related to the literature. To end the

chapter, a critique of some of the methodology will be presented.

Interpretation of the Findings

What is Nationalism?

Nationalism‘was defined in Chapter II as the aSpiration for great-
er potency or power for one's nation relative to other nations. The evi-
dence of the study supports this. First, it was possible to form a uni-
dimensional scale based on the definition. This scale showed consistency
in the ranking of the national groups of students through the pilot and
main studies. Second, the meaning of nationalism consensually determined
from.the subjects accords with the definition. And third, the National-
ism Scale was able to separate those subjects inclined favorably to na-
tionalism.from those neutrally diapoeed, and this was by a scale in which
the concept nationalism was not mentioned.

But definition alone is sterile as far as explaining how and for

what purpose nationalism.functions. This shall be considered next.

N t sm' 1

On the basis of the findings, it is concluded that the goal of

111

112

contemporary nationalism isn't necessarily power for its own sake. It
seems rather that the nationalism of the subjects in this study is con-
cerned with the benefits which W increased power, Specifically
prosperity and recognition. This inference is based on the following
findings with the foreign students, the more general sample.

1. Nationalism was strongest among the have-not nations. With due
recognition of the fact that the national groups were not representative,
the evidence was that the higher Nationalism Scores obtained with the
students from underdeveloped countries.

2. Nationalism correlated negatively with national status. It
thus seems that nationalism is a means toward achieving 'a place in
the sun” for one's nation.

3. The form of involvement correlated most with nationalism was
Goal Involvement. This form of involvement, which was called “Patriot-
ism Type B,“ represents a desire to help one's country progress, there-
by facilitating one's own goal achievement. Goal Involvement was strong-
est among those perceiving low status for their country, indicating that
high Goal Involvement, strong natimalism, and perception of low National
Status go together.

4. Nationalism correlated negatively with the subjects' ratings
of the Goal Achiegenent Milieu in their reSpective countries.

5. Nationalism was not generally correlated with perception of
external threat nor specifically with power of the subjects' countries.

6. The fears for their countries expressed most frequently by the
foreign subjects were that their countries would not achieve adequate
progress, that they faced Specific obstacles and internal dangers,

An integration of some of the important relationships is provided

by figure 4 (based on figure 2 in Chapter IV). Length of time of a

113

country's independence seems to be a factor, so it is included. To

speculate, it seems that students from countries of high status and

prOSperity feel little need to commit themselves to their country‘s

progress (Goal Involvement). In the sample, this included the Canadians,

the English, the Germans, and the Japanese, all of whom were relatively

Rating of
Coal Achievement Milieu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low nationalism, High nationalism,
high status low statusA‘ I
Lo independen Newly indepdndent
proqurous natio s underdeveAOped
, nations
‘bong independent
underdezelopsd
nations
Goal Involvement I

 

(Patriotism Type E)

Figure 8. Interrelationships of several variables and nationalism.

low on Goal Involvement and Nationalism. Those from newly independent
nations (Egypt, Gutnea,Indiam and Nigeria) probably feel that their res-

pective countries hold great promise, but require their efforts to ac-

hieve

progress. They were high on Goal Involvement and Nationalism.

Finally, an intermediate degree of Coal Involvement seems to characterize

114

students from countries whose relative failure of progress promises
less in the way of opportunities for goal achievement. These countries
included Colombia, Iran, Korea, and Venezuela, which had high average
Nationalism Scores.

Among the Amricans, it will be recalled, the Nationalism Scores
were relatively law. But when an American is nationalistic, what does
this mean? The United States i; a nation of high power, status, and
prOSperity. The results indicated that the Amrican subjects recognized
this. Surely then, the above statements do not apply to nationalism in
this country. It is submitted that American nationalism is more of a
fear reaction, a reaction to the danger of losing that which is dearly
cathected. These assertions are based on the following findings.

1. For the Americans, Nationalism was correlated with the perception
of external threat. The fears expressed more by the Americans were those
of war, degeneration of their country, and mistakes in foreign relations.
These, it would seem, reflect fears that the high position of the United
States as a world power is jeopardized. Thus, Nationalism was correlated
with external threat only for those Americans who rated their country
high in power; apparently, those most aware of the power of their country
were the ones most likely to react to the threat of _l_o§‘L_n_g that power.

2. For the Auricans, Affective Involvement was the main form of
involvement, with salient findings as follows:

(a) Affective Involvement correlated more with American National-

ism more than did the other forms of involvement.

(b) Affective Involvement, for the Americans, correlated more with

Dogmatism than did the other forms of involvement. This Dog-

matism may be interpreted as a reaction to threat (Rokeach,

1960, Chapter 21).

115

(c) Affective Involvement was strongest for those Americans who
perceived their country as high in status. This, combined
with point 1 (above), indicates that American nationalism
is strongest among those who (a) recognize the high status
and power of their country, (b) have a deep emotional involve-
ment in their country, and (c) fear that their country will
lose its high status and power.

3. While Goal Involvement did not correlate highly with Nationalism
for the Americans, they were found to be more goal-involved than the Canad-
ians, English, Germans, and Japanese. This, it may be conjectured, was
the result of fears for their country's degeneration and loss of power.

In summary, American nationalism.is not to find a place in the

sun, but to keep the place America has.

ism s

As a "cause," does nationalism attract a particular personality
type, the authoritarian-dogmatic "true believer"? On the basis of the
findings, the answer is yes, but with qualifications. Nationalism.did
indeed correlate with Dogmatism, Cause'Espousal, and Status Admiration,
indicating that a certain personality syndrome is prone to be nationalist-
ic. This partially may explain why Nationalism and perceived National
Status were correlated. However, none of the personality correlations
were high enough to indicate that these variables provide the central
explanation for nationalism. Furthermore, the low correlations between
Nationalism and Ego Involvement indicated that evaluation of the self

accounted for a very minor portion of the variance in Nationalism Scores.

116

It is concluded, therefore, that at least as important as personality
in the phenomenon of nationalism are the perceived characteristics of
one's nation and the associated forms of involvement with country.
Worthy of consideration is the reason for a My correlation
of Nationalism and Dogmatism for the foreign students. According to
our rationale, strong Dogmatism seemed an inadequate basis for predict-
ing that a person would be nationalistic. In considering the countries
whence the nationalistic students came, however, there may be a logical
explanation for the direct relationship between the two variables.
Their countries were the underdeveloped, in which the cause of national-
ism would likely be thg cause for the dogmatic individual to adhere to.
Such a directive tendency could lead to a straight line correlation be-

tween Dogmatism and Nationalism.

Nationalism; Obstgglp t9 International Eagmgny?
The findings indicate that nationalism can be, but not necessarily,

an obstacle to harmonious international relations. ‘ws shall consider
first how it can lead to discord.

It is assumed that conflict is potential when a nation seeks power
and dominance‘gggg other nations. Such notions are expressed in the Na-
tionalism Scale by items 1 and 2, which advocate the seeking of world
power and using forceful influence on other countries. While in general
these items were strongly endorsed by relatively few of the subjects,
proportionally more endorsed them among the countries with high mean
Nationalism Scores. Furthermore, a scored ”agreement" to these items

means only a 'YES' answer (”strongly agree'); thus, more subjects

117.

ostensibly agreed (by checking fyes")'with the strong items than.were
counted as agreeing. Therefore, it would seem.that among the highly
nationalistic countries there is a potential for supporting the seeking
of power and dominance over other nations.

There is evidence, however, which indicates that nationalism is
n23 incompatible with harmonious international relations. It first
should be realized that while nationalism.is defined and measured as
the seeking of power for one's nation, most items on the Nationalism
Scale do not imply seeking power £12; other>nations. Of perhaps greater
import is the evidence of the correlations with the International.Coopera-
tion Scale. Here again, most subjects ostensibly endorsed the items,
but only 'YES' answers were counted as agreements. On this basis, there
was a slight but significant positive correlation between Nationalism
and International Cooperation for the foreign students, and a non-sig-
nificant correlation for the Americans. From this it can be concluded
that mile nationalism involves national self-interest, this does not
mitigate against cooperation with other nations having similar self-
interests.

The findings did show that only a minority of subjects felt great-
er world loyalty than national loyalty. ‘While primacy of world loyalty
may be considered the ideal by some, the evidence of our limited sample
is that an immense conversion of the masses would be necessary for world
loyalty to become paramount. It seems unlikely that this would occur
among the underdevelOped nations until they too achieved prosperity and

status.

1134,

The Results in the Perspective of'Extant Literature

The findings in this study do not generally accord with current
descriptions of the nature of nationalism. Some of the hypotheses in-
spired by the literature were not supported; this was particularly true
of Hypothesis 13, in which Ego Involvement was posited as central to
nationalisln It therefore behooves us at this point to reassess the

literature on the basis of the findings.

C to 0 Nat i m

In Chapter I, the causes eSpoused in nationalism were delineated
into two kinds. The first characterized what Morgenthau (1961) described
as the "old Nationalism." In this, the and sought is national autonomy
and self-determination, and the nation is made the focal point of poli-
tical loyalties and actions. But other nationalisms are recognized as
having similar and equally justifiable goals. Contrasting to this is
‘Horgenthau's ”new nationalism," in which beliefs in national superiority
lead adherents to seek for their nation a grandeur and dominance over
other supposedly inferior nations. In the extreme, exaltation of the
state leads to a loss of individuality, and blind loyalty is demanded.
(See Fellner quote in Chapter I.)

It is submitted here that the nationalism of the subjects in this
study more aptly fits the description of the I'old" nationalism. The in-
dividuals strongest in nationalism were from the underdeveloped, low-
status countries. ‘As was suggested earlier, it seems that the national

goals they seek are increased prosperity and recognition. There was

118

little indication that they sought dominance of their nations over
others, nor were they indiSposed to international cooperation.

It would be a mistake, we submit, to automatically associate ccn-
temporary nationalism with chauvinism and jingoism. This is the “new
nationalism" of pre—Wcrld War II Germany and Japan. While modern na-
tionalism could assume this form.in some countries, it seems at least
equally possible, as Emerson (1961) asserted, that nationalism.can be

a stepping stone toward a peaceful and collaborative world order.

t ° r t from ti a i

The discussion in Chapter I revealed a confusion between the
concepts of nationalism and patriotism. Do the results of this study
warrant a distinction between the canepts? It seems that they do, if
the distinction is allowed that nationalism is an orientation M
one's country vis-a-vis other countries, while patriotism is a fan
of relation between the individgl and his country. It was found use-
ful in the study to distinguish two types of patriotism, which were
labeled Goal Involvement and Affective Involvement. Relations between
measures of these and the Nationalism Scale were such to indicate that

neither could be considered identical to nationalism.

Measure of Natiggalism
Most of the reviewed measures of nationalism (or "patriotism")

assessed a rightist, ethnocentric nationalism. These tend to have a

10

built-in incompatibility with internationalism. The deve10pment of

 

1Q In the pilot study, Thurstones's Patriotism Scale and Levin-
son's Nationalism Scale correlated respectively «‘45 and -.66 with

the International Cooperation measure.

119

the Nationalism Scale in this study indicates that such a bias is un-
necessary: instead, the relation between nationalism and national ethno-

centrism should be treated as a problem for separate study.

Ngtiogglism.ggd Idgntificatign
The discussion in.Chapter I revealed that nany writers have con-

sidered identification a major factor in nationalism. Benda (1961) went
so far as to assert that the nationalistic individua1.is little concerned
with the material interests of his nation, but is intent more on the
acquisition of national glory and prestige, for the sake of pride. This
would surely indicate that ego involvement should be central to national-
ism. The findings of this study failed to support this. It seems that
writers who stress thd role of identification in nationalism.may have been
too much influenced by the one-sided view that nationalism entails the

yielding of individuality to achieve unity with the state.

1:22am

Allport's (1954) notions on concentric loyalties were drawn upon
in examining the relation of loyalty to nationalism. Consequently, some
of the results bear upon what Allpcrt has said about loyalty. He suggest-
ed (a) that loyalty becomes weaker for concentric groups of increasing
inclusiveness, and (b) that concentric loyalties need not clash. The
latter statement is given as a psychological principle, and Allport
specifically mentioned that patriotism.need not clash with world-mindedness.
Allport's first assertion received little support from the results

of the study. Instead of the hierarchy of loyalties suggested by him,

120

the results showed considerable variations across nationalities (of.
table 36). Family and country often received primary loyalty, but not
always. loyalty to self showed the greatest variation, from second
place among the Germans and Japanese, to last place for several other
nationalities.

likewise, Allport's second assertion seems unwarranted. In the
case of Patriotism Type A (Affective Involvement), there was generally
a negative correlation with the forms of internationalism. It seems
more apprOpriate to say that concentric loyalties Egylnot clash, if a
choice is not forced upon the individual. But when, as in the hypo-
thetieed.situation presented to our subjects, the individual is confront-
ed with a forced-choice situation, the loyalties must necessarily clash.

That most peOple do not encounter this situation does not negate the

argument.

Limitations of the Study

The Samples
It is acknowledged that foreign students in the United States re-

present a select group, such that generalizations to nations would be
hazardous indeed. Furthermore, the samples that were used in this study
were restricted on several factors. Hence, the only populations to
which the results are legitimately generalized are the populations of
foreign and American students at Michigan State University and the Uni-
versity of Michigan similarly constituted on the several variables de-
scribed in Chapter II.

While foreign students provide a readily accessible crossanational

121

papulation, the selective factors of mail surveys indicate that this
is not the best method of sampling. No matter how carefully the re-
searcher selects his lists, his sample of reSpondents is likely to be
biased in some way. ‘With foreign students, cultural variations in re—
Sponse may compound this bias. It is recommended, therefore, that in
subsequent research with foreign students, each subject chosen should

be personally contacted to insure his participation.

Instruments

In measuring the several variables of this study, a few of the
methods were found to be inadequate for their intended purpose. These
were as follows:

Ngtipnal.Power. It is quite possible that the subjects varied
in their frames of reference in assessing the power of their respective
countries. The fact that the Egyptian students rated their country
very high_cn power suggests this. It is recommended therefore that
subsequent assessments of perceived power employ a comparative measure,
similar in fashion to the way national status was measured in this study.

Do t ' . Chapter III has already detailed the shortcomings of
the short form.of the Dogmatism Scale used in the study. Future studies
attempting to measure Dogmatism should use either the complete #O-item
scale or a better developed short form.

Threat measure. The incomplete sentence method of determining
perceived threat seems to be too crude to provide an adequate measure.
0n the one hand, it fails to assess gggggg of threat, and on the other,
the wording of the incomplete sentence can bias the content of the re-

sponse elicited. The rating scale approach overcomes the first of

122

these difficulties, but the selection of the concepts to be rated can
still bias the measure. Use of both unstructured and structured mea-
sures in successive phases of study should prove helpful. (This was
essentially the method used with the Americans in this study.) The
unstructured phase should be extensive enough to determine most sources
of threat perceived by the subjects. Ideally for a cross-cultural study,
the possible sources of threat used in the second phase should be ex-
pressed generally enough so that they are meaningful to all the subjects.

lfiggtificatiqp,meg§ggg, Here there are questions not only about
the method of measurement but of the hypothesis itself. (Hypothesis 10
stated that ego involvement with country is associated with a congruence
of self’and nation characteristics.) Methodologically, it seems very
difficult to establish dimensions which have the same meaning when applied
to one's country and to himself. A more fruitful and meaningful line of
inquiry might be to determine the extent to which an individual identifies
with his fellow countrymen or to the leaders of his country. Such con-
cepts as "the typical American" or "the ideal German" could be related
to the self-concept. One approach to this would be the method commonly
used in assessing stereotypes. Here, a trait list is checked by the
subject on characteristics he perceives as typical of different groups.
By having him.check traits of himself and his compatriots, perceived
similarities could be established.

Another useful approach may be to examine not identification with
country, but to determine rather the importance of nationality to the
individual's identity. For example, Ego Involvement may be found to be

the form of involvement correlating most with salience of nationality in

123

the self-concept. The Twenty Statements Test (Kuhn, 1960) might be em-
ployed in such an: analysis of the self concept.

In the analysis, a distinction need be made between identification
and projection. Both would result in similarity of perceived character-
istics of self and group. The evidence is that authoritarians tend more
to project than to identify (Adorno et al, 1950; Saenger and Flowerman,
1954; Stotland and Hillmer, 1962). If ego involvement is more character-
istic of the authoritarian personality, then the rationale for Hypothesis
10 must lie in projection rather than identification.

Evolvemt with 99333131. The three forms of involvement with
country were not empirically distinguished as much.as was desired. Part
of the difficulty may have been due to similarities of the variables
greater than was assumed. Yet there were differences in some of the
ways predicted, and it is expected that further research could clarify
the nature of the differences.

Ego involvement is the concept most in need of clarification.

This is true in general, as well as in the special form of ego involve-
ment dealt with in this study. The concept of ego involvement apparently
has yet been given little empirical examination, for Newcomb (1950) stated
that no methods had yet been devised for measuring amounts of ego-involve-
ment. Chances are that the concept subsumes several different factors, as
indicated by the discussion of the "ego-involvement" items in Appendix E.
Therefore, the Ego Involvement Scale used in this study should be con-
sidered only a first approximation toward measuring a concept awaiting

further development.

CHAPTER'VII
SUMMARY

Nationalism and patriotism.have been recognized by social scient-
ists, as among the most powerful social forces of our time. A review of
the literature revealed, however, that research was necessary in order
to clarify the meanings of the concepts and empirically to establish some
of their psychological ramifications. The study reported here represents
an attempt in this direction.

Nationalism was defined as an essentially motivational orientation
of the individual to his country. such that he aspires for it greater in-
ternational strength or power. On this basis, nationalism was related to
three types of psychological.variables of assumed relevance. These in-
cluded (a) personality characteristics, (b) perceived characteristics of
the individual's nation, and (c) the individual's relation to his country.
One consequential.variable was also examined, specifically an attitude
labelled International Cooperation.

Data'was obtained by means of a questionnaire administered to for-
eign and American students. Foreign subjects were used in anticipation
that they would provide wide ranges on the variables in question and thus
provide broader tests of the hypotheses. An American sample was used for
replicating the analyses on one culturally homogeneous sample.

Nationalism.and several other variables under examination were
measured by Guttmann scales. developed for this study. Each of these
was found to scale for both the foreign students ahd Americans. Findings

showed that high scorers on the Nationalism Scale evaluated Nationalism

124

125

favorably. while low scorers were neutrally diaposed to it.

Personality characteristics selected for examination were Dogmatism
and Status Admiration. The former was chosen because part of the Dogmatic
syndrome is, according to Rokeach and others, the I'belief in the cause";
accordingly, adherence to the cause of nationalism may reflect the dog-
matic attribute. Similarly. a personality characteristic of Status Ad-
miration may well find expression in the seeking of status for one's na-
tion through nationalism. The analysis revealed that indeed both of the
personality characteristics were correlated with Nationalism. although
the relationships were but slight for the American subjects. There was
little support, however, for the hypothesis that nationalism is associated
with an assumed dogmatic characteristic of overrating one's country. In-
dications were that the assumption was in error.

Three characteristics of one's country, as perceived by the individual.
were hypothesized to be related to nationalism. The first of these was na-
tional power; logically. it seemed that if one considered his country to
be relatively weak internationally, he might wish to see his natim strong-
er and thus espouse nationalism. The second variable censidered was Per-
ceived National Status, measured in terms of cultural, political. and
economic standards. Nationalism was hypothesized to be stronger among
those who perceived low status for their country, on the assumption that
associated with such perception would be the motivation to raise the Na-
tional.Status. The third variable examined was external threat to one's
nation; nationalism was expected to be stronger to the degree that one
perceived his nation as threatened from without.

All three of the perceived national characteristics were related

126

to the Nationalism scores, but their relative importance varied consider—
ably between the foreign and American students. Among the foreign stu-
dents. National Status was the only national variable associated with
Nationalism. The relationship was clearly significant, and in the dir-
ection hypothesized. Among the Americans, however. perceived National
Status was not related to Nationalism, but the power and threat variables
were. Interaction was found, for'Nationalism was associated with the per-
ception of threat only among those attributing high power to their country.

By means of an incomplete sentence, the specific fears of the subjects
for their countries were elicited. Results revealed that the foreign stu-
dents perceived the main threats accruing within their countries, while
the Americans' fears pertained more to relations with other countries.
These findings help to explain why nationalism was associated with exter-
nal threat among the Americans but not among the foreign students.

To analyze the relationships of the individual to his country, three
forms of involvement were delineated. The first was Affective Involvement,
representing a sentimental attachment to one's homeland (Patriotism Type
A). The second was Goal Involvement. defined as a motivation to help
one's country as a result of a perceived connection between national pro-
gress and personal goal attainment (Patriotism.Type B). The third was
Ego Involvement, a relationship in which the individual perceives the
attributes and achievements of his country as reflecting on him.and of
consequence to his self-esteem. An additional relationship of the in-
dividual to his country'was posited in the form.of relative loyalty to
country as opposed to loyalty to self and various concentric groups of

which the individual is a member.

127

The three forms of involvement were not assumed to be orthogonal
and were in fact found related in a complexity of ways, with difference
appearing betweenthe foreign and American students. One of the salient
findings was that, as hypothesized, Affective Involvement and Goal In-
volvement were little related. Ego Involvement did correlate substantial-
ly with both variables as anticipated.

Nationalism was hypothesized to correlate most with Ego Involvement.
a notion commonly expressed in the literature on nationalism. Reinforcing
this expectation was the fact that Ego Involvement seems to subsume the
other two forms. Results nevertheless refuted the hypothesis. Ego In-
volvement correlated to a very minor degree with Nationalism. The form
of involvement that was most associated with Nationalism varied between
the foreign and American students. Goal Involvement distinctively corre-
lated with Nationalism among the foreign students, while Affective In-
volvement seemed paramount for the Americans .

As hypothesized, professed loyalty to country was found strongest
among the most nationalistic. Results showed that very few of those with
high Nationalism scores would favor the world over their country in a
forced-choice situation.

The final variable examined was an attitude labeled International
Cooperation. Contrary to common ideas about nationalism. incompatability
between Nationalism and International Cooperation was not hypothesized.
Results did indeed reveal virtually no relatiinbetween the two variables;
there was in fact a slight positive correlation between them for the
foreign students.

All the reviewed relationships are Simmerized in Table 37. A corre-

lation with Nationalism whose absolute value exceeds .25 was arbitrarily

128

selected as "relevant,“ with statistical significance as a necessary but
not sufficient condition. The table clearly shows the similarities and

differences between the foreign and American groups.

 

National Self—Nation
re 1 Characteristic; Relatigships
Sts Ntl Ntl Ext Involvement Intl
MWSW Pwr Thr’c WMM
Foreign
Students Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No
American No No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
Students

 

 

 

 

Yes = |r| >.25
Table 37. Relevance of certain variables to Nationalism.

No hypotheses were made regarding specific naticnalities in the
foreign student sample because of the questionable representativeness
of these groups. There were numerous indications. however. that the na-
tional groupings differed on many of the variables. There was a definite
tendency, for example, for Nationalism scores to be highest among studmts
from underdeveloped, non-industrialized countries. In contrast, there
were negligible national differences on the International Cooperation
variable. An interesting finding was that the ”hierarchies of loyalty“
varied across national lines, probably indicating cultural differences.
Primary loyalties were generally given to family and country, but the
Germans and Japanese gave high loyalty to self. The English students
were the only ones to express primry loyalty to the world, which general-
hr was low on the respective hierarchies.

In the discussion, a review of the detailed findings led to the

129

conclusion that the goals of contemporary nationalism seem to be pros-
perity and recognition, rather than raw national power. Hence, national-
ism is strongest among the have-not nations. American nationalism seems
to be a Special case, defensive in nature and associated with fear of loss
of the status and prosperity which the United States enjoys. Personality
factors, within the limitations of the present study. seem to be operat-
ing but are by no means the main bases for naticnalism. It seems then,
that modern nationalism does not function toward dominance .of other na-
tions. The latter function of nationalism characterized the Axis powers
prior to World War II, and is mistakenly. identified by some writers with
nationalism everywhere. The evidence indicates, therefore, that national-

ism does not necessarily preclude harmonious international relations.

REFERENCES

Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else. Levinson, D.J.. & Sanford, R.N.
The t t er a t . New York: Harper. 1950.

Allport, G. The nature of prengdice. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
1951».

Appel. K.E. Nationalism and sovereignty: a psychiatric view. J. abnorm,
. 3°C: P33511955: 19%. 59.. 355-362.

Back, K. W. Influence through social cormnunication. In Eleanor E. Maccoby,

T.M. Newcomb, 8c E.L. Hartley (Ed's.). Readi_ng§ in social psychology.
(3rd ed.) New York: Holt, 1958.

Benda, J. The treason of the intellectuals. In U.G. Whitaker, Jr. (Ed.),
Nationalism and international progggs . (and ed.) San Francisco:
Chandler, 1961.

Bendix, H.. & Lipset, 8.1!. Class, status, and power. Glencoe. 111.:
Free Press, 1953.

Bennett, J.W.. Passin, H.. & McKnight, R.K. In search of identity; the

Jaggese ggerseas sghglgr Q Agegga and Japan. Minneapolis:
Univer. Minnesota Press, 1958.

Bjerstedt, A. ”Ego-involved world-mindedness,‘ nationality images, and
methods of research: a methodological note. J. Conflict Resolution,

Braunthal, J. The moral paradox of nationalism. In 0.6. Whitaker, Jr.
(Ed.), Nationalism and international progress, (2nd ed.) San Fran-
cisco: Chandler, 1961.

Buchanan, W., &Cantril, H. H93 mtions see each gther; a study; in pgblig
221111031. urbana. Ills, UDiVo n1. Press. 1953.

Cameron,N. Th sh fbehavirdi rdr'a e -
tion. New York: Houghtcn-mfflin. 1914’].

Cartwright, D., 8: Zander, A. Grm dmamic . Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peter-
son, 1953.

Cooley. 0.3. Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner's,
1902.

Deutsch, K. H. int i i a bib 1 r on ti a ism 1 «-
1253. Cambridge. Mass.: Technology Press of M.I.T., 1956.

Deutsch, K. W. N 1 nd 0 ia co t ° an o t
foundations of nationality. New York: Wiley, 1953.

Doob, L.W. South Tyrol: an introduction to the psychological syndrome
of nationalism. Publ. gin. guart., 1962, g. 172-18“.

130

131

Edwards, A.L. Techniqges of attitude scalp construction. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1957.

Ehnerson, R. The progress of nationalism. In U.G. Whitaker, Jr. (Ed.),
Nationalism and international progres . (2nd ed.) San Francisco,
Chandler, 1961.

English, H.B., & English, Ava C. A congrehensive dictionag of psycho-
logical and pgghoanglytical terms. New York: Longmans, Green, 1958.

Erikson, E.H. Identity and the life cycle. ngchol. Issues, 1959, l (1).
Feldman. A.B. Mother-country and fatherland. chhoanal” 1955, 1(2), 27-lt5.
Fellner, E. The psychology of nationalism. Hibbert J .. 19149, 32, 266-271.

Ferguson, LJI. The isolation and measurement of nationalism. J , soc,
chhol., 1942, 1 , 215-228.

Firth, R. Human types. New York: New American Library, 1958.

Freud, S. Grog psychology and the analysis of the ego. New York:
Liveright, 1951.

From, E. Escape from fmfig. New York: Rinehart. 1941.
Fromm, E. The sane society. New York: Rinehart, 1955.

Grodzins. M. The basis of national loyalty. Bull. atomic Scientistg,
1951’ 1! 356.3620

Grodzins, M. The loyal and the dislgyal. Chicago: Univer. Chicago Press,
1956.

Guetzkow. H. Multiple lgyaltiejs; theoretical approggh to a problem gin
international organization. Princeton, New Jersey: Center for Res.
on World Polit. Instns. , 1955.

Hal‘mvachs, M. The gychologv of social class. Glencoe. 111.: Free Press,
1958.

Hall, C.S., & Lindsey, G. Theories of pgrsonality. New York: Wiley, 1957.

Hayes, C.J.H. Bases of nationalism. In U.G. Whitaker, Jr. (Ed.), Nation-
alism and international progress. (2nd ed.) San Francisco:
Chandler, 1961.

Hertz, F. The nature a nationalism. Soc. Forces, 1941, E. #09415.

Hoffer, E. 1h; trge bejlglgver. New York: New American Library, 1958.

Horowitz, E.L. Some aspects of the development of patriotism in children.
Sociometm, 1940, 1, 329-351.

132

Hunter, E.L. Aéociolggical analysis of certain types of patriotism.
New York: Maisel, 1932.

Icheiser, G. Some psychological obstacles to an understanding between
the nations. J. abnorm. soc. chhol” 1941. 3_6_. 928-432.

Institute for International Education. Ed_;_ucation for one world: annual
census of foreigg students in institutions of rggher edggation:i_n_
the United States. 1253-1953.

Institute of International Education. Qpen doors, 1962: report on inter-
national exchange.

Jones, E. gisaysgn applied psychoanalysis. Iondon: Hogarth, 1923.
Kedourie, E. Nationalism. London: Hutchinson Univer. Library. 1960.

Kiell, N. Attitudes of foreign students. J. higher Edug” 1951, 2;,
188-196.

Klineberg. 0. Tensions affecting international Mgrstanding. New
York: Soc. Sci. Res. Council, 1950.

Kohn, H. Nationalism: its meaning and history. New York: Van Nostrand,
1955.

Kohn, H. A new look at nationalism. In U.G. Whitaker, Jr. (Ed.),
Nationalism and international progyes . (2nd ed.) San Francisco:
Chandler, 1961.

Krech. D., & Crutchfield, R.S. Theory and problems of social psychglgogz.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1948.

Kuhn, I‘LH. Self-attitudes by age, sex, and professional training. Sociol.
9.9.3.1220: 19609 1: 39-550

Lambert, R.D.. & Bressler, M. The sensitive-area complex: a contribution
to the theory of guided culture contact. Amer, J , Sociol.. 1955,
.6_9,. 583-592.

Levinscn, D.J. An approach to the theory and measurement of ethnocentric
idealoge J: PgizChOIQ. 19’49’ _2_§_9 19.390

Levinson, D.J. Authoritarian personality and foreign policy. 3], Confligt
Resolution, 1957, 1, 37-147.

 

Lindesmith, A.R., J. Strauss, A.L. Social nachology. New York: Dryden,
1949.

Lingoci'. J .0. Multiple scalogram analysis: a generalization of Guttmann's
scale analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mich. St. Univer..
1960.

133.
Ioomis. C.P.. & Schuler, E.A. Acculturation of foreign students in the
United States. Appl. Anthrgp., 1948, 2. 17—34.

McClintock, C.G.. .9. Davis. J. Changes in the attribute of “nationality"
in the self percept of the "stranger.” J. soc. ngchol,. 1958,
, 52.. 183-193.

Mead, G.H. Mind, self, 8: sggiety from the ptgpdpoint of g spggl pehayipg-

3;. Chicago: Univer. Chicago Press. 1931+.

Meltzer, H. The development of children's nationality preferences, concepts.
and attitudes. J. Psychol., 191d, 3;. 393-358.

Menzel, H. A new coefficient for scalogram analysis. Publ. gin. Ouartu
1953. ll. 268-280.

Michigan State News, Feb. 16, 1962. Seminar blames UN weakness on na-
tionalism.

Morgenthau, H. Nationalism: dilem. In U.G. Whitaker, Jr. (Ed.),
Natimalism apd mgmatippgl prpgress. (2nd ed.) San Francisco:
Chandler, 1961.

Morray. J.P. Pride of state. Boston: Beacon. 1959.

Morris,R.T. Tetw-w mirrrznat na statsin re td t'
adjustment. Minneapolis: Univer. Minnesota Press. 1960.

Morse, Nancy C. , 8.- Allport, F.H. The causation of anti-semitism: an
investigation of seven hypotheses. J, ngchol., 1952, 33;, 197-233.

Newcomb, T. Social pgycholog. New York: Holt, 1950.

Osgood, C.E. Graduated reciprocation in tension-reductipp. Univer. I11..
December, 1960. (14111190.)

Roheim. G. The psychology of patriotism. Amer, Imagp, 1950. Z. 3-19.
Rokeach, M. The m and closed min . New Yorszasic Books. 1960.
Russell. B. ypy men figh . New York: Century. 1917.

Saenger, G. & Flowerman, S. Stereotypes and prejudicial attitudes.
Hm Baht... 195“, 2’ 217-238.

 

Schuessler. K. F. A note on statistical significance of scalogram.

Scott, W.A. International ideology and interpersonal ideolog. Pu 1.
92m. Quart” 1960, a, “19'4350

Sewell, W.H., & Davidson, 0.14.. The adjustment of Scandinavian stuients.
g, soc, Issues, 1956, _1_2_, 9-20.

131+.

Shafer, B.C. Toward a definition of nationalism. In U.G. Whitaker, Jr.
(Ed.). Natiopglism and international progress (2nd ed.), San
Francisco: Chandler, 1961.

Sherif, M.. 8: Cantril, H. The psychology of ego-involvemeptp. New York:
Wiley. 1%70

Sherif, M., a: Sherif, Carolyn. Groups in harmony and tens_i_o_p_. New York:
Harper, 1953.

Smith, P.A. A comparison of three sets of rotated factor analytic solu-
tions of self-concept data. J. abnorm. soc. Psycho}... 1962, Q,

326.333 0

Stagner, R. A correlational analysis of nationalistic opinions. J, soc.
PBEChOLo’ SePeseSeIe Bulletin, 1940, 2, 197-2120

Stewart, H.F., & Desjardins, P. French patriotism in, the njipeteeflh cep-
tpgy (1814-18313). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer. Press, 1923.

Stotland, E. . 8c Hillmer. M.L., Jr. Identification, authoritarian defen-
siveness, and self-esteem. J, abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1962, Q, 3314.342.

Strauss, A.L. _M_i_rrors and masks: the search for identity. Glencoe. 111.:
Free Press, 1959.

Tagiuri, R.. Bruner. J.S., & Blake, R.R. 0n the relation between feelings
and perception of feelings among members of small groups. In Eleanor
E. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb, & E.L. Hartley (Ed's.). Readings in social
W (3rd ed.) New York: Holt, 1958.

Thibaut, J.W.. & Kelley, H.H. W. New York:
Wiley. 1959.

Thurstone, LL. (Ed.) The neasurement of social attitudes. Chicago:
Univer. Chicago Press, 1931.

Thurstone, L.L. The vectors of mind. Ppychol. Rev., 1934, 51, 1-32.

Waisanen, F.B. Research note: a notation technique for scalogram analy-
sis. Sociol. guart.. 1960, _1_, 245-252.

Watson, Jeanne, 8c Lippitt, R. Cross-culture learning: a stuchr among a
group of German leaders. I,I.E. News Bull... 1955, 39, 2-5.

Whitaker, U.G.. Jr. (Ed.) Nationalism and international progrpss (2'!
ed.) San Francisco: Chandler, 1961.

Willis, R.H. Manipulation of item marginal frequencies by means of
multiple reSponse items. zgychol, Rev.. 1960, p2, 32-50.

Wingfield-Stratford, E. The histogy of English patgotism, Vol. 1.
New York: Lane. 1913.

135.

Wirth, L. Types of nationalism. Amer. J. 500101., 1936, 31, 723-737.

Znaniecki, F. gipdem nationalities, a sociological study. Urbana, 111.:
Univer. Ill. Press, 1952.

APPENDICES

136

APPENDIX.A

EXplanatory letter Enclosed With Foreign Student Questionnaires

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING '

 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY o SOCIAL RESEARCH SERVICE

Dear mr. ( - - - ):

'we are writing to you because we feel that as a foreign visitor to
the United States, you may wish to participate in a study on international
relations.

The Department of Sociology and Anthropology, through the cooperation
of the Social Research Service at Michigan State University, is presently
conducting a study of the relationship between individuals and their res-
pective home countries. The research is undertaken in the hope that its
findings may contribute to understanding among nations. You may realize
that international relations has traditionally been the concern of political
scientists. but the present research represents a new approach, using socio-
logical and psychological orientations. In this way we hope to learn more
about areasof international relations previously but little explored.

You may participate in the study simply by filling in the enclosed
questionnaire and returning it in the stamped addressed envelope which we
have included. By so doing, you will help your country adequately to be
represented.

0n examining the questionnaire, you may feel that some questions
are vague, ambiguous, or simply strange. This is necessary in construct-
ing a survey that will be applicable to citizens of several different
countries, and still provide the kind of information that we need. Ideal-
ly, we would like to interview each reSpondent so that he might more fully
explain his answers, but time limitations prohibit this. Therefore, we
ask you simply to make your own interpretation of the meaning of each
question and give the answer closest to your personal views. The results
of the study will then help us in planning future research.

we realize that. being a student; your time is valuable, and there—
fore we will be especially grateful if you will help us in our endeavor
by answering the questionnaire and returning it within a week.
Sincerely,
( Signed)
Frederick B.'waisanen

Director, Social Research
Service laboratory

FEW/kt

137

APPENDIX.B: Questionnaire Used in Study

QUESTIONNAIRE SOCIAL RESEARCH SERVICE
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Please fill in the irformation below. You may omit your name if you wish
to remain anonymous, but it is preferred that you give it. Your answers to the
questionnaire will be tabulated along with those of other respondents, and your
answers as an individual will be held strictly confidential, according to
professional ethics.

 

 

Your name: Age:' Sex:
You are a citizen of: H rital status:
Country of birth: Father's occupation:

 

 

How long have you been in the United States?

 

GENERAL INSTRUCTIOPS: Please answer everyuggestion in every part of the
questionnaire, for an incomplete questionnaire cannot be used.

PART I._ Below you will find a number of statements about your country and
your relation to it. After each, please circle the Qߤ_answer which most
closely states your degree of agreement or disagreement with the statement.
The meanings of the answer categories are as follows:

YES - I strongly agree with the statement
yes - I agree in general with the statement
? - I an uncertain or indifferent
no - I disagree in general with the statement
NO - I disagree strongly with the statement

1. If I hear someone criticizing my country, I earnestly YES yes ? no NO
desire to answer his critiCisms. '

2. The heritage of my country, its customs and traditions, YES yes ? no NO
are things of whicn I am proud.

3. my country should actively strive to improve the YES es 9 no NO
United Nations. 3’ ‘

4. my country ought to heed the criticisms of other 9 ,
countries, because they may be justified. YES yes ' 11° W

5. My country should strive for world leadership in g
the fields it considers most important. YES yes ' no No

6. I gain my identity from my country. YES yes ? no NO

7. Other countries have good ideas which my country YES yes ? no N0
can use 0

8. In making decisions in the national interest, my
country's leaders should not be influenced by YES yes ? no N0
"world opinion".

9. I like to describe my homeland to those who have YES yes ? no NO
not seen it. -

10. Until other countries can be trusted, my country

should protect its welfare by reserving the right YES yes ? no NO

to accept or reject any decisions of the United

Nations.

11.

-572

my homeland needs my services.

12. My closest friendships are with my countrymen.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.
29.

30.

31-

I am disturbed if one of my countrymen abroad
behaves shamefully.

It is in the best interests of one's country to be
concerned with the welfare of other nations as well.

The world would be a better place if international
barriers were removed, such as tariffs and immigration

restrictions.

A main factor in my choice of occupation is whether

it will benefit my country.

my country should be more forceful in influencing
other countries, when it befieves it is in the righ

I would be very disturbed if I thought that something
I did was against the best irterests of my corntry.

I believe that what I do with my life can have some

effect on my country as a whole.

The road to peace is through international agreements.

my country is the only place where I can be
completely "at home".-

If I were visiting another country, I would want the

peOple to know my nationality.

I Would feel ashaned if one of my country's leaders

did something disgraceful.

I can best achieve my personal goals through the
progress of my country.

I love my country.

I personally resent an unfair criticism of my
country by foreigners.

Since I live in my country, I want actively to
participate as a citizen in its national life.

When I die, I want it to be in my homeland.
my country must seek to control its own destiny.

hw'country should guard against nations which
may try to push it around.

I feel that, as a citizen, I have a definite
duty to my country.

YES

YES

YES

K:
[11
U)

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

”’1
O

NO

NO

NO

NO

32.

33.

34.

35-

36.

37.
38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.
44.

45.

46.

47.

49.

50.

51.

52.

lflo
- 3 -

Newhere could I achieve my personal goals better
than in my homeland.

Peaceful means only should be considered for
settling international differences.

I am never as comfortable among foreigners as I
am with my fellow countrymen.

my country should guard against other nations
altering its identity and national way of life.

My welfe” .re is directly tied to the welfare of
my country.

my country should strive for power in the world.

I like to find out what people from other lands
think of my country.

My country should play a more important role in
global affairs.

It is only natural that my country should put its
own interests first.

The main way for me to gain self-esteem is through
the status and prestige of my country.

I would 1 he personally to help my country attain
its $0313.

A person who praises my country praises me.

Other countries may be interesting to visit, but I
love most the beauties of my homeland.

When nations have similar goals, it makes good sense

for them to work together to help achieve those goals.

The land where I am from is my_country in a very
personal way.

my family and friends are what bind me to my country.

To help my country, I believe in buying its products
in preference to foreign imports.

I feel toward my country as a son does to his mother.

An outstanding accomplishment of my country gives me
a great feeling of pride.

The best way for my people to progress is to maintain
themselves as a distinct and independent nation.

I feel that to some extent I am responsible for
the acts of my country.

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58-

59.

60.

173-1
- 4 -

My country should participate more actively
to help achieve peaceful solutions in conflicts
among nations.

my country should strive to wield greater influence
in international affairs.

I doubt that there are any other countries where I
could live as happily as in my own.

my nationality is an important part of myself.
To the degree possible, my country should be both
economically and politically independent of all

other nations.

All nations, including my own, have something to
contr‘E but: to the V'.')i": 3.

If I had to Spend the rest of my days outside my
homeland, I would feel that I had not really lived.

Knowing my country is secure makes me feel secure.

YES

YES

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

PART II. Below are a number of general statements to which you should mark
your degree of agreement or disagreement as you did in Part I.

to
l.

2.

3.

4.
5.

10.

answer gll_questions.
Most peOple just don't know what's good for them.

Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just
can't stop.

A person who thi is primarily of his own happiness
is beneath contempt.

I admire peeple who have the ability to lead others.
In this complicated world of ours the only way we can
know what is going on is to rely upon leaders or

experts who can be trusted.

I admire people who are in a position to direct and
mold other's lives.

It is often desirable to reserve judgment about
what's going on until one has a chance to hear the
Opinions of those who one respects.

In the history of mankind there have probably been
just a handful of really great thinkers.

Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty
lonely place.

I admire people who show great leadership qualities.

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

Please be sure

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

no

HO

142
_ 5 -

11. In the long run, the best way to live is to pick
friends and associates whose tastes and beliefs YES yes ? no NO
are the same as one's own. '

12. While I don't like to admit this even to myself, I
sometimes have the ambition to become a great man YES yes ? no NO
like Einstein, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare.

13. I admire people who have the respect of important YES yes ? no NO
p90ple.

14. The worst crime a person can commit is to attack
publicly the peeple who believe in the same thing YES yes ? no NO
he does.

15. I admire peeple who gain recognition for their

achievements. YES yes ? no N0

gggr III. Below are listed a number of general attributes of your country.
Please circle the number which best indicates how much you like or dislike
that characteristic of your country. Meanings of the numbers are as follows.

1- Dislike intensely; 2 - Dislike in general; 3 = Dislike slightly;

4: Indifferent; 5 = Like slightly; 6 = Like in general; 7 = Like intensely
my fellow countrymen l 2 3 4 5 6 7
The land, countryside 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Its customs, traditions, culture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Its ideals and values 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 7
Its history 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Its form of government 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Its political leaders 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Its governmental policies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Its economic system 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The job Opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The security it offers you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The freedom and rights you have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PART IV. Below you will find pairs of words referring to yourself and different
groups. Now suppose that in your work you found yourself in a situation where
you had to make a decision such that only one of the pair would benefit. For
each pair, circle the 2g§_you would decide in favor of. Do all fifteen pairs.

I. myself vs. my family 9. my family vs. my state or region
2. my family vs. my continent lO.my state or region vs. my country
3. the world vs. my family ll.my continent vs. the world

4. myself vs. the world 124my continent vs. myself

5. my country vs. my continent 13dmy country vs. my family

6. the world vs. my country lAumy state or region vsl myself

7. my continent vs. my state or region15.myse1f vs. my country
8. my state or region vs. the world

unm‘n- Tani--_..-.L IILL- “.-.-14:" an III-LA “no-J- AID «FLA gun-r51“ AIQ‘Q‘EAA can ancunl-mr

1:53
-5-

PART V. We probably all would agree that every country is different from every
other in some respect. We would like to know how you would rank various -
countries ( France, India, Japan, Mexico, the United States, and your own
country if not already listed ) on the basis of their economic, cultural,

and political standards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard of_;ivingp Cultural Standards Political Standards
1st lst lst
2nd 2nd 2nd
3rd 3rd 3rd
4th ~_ 4th 4th
5th 5th 5th
6th 6th 6th

 

 

 

PART VI. Below are given five different concepts which we would like you to
assess or evaluate on.§§£h_of three different dimensions. Simply mark an "X"
at the point on each scale which you feel best describes the word given. For
example, if you consider yourself a fairly strong person, you might rate
yourself on the strength scale as follows:

myself: ; i _L i i_l X l ._J
weak strong

Please rate each concept on each scale in this way.

 

 

Bad Neither Good
(or not relevant)

 

 

Weak Feither Strong
(or not relevant)

 

 

Passive Leither Active
(or not relevant)

My country

 

 

 

 

Bad Neither Good
(or not relevant)

 

 

Weak Neither Strong
(or not relevant)

 

 

Passive Neither Active
(or not relevant)

(Continued on following page)

1au

- 7 -

The United Nations

 

Bad Neither Good
(or not relevant)

 

 

Weak Neither Strong
(or not relevant)

 

 

 

Passive Neither Active
(or not relevant)

Nationalism

 

 

 

 

Bad Neither Good
(or not relevant)

 

 

 

Weak . Neither Strong
(or not relevant)

 

 

 

Passive Neither Active
(or not relevant)

Internationalism

 

 

 

Bad Neither ' Good
(or not relevant)

 

 

 

Weak Neither Strong
(or not relevant)

 

 

‘Passive Neither Active
(or not relevant)

PART VII_. In this section you are given the beginnings to three sentences.
Please finish each sentence in your own words.

1. When I think of my country, I think of

2. I hepe that my country will

3. I fear that my country will

(Note; this terminates the general version of the questionnaire. The rest
was administered to the American.subjects only.)

r5
.. 8 .-

PART VIII. Below are ten concepts which we want you to evaluate as you did in
part VI. If you consider a dimension not relevant to a given concept, mark

"neither" on the scale.

World Communism

 

 

 

 

Please rate each concept on each scale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bad Neither “6355-
Weakfv Neither- _*--__- -Efifi§;£§
Passive Neither Active
Non-threatening Neither Threatening
John Birch Society
Bad Neither Good
-TE;5?—- Neither Strong
Passive Neither Active
Non-thrgztghihg Neither Threatening
African-Asian Bloc
Bad Neither Good
Weak Neither Strong
Passive Neither Active
Non-threatening Neither Threatening
American Liberals
“ma“— Neither Good
Weak Neither Strong
Passive Neither Active
Non-threatening Neither Threatening
Socialism in the World
Bad Neither Good
Weak Neither Strong
Passive Neither Active
Non-threatening Neither Threatening

Medicare (Old-age health insurance through social security)

 

 

 

Passive Neither Active

 

Non-threatening Neither Threatening

CommunicatfiBfloc Nations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bad Neither Good

W ._.... ._....— m ._.... ._.... m
Mew ._.... m Active

Non-threatening $553555; EEEEZEEhing
Unions

Bad m “~— "'""— "as?“
W _ W Either ._.-._- ——_ m
m "I“. ._.... Neither ”- m

Eur0penn Common Market

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEE Neither Good
Weak $73112? Strong
Passive- NEEEEE' Active

Hen-threatening Neither Threatening

American German-1 at s

 

 

 

 

Bad Neither Good
Weak Neither f Strong
- Passive INEither ‘Active

 

 

Non-threatening Neither Threatening

T3?
9 10 -

agreement with each item as you did in the previous sections.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

A man who does not believe in some great cause
has not really lived.

To compromise with our political Opgonents is
dangerous because it usually leads to the
betrayal of our own side.

Of all the different philosophies which exist
in this world there is probably only one which
is correct.

A person who gets enthusiastic about too many
causes is likely to be a pretty "wishy-washy"
sort of person.

When it comes to differences Of Opinion in
religion we must be careful not to compromise
with those who believe differently from the
way we do.

In times like these, a person must be pretty
selfish if he considers primarily his own
happiness.

It is only when a person devotes himself to an
ideal or cause that life becomes meaningful.

END OF QUESTIONNAIRE ~ IEANK YOU

YES

YES

YES

YES

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

00

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

PART II. In this final section, please state your degree of agreement or dis-

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

APPENDIX O
Scale Data

(Errors counted by the Goodsnough scoring method)

 

N sm.Sca -- F re Stud t t

Scale Type NO.
..JESELI_ 0 l §__c3, 4 5 6 7 Error§__ggggg‘
1. Strive for power 0 O O 1 2 6 6 5 15 20
2. Be more forceful 0 l 1 2 6 1% 8 5 27 37
3. Nat'l interests let 0 1 l 2 # 18 11 5 23 #2
4. Econapolit indep. O O 5 6 19 30 9 5 2h 74
5. Guard ag. nations 0 1 7 17 26 32 11 5 20 99
6. Distinct a. indep. o u 33 26 2a 32 1o 5 16 1,34
7. Control own destiny 0 13 31 27 27 33 11 5 15 1h7

 

Errors 0 14 28 22 24 “O 12 0 140 ..-

 

Frequency 15 20 39 27 27 33 11 5 --- 177

 

C. of R. = .89. C. of S. = .56

1&8

1"9

Nggmglism Scale -- American 12th

 

 

 

Scale Type NO.

1122.111,— 0 1 2 3 h 5 6 ’2 Errors Ages
1. Econ-polit. indep. O O 0 5 6 5 0 3 16 19

2. Strive for power 0 0 l 5 5 7 l 3 18 22

3. Be more forceful 0 2 2 7 5 it 1 3 22 21+
l-l-. Ntl interests 181‘. O O 5 11 12 9 1 3 27 1+1
5. Guard ag. nations 0 1 13 1+0 22 9 1 3 26 89
6. Distinct 8c indep. 0 8 29 31+ 18 6 1 3 50 99
7. Cmtrol own destiny 0 29 n2 51 20 10 1 3 17 1.56
Errors 0 22 1&2 56 32 21+ 0 0 176 ---
Frequency 12 40 1+6 51 22 10 1 3 --- 185

 

CoofRozo%’ Co OfSO=OM

150

 

 

G O ems t Sc e -- F rei St d nt
Scale Type NO.
Item 0 ;h__§_ 3 # .5. 6_ Errors Agree,
1. Choice of occupation o o 1 1. 10 9 19 21 40
2. Personal goals 0 O O 3 10 1% 19 19 56
3. Participate as citizen 0 1 2 5 23 17 19 22 67
4. Duty to country c 2 u 15 3o 20 19 18 90

5. Homeland needs services 0 13 30 22 30 20 19 21 13h

6. Personally help country 0 18 29 23 3h 20 19 20 1H3

 

Errors 0 32 11+ 18 39 18 O 121 ......

Frequenqy 1“ 3h 33 23 3h 20 19 -- 177

 

c. Of R0 = .88, Ce 0f Se = 052

Ggg; Involvement Scale -:Agg;1ggnggg§g

 

 

 

 

Scale Type NO.

_Item 0 l 2 3 4 5. 6 Errors Agree.
1. Choice of occupation O O O 3 0 3 2 6 8
2. Personal goals 0 2 u 8 8 16 2 2b 40
3. Participate as citizen 0 0 3 5 30 17 2 16 58
4. Duty to country 0 1 10 25 36 18 2 20 92
5. Homeland needs services 0 12 45 27 37 18 2 27 141
6. Personally help country 0 16 “6 31 37 18 2 25 150
Errors 0 30 31+ 32 16 6 O 118 ---
Frequency 10 31 5h 33 37 18 2 -—- 185

 

C.a£'R.=.89, C.OfS.=.5’+

151

Ego Involvement Scale -- Foreign Student Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Type No.
__7Item O l 2 .3. 4 .5 Errors Agree.
1. Praise country, praise me O O O u 13 12 17 29
2. Self-esteem thru country 0 2 7 12 17 12 29 50
3. Pride in country 0 6 13 28 23 12 25 82
4. Ashamed of leaders 0 9 13 25 22 12 35 81‘I
5. Gain identity from country 0 26 25 27 2512 26 115
Errors 0 34 90 32 26 0 132 -_-
Frequency 36 #3 29 32 25 12 --- 177
C. of R. = .85, C. of S. = .31
Egg Involvement Scale —- American Data
Scale Type No.
tem O 1 2 .3 h 5, Errors _Agree.
1. Praise country, praise me O O O ’4 8 8 12 20
2. Self-esteem thru country 0 4 9 lh 5 8 33 #0
. Pride in country 0 7 22 27 11 8 32 75
h. Ashamed of leaders 0 10 2H 18 9 8 #1 69*
5. Gain identity from country 0 42 27 27 11 8 37 115
Errors 0 #1 62 36 16 O 155 --
Frequency 33 62 #1 3O 11 8 --- 185

 

C. of R. = .84,

C. of S. = .31

* Although item 8 has a lower popularity than item 3, this ordering
produced the fewest errors. This characteristic, along with the
low coefficients of Reproduceability and Scaleability, show the

Ego Involvement Scale to be definitely inferior as a Guttmann scale.

152

Affective Involvement Scale -- Foreign Student Data

Scale Type No.
Item 0 .1 2 31 4 .5, 6 Errors__Agzee.

1. Comfortable with

countrymen O 1 2 5 11 11 20 31

l

2. want die in homeland O O l 5 13 17 ll 24 47
3. Idve happily in count. 0 0 3 4 22 18 ll 19 58
4. "At home” in country 0 0 12 17 26 21 ll 24 87

5. Friendships-countrymen O 3 21 20 24 21 11 30 100

 

 

6. I love my country 0 4O 36 24 3O 22 11 5 163
Errors 0 8 24 22 36 22 O 122 --
Frequency 9 44 37 24 3O 22 ll --- 177

 

C. of R. = .89. C. of S. = .56

fec e vo ement S 1e -- r can Data

Scale Type No.
Item 0 _l, 2 3 4 .5 6 Errors «Agree.

1. Comfortable with
countrymen O O 0 3 23 9 23 35 58

2. want die in homeland O O 6 7 18 23 20 54

O

. Live happily in count. 0 1 2 11 29 24 23 31 90

3
4. ”At home“ in country 0 O 5 17 34 24 23 35 103
5. Friendships-countrymen o 4 33 33 43 25 23 14 161
6

 

 

. I love my country 0 10 38 35 44 25 23 7 175
Errors 0 10 14 40 6o 18 o 142 ..-
Frequency 3 15 39 35 45 25 23 --- 185

 

C. Of R. = .87. C. or So = 055

153

International Cooperation Scale -- Foreign Student Data

 

 

 

Scale Type No.
Item. 0 l 2 3 4 5 Errorsd_Ag:§e._

1. Remove internat'l barriers 0 3 9 9 13 13 34 47

2. Achieve peaceful solutions 0 2 6 12 34 13 24 67

3. Improve United Nations 0 3 13 26 34 13 32 89
4. Concern with welfare of

other nations 0 l 14 33 35 13 28 95

5. All nations contribute 0 25 24 34 36 13 24 132

Errors 0 18 56 42 26 O 142 ..-

Frequency 21 34 33 38 38 13 --- 177

 

C. of R. = .84, C. of S. = .34

International Cooperation Scale -- American Data

 

 

 

Scale Type No.
Item 0 l, 2 .3 4 _5 .EerrS aAgzeg.

1. Remove internat'l barriers O l 4 2 6 14 13 27

2. Achieve peaceful solutions 0 0 7 12 34 14 24 67

3. Improve United.Nations 0 8 22 38 38 14 39 120
4. Concern with welfare of

other nations 0 3 25 4O 39 14 28 121

5. All nations contribute 0 14 3O 46 39 14 26 143

Errors 0 24 66 28 12 O 130 ---

Frequency 16 26 44 46 39 14 -—- 185

 

APPENDIX.D
Special American versions of the Nationalism,

Ego Involvement. and Affective Involvement Scales

I. The American Nationalism.Sga19

 

Agreement
Itgg Categories"l ngularity
1. To the degree possible, my country should be
both economically and politically independent
of all other nations. YES 10.3%

2. My country should be more forceful in influencing
other countries, when it believes it is in the

right. YES 13 05
3. It is only natural that my country should put its

own interests first. YES 21.1
4. my country should guard against other nations

which my try to push it around. YES 49.2
5. My country should strive to wield greater in-

fluence in international affairs. yes,YES 59.5
6. My country must seek to control its own destiny. yes,YES 84.3

* YES = strongly agree; yes = agree in general

R = .87 (Goodenough scoring)

II. The American Ego Involvement Scale

 

Agreement
ten. Cgtegories‘ ngglgrigy
l. A person who praises my country praises me. YES 10.8%

2. The main way for me to gain self-esteem is through
the status and prestige of my country. yes,YES 21.6

3. The land where I am from is m country in a very
personal way. YES 32.4

4. An outstanding accomplishment of my country
gives me a great feeling of pride. YES 40.5

(continued next page)
154

155

(Continuation of American Ego Involvement Scale)

 

 

Agreement
Ite‘, Categories .Popularity
5. The heritage of my country, its customs and
tradition, are things of which I am proud. YES 511.65%
6. I personally resent an unfair criticism.of
my country by foreigners yes,YES 76.2
R = .87 (Goodenough scoring)
III. Th e n fect ve vo ve nt Sca
Agreement
Item Cate ories Poo rit
l. I feel toward my country as a son does to his
mother. 135 7.6%

2. If I had to spend the rest of my days outside my
homeland, I would feel that I had not really

lived. yes, YES 17.8
3.'When I die, I want it to be in my homeland.\ YES 29.2
4. I doubt that there are any other countries

where I could live as happily as in my own. yes, YES 48.6
5. my country is the only place where I can be ?*, yes,

completely I'at home." YES 55.7
6. Other countries may be interesting to visit, 7, yes,

but I love most the beauties of my homeland. 'YES 78.4

7. my closest friendships are with my countrymen. yes, YES 87.0
8. I love my country. yes, YES 94.6

R = .90 (Goodenough scoring)
(If the extreme items, numbers 1 and 8, are eliminated, R = .89)

* 7 = uncertain or indifferent.

APPENDIX E

Analysis of the Non-Scale Items

In deveIOping the various scales used in this study, pools of
items were develOped as relevant to each of the variables. As a re-
sult of the Guttmann scaling procedures, no pool was completely used.
To clarify the nature of the variables measured by each of the scales,
and to suggest other dimensions of interest for research, the items
not included in the scales will be reviewed here.

It is important to realize that omission of an item from a scale
does not necessarily mean that that item was irrelevant to the concept
under examination. Often two items were close in popularity. so there
was little discrimination between them. In such cases it was feasible

to use just one of the items to reduce the total error.

Nations ism tems

From a pool of thirteen items, six were not used in the National-
ism Scale. Four of these could have been included, but the result would
have been a quasi-scale of .83 reproduceability. These items, denoted
by their assigned number in the questionnaire, were as follows.

5. My country should strive for world leadership in the
fields it considers most important.

10. Until other countries can be trusted, my country should pro-
tect its welfare by reserving the right to accept or reject
any decisions of the United Nations.

35. my country should guard against other nations altering its
identity and national way of life.

39. My country should play a more important role in global affairs.

156

157

It is apparent that two of these items (5 and 39) advocate inter.
national leadership, while the other two (10 and 35) are essentially
defensive in nature. Both of these views have been accounted for in
the Nationalism Scale. the first by item 1 (striving for power) and
the second by item 5 (guard against other nations). Some subjects
questioned the meaning of items 5 and 10, the latter particularly by
the Germans and Koreans, whose countries are not U.N. members. The
ambiguity of these items may explain their failure to scale.

The two other excluded items were as follows.

8. In making decisions in the national interest” ny country's
leaders should not be influenced by 'world Opinion.“

54. my country should strive to wield greater influence in
international affairs.

Item 8 was poorly expressed, as suggested by some of the subjects.
By being stated negatively, confusion resulted as to the meaning of the
"yes" and ”no” answer categories. This is a possible explanation of
its failure to scale.

The content of item 54 is very similar to that of item 39 (cited
above). Ambiguity may have caused difficulty here also, because the

type of ”influence" is not Specified.

G a eme e

0f the seven items excluded from the Goal Involvement Scale, five
could have been included to form a quasi-scale of .83 reproduceability.
These were as follows.

18. I would be very disturbed if I thought that something I did
was against the best interests of my country.

19. I believe that what I do with my life can have some effect
on my country as a whole.

158

32. Nowhere could I achieve my personal goals better than
in my homeland.

36. W welfare is directly tied to the welfare of my country.

60. Knowing my country is secure makes me feel secure.

Item 18 was originally included in the Goal Involvement Scale,
but finally eliminated because its popularity was virtually identical
to that of item 5 of the scale ("my homeland needs my services”). Like-
wise, the content and popularity of item.32 were very similar to scale
item 2 (adiieve personal goals through progress of country).

It may be noted that items 18 and 19 relate to the effects the
individual has on his country, which is essentially the content of five
of the six Goal Involvement items. 0n the other hand, the omitted items
32, 36, and 60 pertain to the effects of the country on the individual's
welfare, which is stated only by item 2 in the final scale. It is
possible that more precise measurements of goa1.involvement would separ-_
ate these two relationships. That the dimensions are somewhat different
is indicated by the fact that in combination they formed only a quasi-
scale.

Items 48 and 52 did not enter even the quasi-scale. They were
as follows.

48. To help my country, I believe,in buying its products in
preference to foreign imports.

53. I feel that to some extent I am responsible for the acts
of my country.

Why these items failed to scale can only be conjectured. Regarding
item 48, the goal-involved subjects may believe that they can help
their countries without having to sacrifice their interests in material

goods. Item 52, on the other hand, may be confusing in not specifying

159

the acts of the country to which reference is made, and the nature of

the individual's "reaponsibility” may be too abstract to be meaningful.

E Inv em at tems

Only five of the pool of thirteen Ego Involvement items could
be scaled, and the result was only a quasi-scale. Among the eight
omitted items, the folloWing fell into one dimension with scale item 5.

1. If I hear someone criticizing my country, I earnestly desire
to answer his criticisms.

2. The heritage of my country, its customs and traditions, are
things of which I am.proud.

22. If I were visiting another country, I would want the people
to know my nationality.

26. I personally resent an unfair criticism of my country by
foreigners.

38. I like to find out what people from other lands think of
my country.

46. The land where I am from.is;mg country in a very personal way.
56. Ey'nationality is an important part of myself.
The reproduceability of the scale formed by these items was only
.77, which is insufficient to indicate a single dimension. Items 22
and 56 appear to tap nationality as part of the self-concept. Concern
and defensiveness regarding Opinions of others is reflected by items
1, 26, and 38. Pride is an element of item 2 and possibly of item 46.
While each of these aspects is included to some extent in the Ego In-
volvement Scale, the apparent complexity of dimensions warrants further
research.
The one other item excluded from the Ego Involvement Scale was

number 13, "I am disturbed if one of my countrymen abroad behaves

160

shamefully." The Multiple Scalogram Analysis included this item in

the Ego Involvement Scale, but it was eliminated because it introduced
excessive error. This was probably due to the item's identical popular-
ity with scale item 3, which specifies pride in accomplishments of one's

country.

Affgctive Igvglvement Itgmg
Of the five Affective Involvement items omitted from the final

scale, the multiple Scalogram Analysis included four in one dimension,
with .82 reproduceability. These were as follows.
9. I like to describe my homeland to those who have not seen it.

44. Other countries may be interesting to visit, but I love most
the beauties of my homeland.

49. I feel toward my country as a son does to his mother.

59. If I had to spend the rest of my days outside my homeland,
I would feel that I had not really lived.

These items seem generally to reflect a maudlin, romantic view
of one's country. The "son to his mother'' item seemed to perplex
several of the subjects, because they wrote question marks and one
commented that the statement was "too philosophical.”

Item 47 was not found to scale in any way with the other items.
In stating "my family and friends are what bind me to my country," the
item.may have been too restrictive to be included in the broader senti-

ment of Affective Involvement.

t tio C oration ten;
From a pool of ten items, five were excluded from the International

Cooperation Scale. Two of these were included by the Multiple Scalogram

161

Analysis with the main scale items, but their error lowered the repro-

duceability to .81. The items are presented below.

4. my country ought to heed the criticisms of other countries,
because they may be justified.

45. When nations have similar goals, it makes good sense for
them to work together to help achieve those goals.

While these items clearly suggest international cooperation, they
imply a certain willingness to yield autonomy and sovereignty. In this
way they seem to deviate from the International COOperation Scale items.

The other omitted items are presented below. Two of these (20 and
33) are concerned with peace, which may reflect another form of "inter-
nationalism," i.e.. pacifism. This possible dimension warrants further
research. The third item, number 7, expresses an idea which is probably
unrelated to international cooperation.

7. Other countries have good ideas which my country can use.

20. The road to peace is through international agreements.

33. Peaceful means only should be considered for settling inter»
national differences.

l.

N
e

3.

9.

10.

APPENDIX F
Short Form of the Dogmatism.Scale Used in This Study

(The items were given in Part II of the questionnaire)

Most peeple just don't know what's good for them.

Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just can't stop.

A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is beneath
contempt.

In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what is
going on is to rely upon leaders or experts who can be trusted.

It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's going on
until one has a chance to hear the opinions of those who one reapects.
In the history of mankind there have probably been just a handful
of really great thinkers.

Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lonely place.

In the long run, the best way to live is to pick friends and
associates whose tastes and beliefs are the same as one's own.
While I don't like to admit this even to myself, I sometimes have
the ambition to’becole a great man like Einstein, Or Beethoven,

or Shakespeare.

The worst crime a person can commit is to attack publicly the

people who believe in the same thing he does.

162

APPENDIX G

Coding Scheme for Threat Analysis

The following scheme is for coding the completions to the sen-

tence beginning ''I fear that my country will ...“. There are five
main categories, of which the second has sub-categories. A subject's
response may include one or more of the categories; exceptions are
categories D and E, which are mutually exclusive with the other cate-
gories.

A.

B.

C.

IExternal threat. Here there is a definite mention of a source out-
side the nation which is threatening. The following are examples:
domination by another nation or nations; imperialism; colonialism;
too much influence by other nations or cultures; communism from
other countries; involvement in war; getting caught in the East4west
struggle; international economic competition.

Internal threat. Here the sources of the problem is definitely
within the nation. The Specific types of threat are as follows.

1. Dangerous forces within the countgz. Examples: dictatorship;
totalitarianism; police state; corruption; political power struggle;
intrigue; civil war; internal communism; denial of freedoms.

2. Poor progress. The idea of failure in progressing or goal
achievement is mentioned. Includes inadequate or slow progress.
Answers are usually general statements. Examples: country will
fail to "make it'; country will remain in its present state.

3. Problem confrontation. The idea of confronting a specific prob-
lem or obstacle is mentioned. Examples: economic problems;
over- or underapopulation; incompetent leaders (as apposed to
unscrupulous leaders, an answer which goes under category B-l);
failure to establish unity (as with Korea and Germany).

4. Poor:foreign relations. Here the concern is about the perform-
ance of one's nation internationally. The source of the problem
is seen as the nation's own deficiencies, inadequacies. or errors,
rather than other nations. Examples: bungling foreign policy;
attempt to dominate other nations; will start a war; will be too
isolationist.

5. Eugenergtion. The fear is stated that the country will deter-
iorate, regress, develop undesirable characteristics which it
doesn't have presently, or lose something good which it now has.
While item B- refers to failure of forward movement, this item
is concerned with backward movement. ‘Examples: become too
materialistic, too soft, too democratic, "too civilized.“

Other threat. Any fear not mentioned above, including vague threat.

Examples: have problems; face crises.

163

164 O

D. No threat. There is a Specific statement saying the individual
has no fears for his country.

E. No gnawer or unclear. This includes all statements in which the
presence of threat cannot be determined, such as vague, ambiguous,

of illegible statements, or answer omitted. Caution: do not
confuse with category C.

08H I o .noooonommap coavmouuaom mcabaopca escapmaoopoo
mad u o .uspovo Husbands wcH>Ho>oa meoapeaonnoo
«needpeooxc weasoaaom one one: .uooapmfloahoo Ham Ga pone moz_hmH u 2 no osam madame 4 “av

.oovsoeoo pod ouoz.oo>am so: oceansfloahoo ADV

.muanwaaeb on» no wcaomos on» op snomeoo o» pouhoboh soon obs: ncoapdnouuoo posaepoo on» we
woman on» .mopwvo Husband: pow .hhpoooo on haawmoa .panos.op heaehoa noHomaawh on» :0 Amy .m.z

Agedvmaouhoo hmosfianshsov owpmm oowvmaouaoo s

 

afihfloi

an 8833 Saaozufiom
om om coapmsambmv .oosoaommam
II II II hocovom ascoapmz oo>HoOpom
II II II II nozom Hmcowuoz oopaooaom
II II II mm mm msvmvm HeCOHpmz pobmmonom
II II II II can II phonon Hookupxo no coapooopom
II II II I... ._..Ol 0N! NH bpgoc On... hflflmg
II II II II NOI II No non odhoz_ov hunmQH
.. .. .... .... mm om so Hm. S- bongo so mesa room
I; ..- .. -.. on 8 ma 8.. so. He madame sodas €52 Hooo
.. .... .i ... em as 8 ma 8.. S 8 wfioom sons“ €2.58
I .. ..- .i 3. am- 3 am 2.. am so. we 539.th
-- I- -I .. NH- ma- no om no- ma OH- as no ooaohoaeea hoomom
.i I. ..I .... mo -.. 8.. 8 am 8 8.. 3 ma as 838380 aoofipofiBoH
mo NH 8 I. no. 13. No. mm mm. mm 3.. 3 ms no No pogopaoEH 33834
8.. no- so .. no as. so on no- a so. no an 3 a s £8335 ooh
no Q 8 .. so- mm. won an me. an ._R 3 we .3 mm mm so pogofioso Hoos
..- .... .i S. 8.. no: won on- 3. ma am- 3 we 3 me an mm mm aofioooapoz
p2 pom do pom .Em 3m as so 33 a3 is is won 54 coo he he to

83.2.88 32 32 32 he so so now do no

new to HE owe G

oasepsvm owdohoh I mauve: ooapmaehhoo
m MHszmm<

165..

.m:oaumaoshoo HHm ca poms mm: mmH u 2 mo swam oHaEmm < ADV

.mmabmaam> can no mmcaoooe one on Enomcoo op pomuo>0h some o>mo mcoapmaonnoo vocamsno on» we
woman one .mspmpm Housman: pow .hhposoo op muammofl .pahos.ou mpameH MOHanpmb on» so adv .m.z

 

58.185 83%
as 888.3 doom
3 S 83.1885 .888th
mOI mo QOI hosovom Hmsoapmz pmbaoohom
ea in oo- mm 88a 3832 oozoohom
9H- NH- so- as S 2536 8832 8588a
8- m7 8.. as No mo- phone» 8835, .8 83888
no 81.8- 3 mm ao so 828. 388 8 8a8o2£
me so i- i S as 3 mo Eooooo o... .388
no no mo- fi- mo- S- 0? ma- .3 Boos 8. spouse
fi- oo 5- on on No No- Na 8 9- reason .8 mafia room
oa- so 8.. an R R oo as mm S- om seats 8.3% 8584 doom
NH- mo mm- on on 3 so so on mo- 8 oh masses 8:2 883.0
8 Ho- oo 1: mo- am 3 Q 9 mo- 3 so 2 someones 880
mo- ma- NH so- 8- mo mm am mo 3- ea- 5- HH- 3 838on
mm- oo mo- no mo 3 so am so ao- so 3 No S om 8388a 388
n7 no mo- 8 so 9- oo- mo- 8- in so Ho- mo na- na- 3 838880 883838
No- No mo ma mm am mo 8 3 8- mm mm Hm mm mm 3 «H.. 8.8538 2:88:
mo- no mo- em 9” 8 me an em oo- mm 8 mm .8. S on Hm no 8838ch own
8- no S- om S no 3 mm 3 in em 3 mm 5 mo Hm am 3 an oofiohaohfi 88
no D“ No- mm mm mo 3 on we mm- mm ms nu om 9 am eo- no mm mm 838382
a2 poo 8e pom E 3m £5.39 he 33 x3 is is 8a won 8a one he an as
832-88 32 $2 $2 to he a3 ed do 46 do 80 3m 2H and one 8

3888 goofing - 53oz ooapfiohoo
885188 w flag I

166.

\

‘5'; 41-1}?

‘1
¢,. _ 7‘ Ila“
5f) ‘0? r"