Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-gbqfq Total loading time: 0.279 Render date: 2022-05-17T11:12:10.441Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Measurement Equivalence of Nationalism and Constructive Patriotism in the ISSP: 34 Countries in a Comparative Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Eldad Davidov*
Affiliation:
University of Cologne, Greinstrasse 2, 50939 Cologne, Germany
*
e-mail: davidov@wiso.uni-koeln.de (corresponding author)

Abstract

Studies on national identity differentiate between nationalistic attitudes and constructive patriotism (CP) as two more specific expressions of national identity and as theoretically two distinct concepts. After a brief discussion of the theoretical literature, the following questions are examined: (1) Can nationalism and CP be empirically identified as two distinct concepts?; (2) Is their meaning fully or partially invariant across countries?; and (3) Is it possible to compare their means across countries? Data from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) 2003 National Identity Module are utilized to answer these questions in a sample of 34 countries. Items to measure nationalism and CP are chosen based on the literature, and a series of confirmatory factor analyses to test for configural, measurement (metric), and scalar invariance are performed. Full or partial metric invariance is a necessary condition for equivalence of meaning across cultures and for a meaningful comparison of associations with other theoretical constructs. Scalar invariance is a necessary condition for comparison of means across countries. Findings reveal that nationalism and CP emerge as two distinct constructs. However, in some countries, some items that were intended to measure one construct also measure the other construct. Furthermore, configural and metric invariance are found across the full set of 34 countries. Consequently, researchers may now use the ISSP data to study relationships among nationalism, CP, and other theoretical constructs across these nations. However, the analysis did not support scalar invariance, making it problematic for comparing the means of nationalism and CP across countries.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Author's note: I would like to thank GESIS-Köln for providing the data for the study, ZA Nr. 3910. I would also like to thank Peter Schmidt, Darren Davis, participants in the ISPP conference, Paris 2008, and two anonymous reviewers, for very helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Many thanks to Lisa Trierweiler for the English proof of the manuscript. Replication materials are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

References

Adcock, Robert, and Collier, David. 2001. Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review 95(3): 529–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, Daniel J., and Nevitt Sanford, R. 1950. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Arbuckle, James L. 2005. Amos 6.0 user's guide. Chicago: SPSS.Google Scholar
Bar-Tal, Daniel. 1997. The monopolization of patriotism. In Patriotism in the lives of individuals and nations, eds. Bar-Tal, D. and Staub, E., 246–70. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Billiet, Jaak. 2003. Cross-cultural equivalence with structural equation modeling. In Cross-cultural survey methods, eds. Harkness, J. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., and Mohler, P. Ph, 247–64. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Billiet, Jaak, and McClendon, McKee J. 2000. Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling 7(4): 608–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, Thomas. 2003. Determinants of national identity in East and West Germany: An empirical comparison of theories on the significance of authoritarianism, anomie, and general self-esteem. Political Psychology 24: 259–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, Thomas, and Schmidt, Peter. 2003. National identity in a united Germany: Nationalism or patriotism? An empirical test with representative data. Political Psychology 24: 289311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, Thomas, Schmidt, Peter, and Westle, Bettina. 2001. A contradiction, a possibility, or an empirical reality? ‘Patriotism’ Paper presented at the ECPR, Grenoble, France, April 2001.Google Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger L. 1994. Efficacy of the indirect approach for estimating structural equation models with missing data: A comparison of five methods. Structural Equation Modeling 1: 287316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, Michael W., and Cudeck, Robert. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing structural equation models, eds. Bollen, K. A. and Long, J. S., 445–55. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Byrne, Barbara M. 2001. Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Basic concepts, application, and programming. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Byrne, Barbara M., Shavelson, Richard J., and Muthén, Bengt O. 1989. Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin 105: 456–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Fang Fang 2007. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indices to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 14: 464504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, Gordon W., and Rensvold, Roger B. 2000. Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 31: 187212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, Gordon W., and Rensvold, Roger B. 2002. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 9: 233–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coenders, Marcel. 2001. “Nationalistic attitudes and ethnic exclusionism in a comparative perspective: An empirical study of attitudes toward the country and ethnic immigrants in 22 Countries.” PhD diss., Nijmegen University.Google Scholar
Cohrs, J. Christopher. 2005. Patriotismus—Sozialpsychologische Aspekte [Patriotism—Social-psychological aspects]. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie 36: 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curti, Merle. 1946. The roots of American loyalty. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Davidov, Eldad, Schmidt, Peter, and Schwartz, Shalom H. 2008. Bringing values back in: The adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opinion Quarterly 72(3): 420–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Beuckelaer, Alain. 2005. “Measurement invariance issues in international management research.” PhD diss., Limburg University.Google Scholar
Flora, David B., and Curran, Patrick J. 2004. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods 9: 466–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harkness, Janet A., van de Vijver, Fons J. R., and Mohler, Peter Ph. 2003. Cross-cultural survey methods. New York, NY: John Wileyeds.Google Scholar
Hjerm, Mikael. 1998a. Reconstructing ‘positive’ nationalism: Evidence from Norway and Sweden. Sociological Research Online 3(2), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/3/2/7.html (accessed February 12, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjerm, Mikael. 1998b. National identities, national pride, and xenophobia: A comparison of four western countries. Acta Sociologica 41(4): 335–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjerm, Mikael. 2001. Education, xenophobia, and nationalism: A comparative analysis. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27(1): 3760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, John L., and McArdle, Jack J. 1992. A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research 18: 117–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horn, John L., McArdle, Jack J., and Mason, Ralph. 1983. When is invariance not invariant: A practical scientist's look at the ethereal concept of factor invariance. The Southern Psychologist 1: 179–88.Google Scholar
Hu, Litze, and Bentler, Peter M. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 1: 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hui, C. Hary, and Triandis, Harry C. 1985. Measurement in cross-cultural psychology. A review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 16: 131–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, Karl G. 1971. Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika 36: 409–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Murray, Christopher J. L., Salomon, Joshua A., and Tandon, Ajay. 2004. Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review 98(1): 191207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosterman, Rick, and Feshbach, Seymour. 1989. Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology 10: 257–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubke, Gitta H., and Muthén, Bengt O. 2004. Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Structural Equation Modeling 11: 514–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meredith, William. 1993. Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58: 525–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuleman, Bart, and Billiet, Jaak. 2005. Attitudes toward migration in Europe: A cross-cultural and contextual approach. Barcelona: Spain. Paper presented at the 1st ESRA Conference.Google Scholar
Morray, Joseph P. 1959. Pride of state. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Muthén, Linda K., and Muthén, Bengt O. 2007. Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Raijman, Rebeca, Davidov, Eldad, Schmidt, Peter, and Hochman, Oshrat. 2008. What does a nation owe non-citizens? National attachments, perception of threat and attitudes toward granting citizenship rights in comparative perspective. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 49 (2–3): 195220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rock, Donald A., Werts, Charles E., and Flaugher, Ronald L. 1978. The use of analysis of covariance structures for comparing the psychometric properties of multiple variables across populations. Multivariate Behavioral Research 13: 403–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saris, Willem E., and Satorra, Albert. 1993. Power evaluations in structural models. In Testing structural equation models, eds. Bollen, Kenneth A. and Long, Scott J., 181204. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Saris, Willem E., Satorra, Albert, and Sörbom, Dag. 1987. The detection and correction of specification errors in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology 17: 105–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saris, Willem E., and Gallhofer, Irmtraud N. 2007. Design, evaluation and analysis of questionnaires for survey research. NewYork: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, Joseph L., and Graham, John W. 2002. Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods 7: 147–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schatz, Robert T., and Staub, Ervin. 1997. Manifestations of blind and constructive patriotism: Personality correlates and individual group relations. In Patriotism in the lives of individuals and nations, eds. Bar-Tal, D. and Staub, E., 229–46. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.Google Scholar
Schatz, Robert T., Staub, Ervin, and Lavine, Howard. 1999. On the varieties of national attachment: Blind versus constructive patriotism. Political Psychology 20(1): 151–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shevlin, Mark, and Miles, Jeremy. 1998. Effects of sample size specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 21: 8590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Tom W., and Jarkko, Lars. 2001. “National pride in cross-national perspective.” Unpublished manuscript Sommerville, Johann. 1981. Patriotism and war. Ethics 91: 568–78.Google Scholar
Staub, Ervin. 1989. The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Staub, Ervin. 1997. Blind versus constructive patriotism: Moving from embeddedness in the group to critical loyalty and action. In Patriotism in the lives of individuals and nations, eds. D. Bar-Tal and E. Staub, 213–28. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., and Baumgartner, Hans. 1998. Assessing measurement invariance in crossnational consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 25:7890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandenberg, Robert J., and Lance, Charles E. 2000. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 3:469.Google Scholar
126
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Measurement Equivalence of Nationalism and Constructive Patriotism in the ISSP: 34 Countries in a Comparative Perspective
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Measurement Equivalence of Nationalism and Constructive Patriotism in the ISSP: 34 Countries in a Comparative Perspective
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Measurement Equivalence of Nationalism and Constructive Patriotism in the ISSP: 34 Countries in a Comparative Perspective
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *