Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2015, 56, 189–197

DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12193

Personality and Social Psychology Blind and constructive patriotism, national symbols and outgroup attitudes EERIKA FINELL1 and CRISTINA ZOGMAISTER2 1 2

Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy

Finell, E. & Zogmaister, C. (2015). Blind and constructive patriotism, national symbols and outgroup attitudes. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56, 189–197. We examined whether there is a relationship between the different forms patriotism can take (i.e., blind vs. constructive) and different representations of one’s own nation. We considered two types of national symbols representing the nation in terms of confrontation between groups (polarized symbols) and as a unique entity (unpolarized symbols). In Study 1 we found that blind patriotism was positively associated with the degree to which individuals perceived their nation through confrontation whereas constructive patriotism was positively associated with the degree to which individuals perceived their nation as unique entity. In Study 2 we tested how the relationship between blind patriotism and outgroup attitudes changed when the nation was defined either through confrontation or as a unique entity. The results emphasize the essential role of the specific meaning associated to the nation when studying patriotism and its relation to outgroup attitudes. Key words: Blind patriotism, constructive patriotism, national symbols, outgroup atittudes, implicit attitudes, implicit blind patriotism. Eerika Finell, Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. E-mail: eerika.finell@helsinki.fi

INTRODUCTION Patriotism is often defined in the literature as a two-faced phenomenon. One way of distinguishing these faces is to differentiate blind from constructive patriotism. Blind patriotism is described as uncritical loyalty toward one’s own nation associated with negative outgroup attitudes whereas constructive patriotism is defined as a critical form of loyalty accompanied by democratic values (Staub, 1997). This distinction is important because it helps understand why the association between national attachment and hostility toward outgroup varies (Schatz, Staub & Lavine, 1999). Although there is a relatively large amount of studies on blind and constructive patriotism (e.g., Roth
ı, Lyons & Chryssochoou, 2005; Spry & Hornsey, 2007), less attention has been devoted to the differences in how blind and constructive patriots perceive their own nation. The nation can be imagined in many ways (Condor, 2006; Reicher & Hopkins, 2001), for example as a unique entity with inimitable cultural traditions and exceptional nature or as a nation that has fought for its freedom against an overwhelming enemy. The difference between these representations is important because the second one is based on the polarity between specific groups whereas the first one emphasizes the uniqueness of the ingroup without specific comparison (Finell, Olakivi, Liebkind & Lipsanen, 2013). This national imagination is usually materialized in national symbols known by the whole population (e.g., pictures or statues of war heroes). With this paper we aim to expand our knowledge regarding blind and constructive patriotism in two ways. First, we will examine whether there is an association between the disposition toward constructive or blind patriotism and the perception of one’s nation in terms of its uniqueness or of confrontation with other nations. Second, we will investigate if the association

© 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

between blind patriotism and negative outgroup attitudes is influenced by defining the nation through national symbols that emphasize the uniqueness of the nation or its polarity. To the best of our knowledge this is the first study to analyse these issues.

BLIND AND CONSTRUCTIVE PATRIOTISM AND GROUP BOUNDARIES There is broad agreement in the literature that patriotism can be defined as an attachment to one’s nation (Bar-Tal & Staub, 1997; Huddy & Khatib, 2007; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989). Attachment in this sense refers to binding affection between individuals and their nation and it is related to feelings of pride, love and loyalty (Bar-Tal & Staub, 1997). These feelings are essential for groups because they help foster solidarity and unity (Brewer, 1999). Patriotism seems to have many faces. Two factors are central: (1) whether patriotism is linked to negative attitudes toward outgroups; and (2) whether patriotism is related to uncritical loyalty towards one’s own nation. Based on these factors, Staub (1997) distinguished blind and constructivist patriotism. The concept of blind patriotism connotes uncritical loyalty and support for any action engaged in by one’s own group. The object of the loyalty of blind patriots is not necessarily the whole nation, however, and may be a certain political or ethnic group perceived to represent the “true” nation. Individuals with high levels of blind patriotism restrict the moral values of care and welfare to the ingroup, leaving outgroup members outside this moral sphere (Staub, 1997). In contrast, constructive patriotism means that individuals are committed to working to promote the welfare of the whole nation and the common good of all citizens regardless of their ethnicity or status. The important point is that constructive patriotism requires that national attachment is in balance with respect

190 E. Finell and C. Zogmaister to the human rights of all individuals. The goal of the action is to construct a positive identity for a nation in the long run and, if necessary, to stand up against political agents who undermine basic human values (Staub, 1997). One focal difference between blind and constructive patriots is how the boundaries between groups are perceived. Blind patriotism emphasizes group boundaries (Staub, 1997), and has been shown to be associated with perceived intergroup threat and feelings of vulnerability (Spry & Hornsey, 2007; Schatz et al., 1999; Williams, Foster & Krohn, 2008). For example, Spry and Hornsey (2007) showed that the perception of an intergroup threat mediates the association between blind patriotism and general support for immigration. Constructive patriotism, on the other hand, focuses more on the well-being of all members of a nation and less on the differences between one’s own nation and others (Staub, 1997). Based on this evidence we expect blind and constructive patriotism to be associated to different views of national distinctiveness and group boundaries.

PRESENT RESEARCH Given the assumed closer relationship between blind as opposed to constructive patriotism and perception of group boundaries (Staub, 1997), the relevant questions in this context are: (1) whether individuals who differ in their adoption of blind and constructive patriotism also differ in how they perceive their nation through national symbols; and (2) whether it is possible to influence the association between blind patriotism and outgroup derogation if blind patriots’ typical way to perceive one’s own nation is changed. National symbols are understood in this context as material objects or gestures or other behaviors (Firth, 1973). They play an important role in distinguishing one nation from others by way of their capacity to convey complicated and abstract meanings: they define what constitutes the ingroup and how it is distinct from other groups (Butz, 2009; Mach, 1993). Previous research has shown that national symbols can differ from each other in how they create distinctiveness (Finell & Liebkind, 2010; Finell et al., 2013). Finell and her colleagues (2013) in Finland’s context showed that pictures of sport heroes/ events and a past historical war represented polarized national symbols because they emphasize the separateness or superiority of one’s own nation as related to specific outgroups as well as the fact that the boundaries can be threatened. On the other hand, pictures of traditional culture or nature represented nonpolarized national symbols because they emphasize aspects of the uniqueness of the nation1 without any connotation to threat (see also Finell & Liebkind, 2010). As national symbols can differ from each other in how they create distinctiveness, also individuals can differ from each other in how they perceive their nation. Individuals learn and internalize the meanings associated with their national symbols through the educational system, the media and other socialization agents (see Dekker, Malova & Hoogendoorn, 2003). However, there may be important differences in how people internalize these national symbols and the meanings they convey. Indeed, individuals are social agents whose mental representations are shaped by previous life experiences (see Barsalou, Barbey, Simmons & © 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Scand J Psychol 56 (2015)

Santos, 2005). Furthermore, intra-individual factors such as personal goals might influence how people construct mental representations (e.g., Bodenhausen, Kramer & S€ usser, 1994; Ferguson & Bargh, 2004). Thus, most probably individuals differ in how they perceive their nation. Study 1 examines whether the degree to which individuals perceive their nation through non-polarized and polarized national symbols reflects individual differences in blind and constructive patriotism. This question is relevant for the general aim to better understand how blind and constructive patriotism differ from each other. Roth
ı and colleagues (2005) have investigated the kinds of representations of one’s identity content that are associated with blind versus constructive patriotism, showing that constructive patriotism is associated with civic representations (i.e., citizenship and civic practices), whereas blind patriotism is associated with traditional-cultural representations (i.e., shared genealogy and attachment to the traditional culture). But to the best of our knowledge, so far nobody has empirically examined whether blind and constructive patriotism differ on how the nation is perceived as a distinct entity. Because blind patriotism relates more closely than constructive patriotism to an emphasis on strong group boundaries (Staub, 1997), we expect that blind patriotism relates to national symbols that emphasize conflict and competition between groups. Constructive patriotism, on the other hand, is likely to be related to the perception of one’s own nation through national symbols that present it as a unique entity. Therefore we formulate our: Hypothesis 1. Blind patriotism is associated with polarized national symbols whereas constructive patriotism is associated with non-polarized national symbols. It is important to note that Hypothesis 1 expresses a pattern of associations (Conrey & Smith, 2007) but does not pose any causality claim. Study 2 examines if it is possible to change the association between blind patriotism and outgroup derogation if blind patriots’ typical way to perceive one’s own nation is changed. Previous research has shown that a stimulus can trigger a selection of associated memories, which in turn can influence how an individual interprets and behaves in a specific context (Dijksterhuis, Chartrand & Aarts, 2007). Two studies showed that the presence of a national flag influenced the association between a sense of nationalism and outgroup attitude (Becker, Enders-Comberg, Wagner, Christ & Butz, 2012; Butz, Plant, Doerr, 2007). Thus to take into account the contextual effect of polarized and nonpolarized national symbols on blind patriotism, Study 2 tests the hypothesis that the presence of polarized versus non-polarized national symbols influences the relation between blind patriotism and outgroup attitudes. Previous research has shown that blind patriotism is associated with the perception that one’s own nation is in danger (Schatz et al., 1999) and with negative outgroup attitudes (Spry & Hornsey, 2007). Thus it is possible that blind patriotism will be more strongly associated with negative attitudes towards outgroups in the presence of national symbols emphasizing intergroup confrontation, than of those conveying a definition of the nation in terms uniqueness without any reference to conflict. Accordingly, we investigated:

Patriotism and national symbols 191

Scand J Psychol 56 (2015)

Hypothesis 2. The association between blind patriotism and negative attitudes towards immigrants is stronger when polarized national symbols are made salient than when non-polarized national symbols are made salient. To our knowledge this is the first empirical study to investigate how the contextual salience of national symbols influences the association between blind patriotism and outgroup attitudes.

Implicit and explicit patriotism As we mentioned, patriotism and the meanings that an individual associates to one’s own nation can be the result of a complex learning process involving direct observations and experiences, information conveyed by relevant others (e.g., parents and teachers) and by the media, plus other influences. This complex socialization process most likely affects individuals through both associative and propositional processes of reasoning (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006).2 Therefore, it is conceivable that individuals differ both in terms of implicit (i.e., based on automatic associations) and explicit patriotism (i.e., based on propositional reflections). A growing corpus of empirical evidence shows that implicit and explicit cognitions do at times diverge (e.g., Hofmann, Gawronski, Gschwendner, Le & Schmitt, 2005) and both play an important role in human judgments and attitudes (e.g., Perugini, Richetin & Zogmaister, 2010). In addition implicit cognition was shown to be highly vulnerable to context effects (see Gawronski & Sritharan, 2010). For example, Zogmaister, Arcuri, Castelli and Smith (2008) showed that participants presented different levels of implicit ingroup bias, depending on whether they had been subtly primed with the concept of equality or loyalty. In our second study we measured blind patriotism at the explicit and implicit levels for two reasons. First, if blind patriotism is a relatively stable individual difference characteristic as Staub (1997) claims, it should not be influenced by the symbols made salient: Due to the high malleability of implicit measures, an investigation of the impact of symbols on implicit blind patriotism would be a more stringent test of this presumption. Second and more importantly, we deemed it worthy to investigate whether the influence of national symbols on the relationship between blind patriotism and negative attitudes towards immigrants would emerge at the level of implicit patriotism, of explicit patriotism, or both. In our knowledge this is the first time blind patriotism is studied using implicit measures.

STUDY 1 Study 1 tested the hypothesis that blind patriotism is associated with the degree to which individuals perceive their nation through polarized national symbols, whereas constructive patriotism is associated with non-polarized national symbols.

Method Participants and procedures. Overall, 337 Finnish citizens participated in the study. The data were collected at two points in © 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

time. Participants in the first data set (55 males, 67 females, age: M = 43.35, SD = 13.21, age range 19–65 years) were approached individually in their homes. All the participants lived in Pyht€a€a, a municipality in the South East of Finland and they came from all socioeconomic levels. They were asked to evaluate pictures in a booklet, one picture per page, and were then given the attitude measures. The second set of data (65 males, 150 females, age: M = 27.50, SD = 7.28, age range 19–58 years) was collected via the Internet and included the same pictures presented in the same order as in the first sample. Participants in the second data set were students at the University of Helsinki. Materials. Blind patriotism was measured on three revised items from Schatz and colleagues’ (1999) scale. These items were related to uncritical support for one’s nation: “I support Finland’s policies for the very reason that they are the policies of my country,” “It is unpatriotic to criticize one’s own country” and “You should support your country right or wrong.” Response options ranged from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree (a = .74). Constructive patriotism was measured on two revised items from Schatz and colleagues (1999): “I oppose some of Finland’s policies because I care about my country and I want to improve it” and “If you love your country, you should notice its problems and work to correct them.” In addition one revised item from Blank and Schmidt (2003) was added: “If you feel allegiance to your country you should strive to mend its problems.” Response options ranged from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree (a = .74). To assess the degree to which individuals perceive their nation through non-polarized and polarized symbols, participants were asked to evaluate twelve pictures in terms of how well they symbolized Finland on a four-point scale ranging from “1 = not at all” to “4 = well”3 (see Table 1). All pictures had been pretested with an adult sample (N = 57) with the same scale used in the main study to check that they all characterized Finland well. In the pre-test means ranged from M = 2.75 to M = 3.81, indicating that all the pictures were evaluated as representing Finland at least fairly well. The degree to which individuals presented their nation through non-polarized symbols was measured Table 1. Factor loadings of the evaluations of polarized and nonpolarized national symbols

Winter War 1 Winter War 2 Mannerheima Ice-hockey Formula driver Cross-country skiing Midsummer fest Sauna 1 Sauna 2 Sauna 3 Nature 1 Nature 2 Notes: N = 334.

a

1

2

0.895 0.870 0.801 0.638 0.634 0.631 –0.048 –0.019 0.093 0.007 –0.046 0.104

–0.056 –0.121 –0.076 0.166 0.100 0.180 0.829 0.795 0.790 0.780 0.692 0.628

Finnish military leader and statesman.

192 E. Finell and C. Zogmaister

Scand J Psychol 56 (2015)

by averaging the evaluations of the pictures depicting the national culture and nature (a = 0.89). Similarly, the degree to which they prefered polarized symbols was measured by averaging their evaluations of the sport and war pictures (a = 0.89).

RESULTS Three univariate outliers were excluded from the analysis. To investigate whether evaluations of polarized and non-polarized national symbols reflected two distinct constructs, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation (rotation method: direct oblimin). The analysis revealed two components explaining of 59% of variance, with a correlation of r = 0.45. The item loadings ranged between 0.90 to 0.63. This confirms that polarized and non-polarized national symbols are two distinct constructs (see Table 1). Table 2 gives all the means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations of the variables. In line with Schatz and Staub (1997), blind patriotism correlated weakly and negatively with constructive patriotism. Blind patriotism correlated with the evaluation of polarized symbols to represent one’s own nation, indicating that the higher participants scored on blind patriotism the higher their preference for representing Finland through polarized symbols. Constructive patriotism correlated with the evaluation of non-polarized symbols: the higher participants scored on constructive patriotism the higher the degree to which they perceived Finland through non-polarized symbols. Blind patriotism did not correlate with the evaluation of non-polarized symbols and constructive patriotism did not correlate with polarized symbols. Two partial correlation analyses were conducted in order to find out if blind patriotism was associated with the preference for polarized rather than non-polarized symbols in representing one’s own nation. The non-polarized symbols were partialled out from the analysis because of the relatively high correlation between the evaluation of polarized and non-polarized national symbols. The partial correlation between blind patriotism and evaluation of polarized symbols was significant, r(331) = 0.55, p < 0.001, indicating that the stronger the tendency among participants to perceive Finland through polarized symbols, the higher their level of blind patriotism. Also the partial correlation between non-polarized symbols and blind patriotism (partialling out polarized symbols) was significant, r(331) = –0.18, p = 0.001: the stronger the tendency to use non-polarized symbols, the lower the level of blind patriotism. Table 2. Correlations between evaluation of polarized symbols, evaluation of non-polarized symbols, blind patriotism, constructive patriotism, and their means and standard deviations (Study 1)

1. Polarized symbols 2. Non-polarized symbols 3. Blind patriotism 4. Constructive patriotism Mean Standard deviation

1

2

3

4

– – – – 2.74 0.79

0.423*** –

0.536*** 0.092 – – 1.92 0.84

–0.042 0.184** –0.108* – 3.90 0.71

– 3.29 0.66

Notes: N = 334. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. © 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Two further partial correlations were computed in order to investigate whether constructive patriotism was associated with a preference for representing one’s own nation with non-polarized rather than polarized symbols. The partial correlation with the evaluation of non-polarized symbols (evaluation of polarized symbols as covariate) was significant, r(331) = 0.22, p < 0.001, indicating that the stronger the tendency among participants to perceive Finland through non-polarized symbols, the higher their level of constructive patriotism. Furthermore, the partial correlation between constructive patriotism and evaluation of polarized national symbols (evaluation of non-polarized symbols as covariates) was significant, r(331) = –0.13, p < 0.05, indicating that the stronger the tendency to represent one’s own nation with polarized national symbols, the lower the level of constructive patriotism. In sum, as expected blind patriotism was associated with the evaluation of polarized symbols, and constructive patriotism with the evaluation of non-polarized symbols. In addition blind patriotism was negatively associated with the evaluation of nonpolarized symbols, and constructive patriotism was negatively associated with the evaluation polarized symbols. This finding will be addressed in the Discussion.

STUDY 2 Study 2 investigated the impact of the presentation of nonpolarized versus polarized national symbols on the association of blind patriotism with outgroup attitudes. The outgroup studied in this context was immigrants living in Finland. We hypothesized that the contextual salience of national symbols would moderate the influence of blind patriotism on outgroup attitudes. More specifically, blind patriotism would be more strongly associated with negative outgroup attitudes in the presence of polarized as compared to non-polarized symbols. In this experiment pictures of the Winter War represented polarized national symbols (the polarized condition) and pictures of Finnish nature represented non-polarized national symbols (the non-polarized condition).4 As explained earlier, in order to exclude the possibility that the priming influenced level of blind patriotism, the latter was measured both on implicit and explicit levels. In order to investigate whether explicit patriotism was influenced by the presentation of the images we measured it twice, through an online questionnaire administered before the experimental session and a second questionnaire administered during the experimental session after the presentation of the national symbols. For practical reasons we measured implicit blind patriotism only once, during the experimental session; we measured it after the manipulation in order to test whether it was affected by the presentation of the national symbols. Previous research has evidenced a relationship between blind patriotism and explicit expressions of prejudice (e.g., Spry & Hornsey, 2007), and therefore we expected that the effect of national symbols would emerge at the level of more controlled evaluations; for this reason, outgroup attitudes were measured on the explicit level.

Method Participants. Sixty-four Finnish students (56 females, 4 males, 4 did not report their gender and age) from the University of

Patriotism and national symbols 193

Scand J Psychol 56 (2015)

Helsinki participated in the study. Their ages ranged from 18 to 48 years (M = 25.23, SD = 5.55). Participants were recruited via an introductory course in social psychology and received course credits for their participation. Materials. Implicit blind patriotism. The Single Category Implicit Association Test (SC-IAT; Karpinski & Steinman, 2006) was used to measure implicit blind patriotism. The SC-IAT is a variant of the IAT (Greenwald, McGhee & Schwartz, 1998), which measures implicit associations towards a single category. Participants were seated in front of a PC and asked to categorize words as quickly as they could. In the first critical block, they had to press the left-hand key of the keyboard (A) when a word relating to a positive emotion or to Finland appeared in the middle of the screen, and the right-hand key (L) when a word relating to a negative emotion appeared. In the second critical block, they had to press the left-hand key when a word relating to a positive emotion appeared and the right-hand key when a word relating to a negative emotion or to Finland appeared. The order of the blocks was counterbalanced among participants. The target category Finland and the attribute categories positive and negative were presented. Seven words relating to Finland (e.g., Maammelaulu (name of Finland’s national anthem), Suomi-neito (Maiden of Finland, national personification of Finland)) were used as exemplars for the target category Finland. The procedure proposed by Karpinski and Steinman (2006) was followed regarding the number of trials and other details related to the SC-IAT. Earlier research has shown that there were no differences in the level of positive emotions toward one’s own nation expressed by blind and constructive patriots. However, constructive patriots expressed significantly more often negative emotions toward their nation than blind patriots (Schatz & Staub, 1997). Based on this empirical evidence, higher difficulties in associating negative emotional words with Finland, in comparison to positive emotional words, should reflect higher levels of implicit blind patriotism. Thus, 14 positive (e.g., respect, gratitude) and 14 negative (e.g., hate, disgust) emotional words were used as exemplars of the attribute stimuli. The choice of exemplars was based on a previous study on Finnish national symbols (Finell, 2005) and a study on Finnish emotional words (Tuovila, 2006). Explicit outgroup attitudes were measured through two feeling thermometers, one for attitudes towards Somalian war refugees5 and another for attitudes towards immigrants in general (0 = very cold to 100 = very warm), and a five-item scale measuring prejudice towards immigrants (with items taken from McConahay, Hardee & Batts, 1981; Sears & Henry, 2005; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995; e.g., “Immigrants in Finland are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights”). All sentences were evaluated on five-point scales ranging from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (5) (a = 0.87).6 Explicit blind patriotism pre and post manipulations were measured as in Study 1, with the difference that the sentences were evaluated on five-point scales ranging from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (5) (a = 0.52) in the online administration before the manipulation and were evaluated on nine-point scales ranging from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (9) (a = 0.77) in the laboratory after the manipulation. © 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

The images of national symbols consisted of seven different black and white pictures of Finnish nature and seven different black and white pictures of the Winter War. In each trial of the presentation task participants were presented with either an image of Finland (of the Winter War in the polarized condition and of Finnish nature in the unpolarized condition) or a gray square of the same size. Their task was to press a small Finnish flag when they recognized a picture of Finnish nature/the Winter War. This Finnish flag was taped to the space bar and was present during the whole experiment to emphasize the link between the prime and Finland. When the participant pressed the space bar, or after 3500 ms had elapsed, the picture disappeared and the next stimulus appeared on the monitor after an interstimulus interval of 500 ms. The task consisted of a series of five blocks of trials. In each block, every picture was presented from a minimum of four to a maximum of eight times, each time with a different level of recognizability (from highly recognizable to completely unrecognizable), for a total of 42 priming trials. In addition, for eight trials the gray square was presented. The trials were showed in random order in each block. Procedure. Participants were informed that the study was about different features related to Finland and being Finnish. Having enrolled by e-mail, they were asked to fill in some questionnaires regarding Finland and being a Finn. They participated in the laboratory session two weeks later at the minimum. In the laboratory, participants were tested in groups of one to four persons. Each participant was seated at a desk individually and received instructions by computer. First participants were presented with either the images of Winter War or of Finnish nature, depending on the condition, and immediately afterwards they performed the SC-IAT. In order to guarantee that the manipulation was still effective, after the SC-IAT participants were presented with the manipulation again (one block). Afterwards, they filled in a paper-and-pencil questionnaire containing the blind patriotism measure, the thermometer for Somalians, the thermometer for immigrants, and the prejudice scale, in this order. Finally, they were thanked and the researcher provided an explanation of the study.

RESULTS Nine participants were excluded from the analysis because of error rates greater than 20% in the critical blocks of the SC-IAT (Karpinski & Steinman, 2006). The final sample consisted of 55 participants. The SC-IAT scores were computed using the D-600 algorithm (Greenwald, Nosek & Banaji, 2003). Higher scores indicate more positive attitudes towards Finland. Internal consistency was adequate (a = 0.82), and the mean SC-IAT scores did not differ between the counterbalanced groups, t(53) = 0.47, p = 0.641. The mean implicit blind patriotism score did not differ significantly between the experimental conditions, polarized condition: M = 0.51, SD = 0.29; non-polarized condition: M = 0.40, SD = 0.34, t(53) = 1.32, p = 0.193. We expected (Hypothesis 2) a stronger negative association between implicit blind patriotism and explicit outgroup attitudes7 when polarized national symbols were salient than when non-polarized national symbols

194 E. Finell and C. Zogmaister

Scand J Psychol 56 (2015)

were salient. This was tested by means of hierarchical regression analysis in which the criterion outgroup attitudes was regressed on SCIAT index (implicit blind patriotism), experimental condition (0 = non-polarized; 1 = polarized), and their interaction. The implicit blind patriotism score was included in the first step and the condition in the second step. The interaction term between these was added in the third step (see Table 3: model 1). The implicit blind patriotism was a significant predictor in step 1 indicating that the higher was the level of implicit blind patriotism, the more negative explicit outgroup attitudes. In step 2 the effect of implicit blind patriotism was not significant anymore, and a significant effect of the condition emerged, indicating that participants reported more negative outgroup attitudes in the polarized condition than in the non-polarized condition. Congruent with the hypothesis that implicit blind patriotism would relate more negatively with explicit outgroup attitudes in the polarized condition than in the non-polarized condition, the main effect was qualified by a significant interaction in step 3. A test of simple slopes revealed that implicit blind patriotism was negatively related with explicit outgroup attitudes in the polarized condition, b = –0.57, t(51) = –2.97, p = 0.004. The association was reversed in the non-polarized condition, but it was not significant and was negligible in size, b = 0.03, t(51) = 0.17, p = 0.864 (Aiken & West, 1991) (see Fig. 1). In order to assess the effect of the manipulation on the explicit endorsement of blind patriotism, post explicit blind patriotism was regressed on condition and pre blind patriotism.8 Pre explicit blind patriotism was the only significant predictor, b = 1.72, b = 0.75, t(52) = 8.00, p < 0.001. In other words, the manipulation did not impact on the level of explicit endorsement of blind patriotism. In order to test if the negative association between post explicit blind patriotism and explicit outgroup attitudes in the polarized condition was stronger than in the non-polarized condition, a similar analysis was performed as in model 1, except that explicit post blind patriotism was substituted for implicit blind patriotism (see Table 3: model 2). Contrary to implicit blind patriotism in model 1, the explicit post blind

Table 3. Standardized regression coefficients of explicit outgroup attitudes on implicit blind patriotism, condition and interaction term (Model 1: Study 2). Standardized regression coefficients of explicit outgroup attitudes on explicit post blind patriotism, condition and interaction term (Model 2: Study 2) Step 1

Step 2

Step3

–0.27*

–0.22 –0.28*

0.08 0.08*

0.15 0.08*

0.03 –0.27* –0.39* 0.24 0.09*

–0.38**

–0.37** –0.32*

Model 1 Implicit blind patriotism Condition Interaction term R2 R2 change

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1. (a): Explicit outgroup attitude index regressed on the implicit blind patriotism and priming condition. (b): Explicit outgroup attitude index regressed on explicit post blind patriotism and the priming condition (Study 2, N = 55).

patriotism was a significant predictor both in step 1 and 2 in model 2. As predicted, the interaction in step 3 was significant. A further test of simple slopes revealed that post explicit blind patriotism was interrelated negatively with explicit outgroup attitudes in the polarized condition, b = –0.64, t(51) = –3.91, p < 0.001 whereas the association was not significant and low in size in the non-polarized condition, b = –11, t(51) = –0.65, p = 0.522 (Aiken & West, 1991) (see Fig. 1). In sum, neither explicit nor implicit blind patriotism were influenced by the presentation of polarized vs. non-polarized national symbols. These, on the other hand, influenced the explicit outgroup attitudes expressed by participants. Importantly, both explicit and implicit blind patriotism correlated more strongly with negative outgroup attitudes when the nation was made salient through symbols of intergroup conflict, although from a historical perspective, than when the salience reflected non-polarized national symbols that do not emphasize threat or boundaries between groups.

Model 2 Explicit blind patriotism Condition Interaction term R2 R2 change

0.14 0.14**

0.24 0.10*

–0.11 –0.32** –0.38* 0.31 0.07*

Notes: N = 55. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. © 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

DISCUSSION This paper analysed the relationship between different forms of patriotism and polarized and non-polarized national symbols. By polarized symbols we referred to symbols that emphasize the juxtaposition between one’s own nation and specific outgroups as well as the fact that the boundaries can be threatened. By non-

Patriotism and national symbols 195

Scand J Psychol 56 (2015)

polarized symbols we referred to symbols that emphasize the uniqueness of the nation without connotations to threat (Finell & Liebkind, 2010; Finell et al., 2013). Study 1 examined whether the degree to which individuals perceive their nation through polarized and non-polarized symbols is associated with blind and constructive patriotism. As predicted, there was a significant association between blind patriotism and polarized symbols: The higher participants scored on blind patriotism, the stronger their tendency to perceive Finland through polarized symbols. This finding is in line with the notion that blind patriotism is related to strong group boundaries and the distinction between the ingroup and the outgroups (Staub, 1997). In other words, the association between the evaluation of polarized national symbols as representative of Finland and blind patriotism probably reflects the belief system internalized by blind patriots according to which the world is divided into “us” and “them” and the outside world is threatening. In addition, blind patriotism was associated with non-polarized national symbols when polarized symbols were controlled for: the higher they scored on blind patriotism, the less participants tended to perceive Finland through non-polarized symbols. Although the association was weak, it might indicate that polarized and non-polarized national symbols are not only alternative but also somewhat conflicting ways to perceive one’s own nation. However, it is worth noting that perceiving one’s own nation through non-polarized and polarized national symbols was positively correlated. This correlation is probably related, at least in part, to the common method of measurement, but it furthermore indicates that evaluations of national symbols also reflect the attachment to one’s own nation in general (Finell et al., 2013). Moreover, constructive patriotism was associated with the degree to which individuals perceived their nation through non-polarized and polarized symbols, but the pattern was reversed. The constructive patriotism scale correlated positively with the evaluation of non-polarized symbols as representative of Finland, and negatively with the evaluation of polarized symbols. Thus, for constructive patriots it seems to be enough to perceive their own nation as a unique entity rather through confrontation. This is the first empirical finding suggesting that constructive and blind patriotism associate not only to different perceptions of who is an ingroup member (Roth
ı et al., 2005) but also to different ways of perceiving one’s own nation through everyday national symbols such as sports, war, nature and culture. Study 2 analysed how the contextual salience of polarized and non-polarized symbols influence the relationship between blind patriotism and outgroup attitudes. More specifically and as predicted, there was a negative correlation between both implicit and explicit blind patriotism and outgroup attitudes in the polarized condition, which was not evident in the non-polarized condition. Staub (1997) states that blind patriotism can be a relatively stable personal characteristic. In line with Staub (1997), Study 2 shows that the level of explicit and implicit blind patriotism did not change due to the priming. However, the association between the variables changed. This means that even if blind patriotism might be generally fixed, the way in which blind patriots perceive the outgroups can change depending on how the nation is presented. Thus, if the nation is presented as a © 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

unique entity without any connotation to conflict or superiority, there is no need for negative outgroup attitudes. Importantly this effect was present both in explicit and implicit levels. To our knowledge, this is the first time that empirical evidence has been produced supporting the idea that the way the nation is represented influences how blind patriotism is associated with outgroup attitudes. This study contributes to the research literature by showing that not only the association between national identification and outgroup attitudes is influenced by the representations of the nation (Finell et al., 2013; Meeus, Duriez, Vanbeselaere & Boen, 2010; Pehrson, Brown & Zagefka, 2009; Smeekes, Verkuyten & Poppe, 2011) but also the association between blind patriotism and outgroup attitudes. In addition, it provides further evidence of the powerful influence of national symbols on attitudes and behavior (e.g., Butz et al., 2007; Ehrlinger, Plant, Eibach, Columb, Goplen, Kunstman & Butz, 2011; Kemmelmeier & Winter, 2008). Our study has, of course, its limitations. First, since we focused on blind patriotism in Study 2, we did not measure constructive patriotism. Thus, we do not know if the manipulation might have affected it. However, it is probable that the contextual salience of national symbols would not influence the association between constructive patriotism and outgroup attitudes as much as it does with blind patriotism. Early research has shown that symbolic behavior is more typical to blind patriots than to constructive patriots (Schatz & Staub, 1997). Thus it is possible that blind patriots are more sensitive to national symbols than constructive patriots (see also Schatz & Lavine, 2007). Second, our sample in Study 2 consisted of mainly females. Nevertheless, it is important to note that there was no gender difference in the evaluation of polarized national symbols in Study 1. This suggests that the Winter War as a Finnish national symbol is equally important for both genders.9 Third, these studies were conducted only in one country. In order to increase the validity of these findings, they should be tested also in other national contexts. Despite of its limitation, this research contributes to expanding our knowledge on blind and constructive patriotism by showing that they differ on the degree to which individuals perceive their nation through national symbols. This study is also first to show that the association between blind patriotism and outgroup attitudes can be changed depending on what kinds of national symbol are made contextually salient. This is also the first time blind patriotism is measured at the implicit level. These findings underline the importance of taking into account the meanings associated with one’s own ingroup when examining relatively stable personal characteristics. The authors want to thank Luciano Arcuri, Klaus Helkama, Karmela Liebkind, Jari Lipsanen, Tuuli Anna M€ah€ onen and other colleagues for their helpful advice. This study was funded by the Academy of Finland (grant no. 117363), the Finnish Cultural Foundation and the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation.

NOTES 1

We understand uniqueness as view that there is a stable essence that distinguishes one nation from other nations on the general level (see also Nigbur & Cinnirella, 2007).

196 E. Finell and C. Zogmaister 2

Based on Gawronski and Bodenhausen (2006, see also Deutsch & Strack, 2010), by associative processes we refer to automatic cognitive reactions resulting from the associations automatically triggered by the mental activation of a concept; they are thought to build the basis for implicit cognitions, and to operate in a fast and unintentional way. Propositional processes refer to reflective reasoning based on an intentional evaluation of propositional information. They are related to explicit cognitive contents. 3 We further provided a fifth option, “I do not know,” which was coded as a missing value in the analyses. 4 Finnish nature is an important symbol of Finland. Many Finns are proud of Finnish nature, which they find pure and unique. Nature has had a very special role in the construction of Finnish national identity in the history as well in the present (see Klinge, 1982; Mission for Finland, 2010). 5 The attitudes toward Somalian immigrants are the most negative in Finland (Jaakkola, 2009). 6 The questionnaire is available from the first author upon request. 7 Given that the three outgroup attitude measures correlated, an outgroup attitude index (higher scores indicating more positive attitudes) was created from them (a = 0.76). After reverse-scoring the prejudice scale and standardizing this reverse-scored variable and the responses to the two feeling thermometers, we averaged these standardized scores. Separate analyses were also been carried out with regard to the three criteria. The patterns of the results were the same. 8 The correlation between post explicit blind patriotism and implicit blind patriotism was marginally significant, r(55) = 0.255, p = 0.060. 9 There were no gender difference in the evaluation of the two pictures presenting Winter War, Winter War 1: t(332) = 0.11, p = 0.916; Winter War 2: t(332) = 0.24, p = 0.810.

REFERENCES Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Barsalou, L. W., Barbey, A. K., Simmons, W. K. & Santos, A. (2005). Embodiment in religious knowledge. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 5, 14–57. Bar-Tal, D. & Staub, E. (1997). Patriotism: Its scope and meaning. In D. Bar-Tal & E. Staub (Eds.), Patriotism in the lives of individuals and nations (pp. 1–19). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Becker, J. C., Enders-Comberg, A., Wagner, U., Christ, O., & Butz, D. A. (2012). Beware of national symbols: How flags can threaten intergroup relations. Social Psychology, 43, 3–6. Blank, T. & Schmidt, P. (2003). National identity in a United Germany: Nationalism or patriotism? An empirical test with representative data. Political Psychology, 24, 289–312. Bodenhausen, G. V., Kramer, G. P. & S€usser, K. (1994). Happiness and stereotypic thinking in social judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 621–632. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The Psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444. Butz, D. A. (2009). National symbols as agents of psychological and social change. Political Psychology, 30, 779–804. Butz, D. A., Plant, E. A. & Doerr, C. E. (2007). Liberty and justice for all? Implications of exposure to the US flag for intergroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 396–408. Condor, S. (2006). Temporality and collectivity: Diversity, history and the rhetorical construction of national entitativity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 657–682. Conrey, F. R. & Smith, E. R. (2007). Attitude representation: Attitudes as patterns in a distributed, connectionist representational system. Social Cognition, 25, 718–735. Dekker, H., Malova, D. & Hoogendoorn, S. (2003). Nationalism and its explanations. Political Psychology, 24, 345–376. Deutsch, R. & Strack, F. (2010). Building blocks of social behavior. In B. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social

© 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Scand J Psychol 56 (2015) cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 62–79). New York: The Guilford Press. Dijksterhuis, A., Chartrand, T. L. & Aarts, H. (2007). Effects of priming and perception on social behavior and goal pursuit. In J. A. Bargh (Ed.), Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes (pp. 51–132). New York: Psychology Press. Ehrlinger, J., Plant, E. A., Eibach, R. P., Columb, C. J., Goplen, J. L., Kunstman, J. W. & Butz, D. A. (2011). How exposure to the confederate flag affects willingness to vote for Barack Obama. Political Psychology, 32, 131–146. Ferguson, M. J. & Bargh, J. A. (2007). Beyond the attitude object. Implict attitudes spring from object-centered contexts. In B. Wittenbrink & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 216–246). New York: The Guilford Press. Finell, E. (2005). Kansallista identiteetti€a kartoittamassa. Kansalliset symbolit ja niihin liittyv€at muistot ja tunteet [Charting national identity. national symbols and associated memories and emotions]. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Helsinki. Finell, E. & Liebkind, K. (2010). National symbols and distinctiveness: Rhetorical strategies in creating distinct national identities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 321–341. Finell, E., Olakivi, A., Liebkind, K & Lipsanen, J. (2013). Does it matter how I perceive my nation?: National symbols, national identification and attitudes toward immigrants. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54, 529–535 Firth, R. (1973). Symbols. public and private. London: George Allen & Unwin. Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692–731. Gawronski, B., & Sritharan, R. (2010). Formation, change, and contextualization of mental associations: Determinants and principles of variations in implicit measures. In B. Gawronski, B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 216–240). New York: Guilford Press. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E. & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216. Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H. & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369–1385. Huddy, L. & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 63–77. Jaakkola, M. (2009). Maahanmuuttajat suomalaisten n€ ak€ okulmasta [Immigrants from the perspective of Finns]. Helsinki: Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskus. Karpinski, A. & Steinman, R. B. (2006). The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 16–32. Kemmelmeier, M. & Winter, D. G. (2008). Sowing patriotism, but reaping nationalism? Consequences of exposure to the American flag. Political Psychology, 29, 859–879. Klinge, M. (1982). Kaksi Suomea [Two Finlands]. Helsinki: Otava. Kosterman, R. & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology, 10, 257–274. Mach, Z. (1993). Symbols, conflict, and identity: Essays in political anthropology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. McConahay, J. B., Hardee, B. B. & Batts, V. (1981). Has racism declined in America. It depends on who is asking and what is asked. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25, 563–579. Meeus, J., Duriez, B., Vanbeselaere, N. & Boen, F. (2010). The role of national identity representation in the relation between ingroup identi-

Scand J Psychol 56 (2015) fication and outgroup derogation: Ethnic versus civic representation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 305–320. Mission for Finland (2010). Helsinki: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. Retrieved 4 March 2014 from http://www.tehtavasuomelle.fi/ documents/TS_Report_EN.pdf. Nigbur, D., & Cinnirella, M. (2007). National identification, type and specificity of comparison and their effects on descriptions of national character. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 672–691. Pehrson, S., Brown, R. & Zagefka, H. (2009). When does national identification lead to the rejection of immigrants? Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence for the role of essentialist ingroup definitions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 61–76. Perugini, M., Richetin, J. & Zogmaister, C. (2010). Prediction of behavior. In B. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 255– 278). New York: The Guilford Press. Pettigrew, T. F. & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant perjudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57–75. Reicher, S. & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and nation. London: Sage. Roth
ı, D. M., Lyons, E. & Chryssochoou, X. (2005). National attachment and patriotism in a European nation: A British study. Political Psychology, 26, 135–155. Schatz, R. T. & Staub, E. (1997). Manifestations of blind and constructive patriotism: Personality correlates and individual-group relations. In D. Bar-Tal & E. Staub (Eds.), Patriotism in the lives of individuals and nations (pp. 229–245). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Schatz, R. T., Staub, E. & Lavine, H. (1999). On the varieties of national attachment: Blind versus constructive patriotism. Political Psychology, 20, 151–174.

© 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Patriotism and national symbols 197 Schatz, R. T. & Lavine, H. (2007). Waving the flag: national symbolism, social identity, and political engagement. Political Psychology, 28, 329–355. Smeekes, A., Verkuyten, M. & Poppe, E. (2011). Mobilizing opposition towards Muslim immigrants: National identification and the representation of national history. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 265–280. Sears, D. O. & Henry, P. J. (2005). Over thirty years later: A contemporary look at symbolic racism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 95–150. Spry, C. & Hornsey, M. (2007). The influence of blind and constructive patriotism on attitudes toward multiculturalism and immigration. Australian Journal of Psychology, 59, 151–158. Staub, E. (1997). Blind versus constructive patriotism: Moving from embeddedness in the group to critical loyalty and action. In D. Bar-Tal & E. Staub (Eds.), Patriotism in the lives of individuals and nations (pp. 213–228). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Tuovila, S. (2006). Kun on tunteet. Suomen kielen tunnesanojen semantiikkaa. [When one has feelings. Semantics of affective words in Finnish language]. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis Humaniora B 65. Oulu: University of Oulu. Williams, R. L., Foster, L. N. & Krohn, K. R. (2008). Relationship of patriotism measures to critical thinking and emphasis on civil liberties versus national security. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8, 139–156. Zogmaister, C., Arcuri, L., Castelli, L. & Smith, E. R. (2008). The impact of loyalty and equality on implicit ingroup favoritism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 493–512. Received 12 August 2014, accepted 19 November 2014

Copyright of Scandinavian Journal of Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.