Australian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 59, No. 3, December 2007, pp. 151 – 158.

The influence of blind and constructive patriotism on attitudes toward

multiculturalism and immigration

CARMEN SPRY & MATTHEW HORNSEY

University of Queensland, School of Psychology, Brisbane, Australia

Abstract
Whereas blind patriotism involves uncritical support for one’s country, constructive patriots believe in positive change
through questioning and criticizing national practices. We predicted that blind patriotism (but not constructive patriotism)
would be negatively related to support for immigration and multiculturalism. In addition, it was hypothesised that the
negative relationship between blind patriotism and support for multiculturalism and immigration would be mediated by
threat. Australians (N ¼ 95) filled out a questionnaire measuring levels of patriotism, perceptions of cultural threat, and
attitudes towards multiculturalism and immigration. As predicted, blind patriotism (but not constructive patriotism) was
negatively correlated with general support for multiculturalism and immigration, and with support for providing cultural
services to immigrants, relationships which were fully mediated by perceptions of cultural threat. Theoretical and practical
implications of these results are discussed.

The fact that people turn to patriotism during some of the effects of blind patriotism are mediated
insecure times (Li & Brewer, 2004) suggests that by perceptions of threat.
feelings of patriotism serve a powerful psychological
purpose for the individual. Traditionally, psycholo-
Defining patriotism
gists have argued that patriotism – and in particular
the maintenance of the political belief system – serves Patriotism has traditionally been defined as a form of
the function of providing belonging and psychologi- attachment towards, or love of, one’s country (this is
cal security (Bar-Tal, 1993; Freud, 1959; Fromm, often distinguished from nationalism, which is an
1969) as well as buffering people against the anxiety attachment to nation characterized by a desire to
associated with their mortality and limited existence enhance the nation’s superiority of power vis-à-vis
(e.g., Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon, Rosenblatt, other nations; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989;
Veeder, & Kirkland, 1990). Worchel & Coutant, 1997). However, the types of
However, patriotism might also have negative attitudes and behaviours that comprise patriotism are
consequences in terms of xenophobia and outgroup frequently a topic of heated debate, as individuals
aggression (Jensen, 2003; Johnson, 1997; Staub, seek to define the terms according to their political
1989). The current paper asks: Can the way we are and ideological agendas. In the aftermath of the
attached to our country influence how we treat September 11 terrorist attacks, for example, a
arrivals from other countries, such as migrants? vigorous debate has re-emerged in the US and
Specifically, we examine two qualitatively different elsewhere over the ‘‘true’’ meaning of patriotism.
types of patriotism: blind versus constructive patri- In a special edition of Peace Review (Vol 15, No. 4) a
otism (Schatz, Staub, & Lavine, 1999). We argue number of sociologists, philosophers, journalists, and
that blind patriotism predisposes people to show political scientists commented on the nature of
negative attitudes toward immigration and multi- patriotism in the US. A prevailing theme in nearly
culturalism, whereas constructive patriotism does all of these commentaries was an anxiety about how
not. This study also furthers the literature by the term ‘‘patriotism’’ could be used to stigmatise
subjecting to empirical scrutiny the argument that dissent and to legitimize acts of war. Some of these

Correspondence: Matthew Hornsey, University of Queensland, School of Psychology, Brisbane, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
ISSN 0004-9530 print/ISSN 1742-9536 online ª The Australian Psychological Society Ltd
Published by Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/00049530701449489
152 C. Spry & M. Hornsey

commentaries have responded to this by distinguish- describes individuals who practice authoritarian
ing between ‘‘good’’ patriotism, which allows for a submission, authoritarian aggression and conserva-
benign and affirming love of country, and ‘‘bad’’ tism. These qualities are similar to the notion of
types of patriotism, which foster aggression and uncritical allegiance and the desire to protect the
intolerance (e.g., Antony, 2003; Parenti, 2003). This status quo of the nation that is expressed by blind
debate can be seen as the most recent instalment of patriotism; indeed, Schatz et al. (1999) found the
an ongoing debate in the social sciences about the two constructs to be closely correlated (r ¼ .54,
dual nature of patriotism. This debate can be traced p 5 .001). As a result, it was important to test that
back until at least the late 1800s, and tends to flare the indices of patriotism had predictive power over
up during and immediately after high level interna- and above RWA.
tional conflict (see Staub, 1997, for a review). Measures of blind and constructive patriotism were
Recently, Staub (1997) has attempted to lend found to be only modestly correlated (r ¼ 7.14,
some systematic empirical and theoretical support to p 5 .05), and each construct was associated with a
this bidimensional approach to patriotism. Specifi- different pattern of cognitions and behaviors. Partici-
cally, Staub differentiates between ‘‘blind’’ and pants scoring high on blind patriotism had lower levels
‘‘constructive’’ patriotism. Blind patriotism is de- of political knowledge, employed a more abstract
fined as an attachment by people to their country and relationship with their country, and applied more just-
devotion to the goals that the country has set for itself world thinking (‘‘people get what they deserve’’) than
(or the government has set for its citizens). Blind did people high on constructive patriotism. People
patriots will show this devotion regardless of the scoring high on constructive patriotism, on the other
potential harm to others, in other words they will hand, were shown to be more empathetic and to
uncritically (‘‘blindly’’) support any action of their engage more in information gathering than people
group. Blind patriots have a tendency to act in the scoring high on blind patriotism.
spirit of the dictum ‘‘my country right or wrong’’. One finding that is particularly important to the
Because blind patriots view their ingroup as infall- current analysis is that blind patriots (but not
ible, they not only fail to criticise actions taken by constructive patriots) feel that their country is
their country, they will also view such criticism as highly vulnerable to military threat from foreign
inherently unpatriotic (Schatz et al., 1999). countries. This is an interesting result if one takes
Constructive patriots also show commitment and into account that blind patriotism was also corre-
loyalty to their country, but they additionally support lated with nationalism. As was discussed above,
universal human ideals and values, rather than policies nationalism is often connected with feelings of
or courses of action adopted by the country at any ingroup superiority and militaristic aggression. It
particular time (Schatz & Staub, 1997). They reject has been argued that such aggressive sentiment is
actions which are contrary to the group’s interests in actually caused by fear and the perception of
the long run and, by doing so, go beyond defending ingroup vulnerability, either internally through
their group identity and instead participate in the task difficult life conditions or externally due to military
of constructing a positive identity for the group. The threat (Staub, 1989; White, 1993). Along those
constructive patriot might oppose the country’s actions same lines, blind patriotism (but not constructive
not only because he or she believes they are morally patriotism) was associated with the concern that
incorrect or unfair, but because he or she believes that influences from foreign countries would threaten an
they violate the country’s fundamental aspects and are otherwise homogeneous and distinct culture. So
therefore contrary to the country’s long term interests. blind patriotism has been associated with concern
It should be made clear that both blind and about both national vulnerability and cultural
constructive patriots feel attached to their country. contamination. It is possible that the relatively high
The difference lies in the way this attachment is levels of intergroup threat experienced by blind
expressed and lived: constructive patriots believe in patriots might be one reason why they find it
positive change through questioning and criticizing difficult to acknowledge shortcomings of the group
current group practices, whereas blind patriots ex- and to engage in ingroup dissent (see Janis, 1982;
ercise unquestioning positive evaluation of their group. Hornsey, 2006; Kelman, 1995; for discussions of
Schatz and colleagues (Schatz & Staub, 1997; the relationship between intergroup threat and
Schatz et al., 1999) empirically evaluated the acceptance of ingroup criticism and dissent).
theoretical distinction between blind and construc-
tive patriotism, using a US undergraduate sample. It
Patriotism and attitudes toward immigration
should be noted that, when drawing the relationship
and multiculturalism
between patriotism and the other variables, Schatz
and colleagues were careful to control for right-wing The question we explore in the present study is
authoritarianism (RWA). RWA (Altemeyer, 1988) whether blind and constructive patriotism have an
 Blind and constructive patriotism 153

influence on attitudes toward multiculturalism and Australian way of life (assimilation). Consistent with
immigration. The concepts of multiculturalism and Schatz et al. (1999), all analyses were conducted
immigration are not identical, although they are after first controlling for RWA. Higher levels of blind
closely related. Immigration refers to the process of patriotism were expected to be associated with more
people from other countries entering and settling negative attitudes toward multiculturalism and im-
into a new country. Multiculturalism, on the other migration, more negative attitudes toward the provi-
hand, is the political and social policy that deals with sion of cultural services for immigrants, and more
the diversity that is the result of immigration. positive attitudes toward assimilation (Hypothesis 1).
Multiculturalism proposes that cultural identities Furthermore, these relationships were expected to be
should be actively preserved, but nested within an mediated by threat (Hypothesis 2). No relationship –
appreciation of shared, national boundaries (see or even a positive relationship – was expected
Berry, 1991; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Taylor, 1990; between constructive patriotism and support for
Taylor & Moghaddam, 1987, for reviews). As such, multiculturalism and immigration (Hypothesis 3).
it is the ideological antithesis of assimilation, which We want to make clear that we did not intend our
argues that immigrants should shed their original mediational analyses to imply temporal causality. For
cultural identities and identify exclusively with their example, it is not our intention to argue that the
host culture. Although the Australian government development of blind patriotism somehow causes
has endorsed the policy of multiculturalism, there heightened feelings of threat. Our argument is that
has been some evidence that this support is not one of the qualities of blind patriots is that they have
matched at the societal level (Ho, Niles, Penney, & heightened concerns about cultural contamination
Thomas, 1994). A common criticism of multi- (threat). We extrapolated from this to argue that this
culturalism in Australia and elsewhere is that it is heightened sensitivity to threat will result in in-
seen as a policy that champions and entrenches creased negativity toward multiculturalism and im-
differences in society (Advisory Council on migrants. If threat is the critical ingredient causing
Multicultural Affairs, 1988; see also Sears, Citrin, the link between blind patriotism and support for
Cheleden, & Van Laar, 1999, for a US perspective). multiculturalism and immigration, then this relation-
Furthermore, multiculturalism is often equated with ship should disappear when threat is covaried out.
positively favoring migrants at the expense of other
Australians and is not seen as giving equal rights to
both immigrants and other Australians (Advisory Method
Council on Multicultural Affairs, 1988).
Participants
If it is true that immigration and multiculturalism
are seen to be a threat to the material and social Participants were drawn from three sources. First
interests of a nation, it seems reasonable to argue that year psychology students from a large Australian
attitudes toward these policies would be more university participated in exchange for course credit
negative the more one is attached to one’s country. (n ¼ 62). Employees of an engineering company
The question is: Does patriotism lead to hostile (n ¼ 14) and a telephone counselling organisation
attitudes to immigration and multiculturalism? Can (n ¼ 24) filled out questionnaires on a voluntary
one be a passionate patriot and at the same time be basis. The non-student samples were chosen so as to
accepting towards people from other cultures who, in increase the representativeness of the sample. Five
turn, might be patriotic towards a different country? participants were dropped from the data set because
Although this question has yet to be examined in a they did not nominate Australia as their primary
systematic way, the work by Schatz et al. (1999) national identity. Thus, the final sample size was 95
suggests a theoretical framework with which to (41 males, 54 females). Participants’ ages ranged
answer this question. If it is true that blind patriots from 14 – 78 years (M ¼ 26.74 years, SD ¼ 13.53).
are particularly prone to feelings of threat and
cultural contamination, then it is reasonable to
Measures
expect that blind patriotism will be associated with
negative attitudes toward immigration and multi- Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). Altemeyer’s
culturalism. The role of threat in mediating the (1988) right wing authoritarianism scale was used
effects of blind patriotism on attitudes has not been to assess RWA (a ¼ .90). Participants indicated their
subjected to empirical scrutiny. reactions to 30 statements on a scale from 74
In the present research we measured blind and strongly disagree to þ4 strongly agree with no zero-
constructive patriotism, threat, general attitudes point (e.g., ‘‘Our country will be great if we honour
towards multiculturalism and immigration, attitudes the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities
towards providing cultural services to immigrants, tell us to do and get rid of the ‘rotten apples’ who are
and attitudes towards immigrants taking on the ruining everything’’).
154 C. Spry & M. Hornsey

Blind and constructive patriotism. Drawing from deal with cultural diversity, is in line with this
Schatz et al. (1999), 19 items were used to assess country’s national interest’’, and ‘‘Australia as a
blind and constructive patriotism. All items were whole would benefit if more immigrants were
marked on a 6 point scale ranging from 73 strongly allowed to live here’’ (a ¼ .89). Responses were
disagree to þ3 strongly agree. Seven items – all marked on a 7-point scale with 1 being strongly
positively worded – measured constructive patrio- disagree and 7 being strongly agree.
tism (e.g., ‘‘I oppose some of Australia’s policies,
because I care about my country and want to Support for providing cultural services to immigrants. It
improve it’’). Internal reliability proved adequate was important to assess not only to what extent
(a ¼ .73). Twelve items assessed blind patriotism people agree with multiculturalism as an abstract
(e.g., ‘‘People should not constantly try to change the notion, but also to what extent people agree with the
way things are in Australia’’); of these, three were practical implications of a multicultural policy.
negatively worded. Cronbach’s alpha again revealed Drawing from Ho et al. (1994), participants were
adequate internal consistency (a ¼ .73). It should be given 4 questions (1 ¼ strongly disapprove, 7 ¼ strongly
noted, though, that one of the negatively worded approve) asking whether they approve of certain
items (‘‘For the most part, people who protest and services which currently are provided to immigrants
demonstrate against Australian policies are good, or could be provided to immigrants in the future
upstanding, and intelligent people’’) had a very low (e.g., ‘‘Radio and TV shows in languages other than
item-total correlation (.11) and that removal of this English’’, ‘‘Providing money to ethnic organisations
item improved the internal consistency of the scale for music, dance and cultural activities’’; a ¼ .86).
(a ¼ .75). It is possible that the failure of this item
was partly to do with the fact that it is a triple- Support for assimilation. Five items, adapted from
barrelled question, simultaneously asking partici- Taylor and Lambert (1996), measured attitudes
pants to judge whether protestors are ‘‘good’’, toward immigrants adopting the English language
‘‘upstanding’’, and ‘‘intelligent’’. We decided to and immigrants taking on the Australian way of life.
delete this item from subsequent analyses. On a scale from 1 not at all to 7 completely,
participants responded to questions such as ‘‘To
Threat. Threat was measured on a 6-point scale what extent should ethnic groups take on the
ranging from 73 strongly disagree to þ3 strongly agree. Australian way of life in public?’’ and ‘‘To what
The items were: ‘‘Widespread adoption in Australia extent should ethnic groups adopt the English
of cultural practices from foreign countries would language in their own ethnic community?’’ (a ¼ .87).
trouble me because it might change or water down
Australian culture too much’’, ‘‘It makes me upset
that there are so many foreign shows on TV instead Results
of Australian ones’’, ‘‘Some Australian colleges and
Factor analyses
universities are losing their ‘Australian’ character
because of increasing foreign student enrolments’’, To examine whether our key criterion variables –
and ‘‘Cherished Australian norms are threatened general support for multiculturalism and immigra-
somewhat by increasing foreign student enrolment tion, support for providing cultural services to
on Australian campuses’’ (a ¼ .79). immigrants, and support for assimilation – represent
discrete constructs, a factor analysis was conducted
General support for multiculturalism and immigra- on these items using principal components extrac-
tion. To ensure that all participants had the same tion with direct oblimin rotation. A simple three-
idea of what multiculturalism is, participants were factor solution emerged, corresponding perfectly to
provided with a definition of multiculturalism at the the constructs identified above.
top of the page: ‘‘In practical terms, multiculturalism
can be described as encouraging ethnic groups living
Descriptive data and correlations among measures
in Australia to retain their heritage cultures and
languages’’. General attitudes toward multicultural- Correlations among blind patriotism, constructive
ism and immigration were measured by eight items patriotism, threat, and the criterion variables were
adapted from a study assessing attitudes towards calculated (see Table I for a summary). Consistent
multiculturalism in Darwin (Ho et al., 1994) and with Schatz et al. (1999), there was a significant
from a survey published in the Statistical Yearbook of negative correlation between blind and constructive
Norway (Statistics Norway, 2003), which related to patriotism (r ¼ 7.38, p 5 .001). As expected,
the Norwegian context. Example items include: there was also a significant positive correlation
‘‘Australian society has benefited from a policy of between RWA and blind patriotism (r ¼ .53,
multiculturalism’’, ‘‘Multiculturalism, as a policy to p 5 .001).
 Blind and constructive patriotism 155

Table I. Descriptive data and inter-correlations among all measures

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. RWA 71.19 1.04

2. Constructive patriotism 2.18 0.49 7.15
3. Blind patriotism 1.16 0.42 .53** 7.38**
4. Threat 71.24 1.11 .41** 7.12 .52**
5. General support for immigration/multicult. 5.42 1.07 7.55** .24* 7.49** 7.59**
6. Support for providing cultural services 4.90 1.31 7.40** .08 7.38** 7.57** .58**
7. Support for assimilation 3.75 1.45 .23* 7.03 .36** .27** 7.24* 7.26**

Note: **p 5 .01; *p 5 .05.

Variable 1 was measured on a scale from 74 to þ4. Variables 2 – 4 were measured on a scale from 73 to þ3. Variables 5 – 7 were measured
on a scale from 1 – 7.

Preliminary analyses Table II. The effect of blind patriotism (BP) and constructive
patriotism (CP) over and above RWA
Preliminary regressions showed that age and gender
were not significant predictors of any of the criterion Step 2 Blind and
Step 1 constructive patriotism
variables and none of the interaction terms were RWA
significant. Age and gender were therefore not R2 R2ch Fch df b (BP) b (CP)
included in subsequent analyses. Furthermore, the
term representing the interaction between blind and General support for .30*** .06 4.23* 2,90 7.24* .09
multiculturalism
constructive patriotism did not significantly predict
and immigration
any of the criterion measures. As a result, regressions Support for .16*** .04 2.42{ 2,89 7.26* 7.06
reported below are conducted without the interac- providing
tion term included. cultural services
to immigrants
Support for .06* .09 4.72* 2,89 .38** .11
Effects of blind and constructive patriotism assimilation
on the criterion variables
Note: {p ¼ .095; *p 5 .05; **p 5 .01; ***p 5 .001.
To test our hypotheses, a series of hierarchical
regressions was conducted. RWA was entered at
Step 1; blind and constructive patriotism were added
at Step 2. This procedure was repeated for all three neously with RWA, blind patriotism, and construc-
dependent variables. Table II summarizes the tive patriotism, threat was not a significant predictor
results. As can be seen, RWA accounted for a of support for assimilation (b ¼ .09, ns). However,
significant proportion of variance in all three threat did significantly predict general attitudes
variables. However, inclusion of the patriotism towards multiculturalism and immigration and
variables added a significant amount of variance at attitudes towards the provision of cultural services
Step 2 (in the case of support for providing cultural (see Figures 1 and 2 respectively). Furthermore, the
services to immigrants, the increase in R2 at Step 2 relationship between blind patriotism and these
was marginally significant). Consistent with Hypoth- attitudes was rendered non-significant by the addi-
esis 1, even after controlling for RWA, high levels of tion of threat in the regression equation. In both
blind patriotism were associated with more negative cases, the reduction in variance caused by entering
attitudes toward multiculturalism and immigration, threat was significant according to the Sobel test
more negative attitudes toward the provision of (attitudes toward the provision of cultural services:
cultural services for immigrants, and more positive z ¼ 72.97, p ¼ .003; general attitudes towards multi-
attitudes toward assimilation. No relationship culturalism and immigration: z ¼ 72.94, p ¼ .003).
emerged between constructive patriotism and these
variables.
Discussion
Consistent with predictions, the higher people scored
Mediating effects of threat
on blind patriotism, the more negative were their
Hypothesis 2 stated that if blind patriotism was general attitudes toward multiculturalism and im-
associated with more negative attitudes towards migration, the more negative were their attitudes
multiculturalism and immigration, this relationship toward providing cultural services to immigrants,
would be mediated by threat. To test this, a series of and the more positive were their attitudes toward
regressions was conducted. When entered simulta- assimilation. Furthermore, the mediating role of
156 C. Spry & M. Hornsey

Figure 1. Mediating effects of threat on the relationship between blind patriotism and general support for multiculturalism and
immigration. Note: *p 5 .05; ***p 5 .001

Figure 2. Mediating effects of threat on the relationship between blind patriotism and support for providing cultural services to immigrants.
Note: *p 5 .05; ***p 5 .001

threat was confirmed for two of the three criterion terms of support for assimilation rather than multi-
measures (general support for multiculturalism and culturalism), no immediate feelings of threat were
immigration, and support for providing cultural elicited when participants were reading the items.
services to immigrants). In other words, people with In sum, people scoring high on blind patriotism were
higher levels of blind patriotism have more negative found to have concerns about cultural contamination;
attitudes toward multiculturalism and immigration they were worried that the distinctiveness of Australian
because they are concerned about Australian culture culture would eventually become eroded by foreign
being watered down or ‘‘contaminated’’ by foreign cultural influences. In order to inspire acceptance and
influences. Contrary to predictions, however, threat intercultural understanding in a multicultural society,
did not mediate the relationship between blind options to minimise these feelings of identity threat
patriotism and attitudes toward assimilation. It is need to be examined. Perhaps one way to reduce
possible that, because these items were worded in the distinctiveness threat is to identify with more
opposite direction to the other measures (i.e., in inclusive, universal ideals. Patriotism, whatever its
 Blind and constructive patriotism 157

form, demands a special loyalty to one’s nation. It has Antony, L. (2003). The puzzle of patriotism. Peace Review, 15,
been suggested that caring and universal humanistic 379 – 384.
Bar-Tal, D. (1993). Patriotism as fundamental beliefs of group
values play an important role in harmonious interac- members. Politics and the Individual, 3, 45 – 62.
tions between nation groups (Staub, 1997). Future Berry, J. W. (1991). Understanding and managing multicultural-
research should explore the possibility of individuals ism: Implications of research in Canada. Psychology and
possessing both strong patriotic and strong universa- Developing Societies, 3, 17 – 49.
Freud, S. (1959). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego.
listic identities and it should be explored how these
New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
identities can be integrated in a harmonious way. Fromm, E. (1969). Escape from freedom. New York, NY: Holt,
Findings of the present study indicate that blind Rinehart, & Winston.
patriotism and RWA share a large amount of Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A.,
variance. In essence, though, RWA and blind Veeder, M., & Kirkland, S. (1990). Evidence for terror manage-
patriotism describe two different concepts: RWA is ment theory II: The effects of mortality salience reactions to
those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of
a measure of political conservatism, whereas blind Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 308 – 318.
patriotism is a measure of national attachment. The Ho, R., Niles, S., Penney, R., & Thomas, A. (1994). Migrants and
fact that blind patriotism ‘‘survived’’ the inclusion of multiculturalism: A survey of attitudes in Darwin. Australian
RWA means that there is more to the construct of Psychologist, 29, 62 – 70.
blind patriotism than conservative ideological con- Hornsey, M. J. (2006). Ingroup critics and their influence on groups.
In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group:
tent and it suggests that blind patriotism is a useful Advances in social identity (pp. 74 – 91). London, UK: Sage.
concept when predicting variables that are not Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity:
exclusively or largely influenced by political ideology. An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and
As evidenced by the current study, this might be Social Psychology Review, 4, 143 – 156.
particularly the case for attitudes that reflect or Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy
decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
overlap with feelings of identity threat. Jensen, R. (2003). Patriotism’s a bad idea at a dangerous time.
Peace Review, 15, 389 – 396.
Johnson, G. R. (1997). The evolutionary roots of patriotism. In
Conclusions D. Bar-Tal & E. Staub (Eds.), Patriotism in the lives of
Legitimate criticism of one’s country can be valuable, individuals and nations (pp. 45 – 90). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Kelman, H. C. (1995). Decision making and public discourse in
because it suggests avenues for improvement. If a the Gulf war: An assessment of underlying psychological and
group culture is to be refreshed, or reformed, or even if moral assumption. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
a group is to reconcile itself with its past, it needs to Psychology, 1, 117 – 130.
look at itself in the mirror and to do so in a way that is Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of
patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology, 10,
unflinching. However, debate exists as to whether such
257 – 274.
behaviour conforms to the script associated with Li, Q., & Brewer, M. B. (2004). What does it mean to be an
patriotism. Whereas some people see constructive American? Patriotism, nationalism and American identity after
criticism as an important component of group loyalty 9/11. Political Psychology, 25, 727 – 739.
and patriotism, others see patriotism as a process of Parenti, M. (2003). What does it mean to love one’s country?
defending one’s nation against criticism, whether it be Peace Review, 15, 385 – 388.
Schatz, R. T., & Staub, E. (1997). Manifestations of blind versus
right or wrong. In this paper we show that this latter constructive patriotism: Personality correlates and individual-
form of patriotism – labelled blind patriotism – is group relations. In D. Bar-Tal & E. Staub (Eds.), Patriotism: In
associated with a heightened sense of insecurity and the lives of individuals and nations (pp. 229 – 245). Chicago, IL:
perceived threat from foreign influences. This concern Nelson-Hall Publishers.
about cultural contamination does not just have Schatz, R. T., Staub, E., & Lavine, H. (1999). On the varieties of
national attachment: Blind versus constructive patriotism.
implications for how people define love of country, Political Psychology, 20, 151 – 174.
but also spills over into negativity toward immigrants Sears, D. O., Citrin, J., Cheleden, S. V., & van Laar, C. (1999).
and multiculturalism. This study points to the some- Cultural diversity and multicultural politics: Is ethnic Balk-
what complex connection between intergroup and anization psychologically inevitable. In D. A. Prentice, & D. T.
Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming
intragroup relations, and the pivotal role that threat
group conflict (pp. 35 – 79). New York, NY: Russell Sage
plays in shaping and driving these connections. Foundation.
Statistics Norway (2003). Statistical yearbook of Norway 2003.
[Electronic Version] available at http://www.ssb.no/english/
yearbook/.html
References Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other
group violence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Advisory Council of Multicultural Affairs. (1988). Towards a Staub, E. (1997). Blind versus constructive patriotism: moving
national agenda for a multicultural Australia: Goals and principles. from embeddedness in the group to critical loyalty and action.
Canberra, Australia: AGPS. In D. Bar-Tal & E. Staub (Eds.), Patriotism in the lives of
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing individuals and nations (pp. 213 – 228). Chicago, IL: Nelson-
authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hall.
158 C. Spry & M. Hornsey

Taylor, D. M. (1990). The social psychology of racial and White, R. K. (1993). The fear motive in twentieth century wars.
cultural diversity: Issues of assimilation and multiculturalism. Peace PsychologyBulletin, 1, 12 – 13.
In A. G. Reynolds (Ed.), Bilingualism, multiculturalism, and Worchel, S., & Coutant, D. (1997). The tangled web of loyalty:
second-language learning (pp. 1 – 19). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Nationalism, patriotism and ethnocentrism. In D. Bar-Tal &
Taylor, D. M., & Lambert, W. E. (1996). The meaning of E. Staub (Eds.), Patriotism in the lives of individuals and nations
multiculturalism in a culturally diverse urban American area. (pp. 190 – 210). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 727 – 740.
Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1987). Theories of intergroup
relations: International social psychological perspectives. New York,
NY: Praeger.