Marlene Mußotter’s research while affiliated with University of Passau and other places

This article calls for revisiting the predominant yet flawed nationalism‐patriotism dichotomy, which has to date remained unchallenged. It advocates for a more nuanced triad: nationalism, exclusively referring to the nation; patriotism, revolving around the homeland; and democratic patriotism, with democracy as its object of attachment. This novel conceptual approach explicitly theorizes these three objects of attachment, which have hitherto rarely been considered. In so doing, the article synthesizes the field's predominant research traditions that have not been fully recognized as diverging nor been simultaneously investigated. By responding to calls for more theoretically robust measures, it not only makes a theoretical but also an empirical contribution to the field. Drawing on data from a representative sample ( N = 1875) in Germany in 2022, the study introduces a three‐factor measurement model of nationalism, patriotism, and democratic patriotism. Taking into account both the antecedents of the triad and its impact on outgroup hostility, the measures are further validated. To establish its applicability in non‐German contexts, the model is additionally supported using data from a representative sample ( N = 1164) in Denmark in 2022.

For more than two decades, the work of Blank and Schmidt has greatly influenced empirical research on national attachment. Distinguishing between nationalism, patriotism, and national identity, it rests on a set of item batteries that have since been taken up by numerous researchers. In this contribution, we argue that the categorization of most of these items is inconsistent with the perception of a nonexpert sample and, in some cases, even in direct opposition to it. To substantiate this claim, we present the results of an online survey of German university students ( N = 424) who were tasked with assigning all items from Blank and Schmidt’s 1997 article to one of the three categories. As hypothesized, the majority of respondents assigned only a few items correctly—so few that their overall agreement with Blank and Schmidt was even lower than what would normally be expected from a random distribution. We also asked about item understandability and found that while some items were considered relatively difficult to understand, there was no obvious correlation between these and the miscategorized ones. Taking this discrepancy between academic and nonacademic concept use into account can further our understanding of national attachment and help us refine existing survey techniques.

Patriotism and nationalism are typically conceptualized as two distinct if not conflicting forms of national attachment. Carrying a substantial normative dimension, the former is often linked to an enlightened sense of community that takes pride in the commitment to democratic values, whereas the latter is understood as an exclusionary and uncritical attachment to the nation. It is this dichotomy and the categorical assumptions at its core which this article subjects to critical appraisal largely missing from the debate. We first (a) address the confusion that comes from constructing national attachment as fixed and dualistic. Then, we (b) highlight the lack of contextual awareness in empirical research that employs scales and items regardless of geographical or temporal peculiarities. Finally, we (c) cast light on the implications entailed, in particular, the legitimacy provided to the civic ideal of a good and reasonable patriotism.

In research on national identity, scholars have developed a wide variety of approaches to measure and better understand this ubiquitous yet complex concept. To date, most of these approaches have been theory-driven, while only a very few have been data-driven. In this article, we aim to contribute to the latter by introducing a new data-driven method that has not been applied yet—that of non-linear principal component analysis (NLPCA). In contrast to other commonly used methods such as factor analysis, NLPCA distinguishes itself by making relatively few assumptions about the data and by allowing for greater flexibility when discovering underlying dimensions of such a complex concept as national identity. Drawing on the 2013 ISSP National Identity module, our analysis focuses on the case of Germany, also taking into account Western and Eastern Germany. Running an NLPCA, we find four dimensions that cover the multidimensionality of national identity: nationalistic attitudes, national pride and attachment, cosmopolitan beliefs, and membership criteria defining national belonging. This article contributes to the empirical debate on measuring national identity by suggesting a new and flexible methodological approach that better grasps the concept’s complexity and which we believe can move empirical research on national identity forward in and beyond Germany.

The measurement models for both nationalism and patriotism originally developed by Blank and Schmidt are broadly established. Despite their widespread usage in Germany and beyond, concerns have been voiced about the operationalisation of these nation-related concepts. However, in previous scholarship little attention has been devoted to systematically reviewing the models’ validity. This paper’s major goal is to contribute substantially to research on operationalising national attitudes by thoroughly examining how both nationalism and patriotism are measured and how valid the predominant measurement models really are. By running a confirmatory factor analysis, three measurement models based on the ISSP data of 2003 are replicated and empirically reviewed. By conducting a single-country analysis, the models are tested for the German case, including the evaluation of measurement invariance for both Eastern and Western Germany. Although the selected measurement models yield satisfying results, the paper identifies considerable shortcomings with regard to the way both nationalism and patriotism are empirically approached. It calls for a reconceptualising of the prevailing concept of pride and thus challenges the predominant operationalisation.