‘My Country—Right or Wrong’?
American Patriotism, National Attachments and Foreign News Exposure Nicole Ares
Student Number: 11708549
Master Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme Communication Science
Supervisor: Penny Sheets 28/01/2019
Abstract
Keywords: national attachment, patriotism, and news exposure
This study compares how the source of a news article, either from a foreign news outlet or an American news outlet, affects American citizens attachments to the nation. Further, it determines how the strength of the critique of that news article further moderates that affect. Results from an experiment comparing the respondents feelings of national attachment across the conditions of source exposure and level of critique revealed several interesting insights. Americans who identified as high blind patriots, or those who have a strong and seemingly unwavering attachment to the nation, reacted very differently than anticipated. Being exposed to a stronger critique of their nation from a foreign news source prompted these individuals to detach from the nation instead of leaping to its defense. Further, only when these individuals were met with a news article offering a weaker critique of their nation from an outside source did the anticipated reaction of strong, nationalistically-minded attachment occur. Our view is that this detachment from the nation can be best explained by the extreme level of controversy of the news article (gun rights) that does not align with the values of the nation and therefore, the values of these individuals. Though, other potential explanations are also considered.
Introduction
The affairs of the United States and its citizens are no stranger to the international news media. Further, the election of a globally unpopular president (Wike, Stokes, Poushter, Silver, Fetterolf & Devlin, 2018) has had a negative effect on how the world views the United States: international confidence in the United States dropped 15 percentage points since former United States President Barack Obama left office to the beginning of the current Donald Trump
presidency, according to a Pew Research Study (2017). Still, many Americans view the image of the United States with rose-colored glasses despite any wrongdoings or negative responses they may encounter. The contrast between the desire to support one’s country and being exposed to negative international opinions has left many Americans questioning their place in the world and their role as an American citizen (Gilmore, Meeks & Domke, 2013). Further, as the image of the United States and the news coverage surrounding its affairs is destined to remain controversial for some time (Gilmore et al., 2013), this will further affect Americans’ perceptions of the foreign news media when exposed to anti-American sentiment, a viewpoint that reflects a negative opinion about the United States or its policies.
Previous research has looked at how individuals who share a common social identity (Turner, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) will come together when the identity of that group is threatened to protect this group they have shared social ties with (Huntington, 1996; Jones & Sheets, 2009; Gilmore et al., 2013). Further, research on social identity theory has shown that people react to negative information about their own group by evaluating outside groups in negatively disproportionate ways (Dietz-Uhler, 1999; Hogg & Abrams, 1998; Rothgerber, 1997). Similarly, when it comes to news that offers a negative critique of the group or threatens the
group dynamic, individuals will work to place the blame for this critique on others or work to offer an overly positive image of their own group (i.e. the United States) to strengthen the collective national identity (Nossek, 2004).
While such research shows that Americans, when encountering negative news media about their country, will aim to protect their own group (or in-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, 1982)), it does not determine the extent to which this reaction to anti-American sentiment depends on the source of such news—whether foreign or domestic. The current research fills this gap by looking at the effect of source on Americans’ feelings of national attachment, or ties to their nation, when they are exposed to negative news coverage about the United States. It will aim to determine if these feelings will become more pronounced when a foreign news source, which can be seen as representing an out-group, is reporting the story. Further, this research will look at if a news story’s level of critique of the nation, which can be seen as an indication of the strength of threat to the national identity, will provoke different responses among Americans. Overall, this research will aim to answer the following question:
RQ: How does the source of a news article critiquing the U.S. affect respondents’ feelings of
national attachment, and to what extent does the strength of the critique moderate that effect? Theoretical Section
Many theorists have argued that the way news is selected and covered by the news media plays an important role for national identity building (Anderson, 1983; Deutsch, 1966; Higson, 2002; Polonska-Kimunguyi & Kimunguyi, 2011; Price, 1995; Smith 1991). The treatment and selection of a news story will differ based on whether or not the conflict of the story is internal, concerning the journalists nation-state, or external, not concerning the nation-state (Cohen, Adoni & Nossek, 1993). Further, when journalists are confronted with a story that challenges
their nation, or the group with which they share a common social identity, they will feel a responsibility to protect their in-group by presenting the story through a more positive national lens (Nossek, 2004; Jones & Sheets, 2009; Chang & Lee, 1992). Jones and Sheets (2009) found only one in five American news stories defined the controversial Abu Ghraib prison story, which contested the actions of American soldiers in Iraq, as “torture” and instead, framed it as “abuse” to promote a more positive national lens. Further, Nossek (2004) found the distinction between “our war” or “their war” played a role in determining if the journalist felt a responsibility to protect their in-group by covering events of terrorism through a nationally positive lens. This is due to the fact that the media can be regarded as a part of a nations identity and once it is aligned with the nation, individuals will work to protect its image as part of their own (Muller, 2013). Therefore, as a representation of the nation and in order to promote a positive image, media coverage will implicitly or explicitly contain biased positive evaluations of the nation and thus, contributes to isolated national identity building (Muller, 2013).
Social Identity and Protectionism.
Social identity theory plays an important role in determining how individuals will
perceive news that may be threatening towards their national identities. According to research in social categorization and social identity theories, by (inter alia) Tajfel and Turner (1986), when people are trying to make sense of the world around them, they identify themselves as members of certain social groups and find-self value in that membership. Once they are tied to these groups, they will evaluate these “in-groups” more highly than “out-groups” they do not have direct ties with (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, 1982; Muller, 2013; Hinkle & Schopler, 1986). Further, the more people identify with their in-group, the more they tend to form positive impressions of their own group and negative impressions of the out-groups (Dietz-Uhler, 1999;
Hogg & Abrams, 1998; Rothgerber). This intergroup behavior tends to be competitive and discriminatory in order to differentiate between the groups and to maintain positive social identity within their own group (Tajfel, 1974; Turner 1975, 1981).
Differentiation between the groups is often formed on the basis of situational salience and proximity (Tajfel and Turner; 1986); however, research by Huddy and Khatib (2007) has shown that social identity develops among members of salient groups even when members hold
different beliefs—including different political ideologies. This is why, despite conflict within the nation (i.e. about politics over which Americans are highly polarized (Iyengar, Sood & Lelkes, 2012)) the nation is a strong representation of an in-group because its ties often transcend
internal dispute and are heightened under conditions that threaten the nation, or the in-group, as a whole (Billig, 1995). This can be attributed to the fact that loyalty and identification with the nation links individuals self-esteem to the esteem in which the nation is held (Druckman, 1994). Therefore, inherent in-group biases help individuals organize their role within the group and the role of the group in the world in order to establish a sense of belonging (Druckman, 1994). Biases toward the out-group are a natural part of this process because as individuals work to form positive impressions of their own groups, the more they tend to form negative impressions of out-groups in order to bolster their own groups perceptions through distinction (Gilmore et al., 2013). However, it must be noted this isn’t always the case as some scholars have found that attachments to the in-group doesn’t always require hostility toward out-groups (Allport, 1954; Brewer, 1999).
National Identity and Attachments to the Nation.
One of the strongest forms of in-group identity is national identity (Huddy & Khatib, 2007; Li & Brewer, 2004; Schatz, Staub & Lavine, 1999) which is a subjective or internalized
sense of belonging to the nation (Huddy, 2003). Biling (1995) supports that the constant reinforcement of the nation is what keeps nationhood so strong and asserts that people in the contemporary world are unlikely to forget their nationhood. While some scholars argue over how to explicitly define the concept of nationalism (Anderson, 1983), others view nationalism as fundamentally multidimensional, but as a way to define cultural and political norms that transcend other loyalties in scope and power (i.e. gender, class, etc.) (Smith, 1992). Further, nationalism creates a sense of loyalty to a group, because the nation not only provides individual physical needs (i.e. economic), but also provides them with cultural, social and psychological needs such as a sense of belonging and a strengthened sense of self (Druckman, 1994). However, this group loyalty goes beyond the physical boundaries of a “nation” as nationalism is described as a “deep, horizontal comradeship” where the fraternity of group members make the unification possible and how over the past two centuries, millions of people have shown a willingness not to kill, but to die for such imaginings (Anderson, 1983). Further, there is a sense of morality of national duty and honor in nationalism. True nationalists will view “the rape of the motherlands as far worse than the rape of actual mothers; the death of the nation as the ultimate tragedy; beyond the death of flesh and blood” (Billig, 1995). To have a national identity, is to possess a way of talking about nationalism and nationhood—to be able to express these deep intertwined ties to a nation and why they exist so strongly (Billig, 1995).
Many theorists have argued that the news media’s coverage of the nation plays an important role for national identity building (Muller, 2013; Anderson, 1983; Deutsch, 1966; Higson, 2002; Polonska-Kimunguyi and Kimunguyi, 2011; Price, 1995; Smith, 1991). News media often work to develop a positive image of their own nation which in turn, encourages positive identification within the nation (Muller, 2013; Jones & Sheets, 2009; Nossek, 2004).
Moreover, the news media has the potential to shape the image of its own nation or the image of foreign nations in positive or negative; however, research has shown there is a positive biasing tendency towards their own nation (Muller, 2013; Blain, Boyle & O’Donnell, 1993; Wanta, Golan & Lee, 2004). Further, this biasing tendency can be enhanced by events that are perceived as threatening to one’s nation, or their in-group (Druckman, 1994).
Previous research has also looked at the psychological dynamics among Americans when they encounter anti-American sentiment, or news with a negative foreign opinion of the United States, and the causes for it (Gilmore et al., 2013). In this study, respondents were exposed to one of two fictional news stories discussing anti-American sentiment in the world: the first placing the blame of Americans being disliked abroad solely on foreigners and the second placing this blame partly on foreigners and partly on Americans. Gilmore et al. (2013) found both the participants level of national identification and the news message they were exposed to played significant roles in determining their support towards the out-group and specifically, their support for hard-power foreign policies. Further, being exposed to the news account placing some of the blame for anti-American sentiment triggered an in-group protectionism as a defense mechanism similar to that found in the process of blame attribution. Therefore, the more
participants were exposed to news that challenged their in-group and therefore national identity, the more they rejected the blame attribution and worked to place the blame on others. Similar to this study, this current research will look at how anti-American sentiment, or negative news about an individual’s own nation, will affect an individual’s ties to the nation. It will look at if this negative news about the nation will be perceived as a threat from the out-group and if the source of this threat, either foreign or domestic, will heighten this perception of a threat. Therefore, building on the idea that national identity is one of the strongest forms of in-group
identity, it is to be expected, then, when citizens are exposed to anti-American sentiment in the news media and especially from an out-group, a protectionist reaction will occur. The first hypothesis is as follows:
H1: Exposure to negative news about an individual’s own nation in the foreign news media will
evoke stronger feelings of national attachment than exposure to the same news item in the domestic news media.
Level of Critique of the Nation in News Items.
If a threat to an individual's nation, and therefore national identity, will provoke stronger ties to the in-group (Huddy & Khatib, 2007; Huntington, 1996), being exposed to a news item that offers a stronger critique of the nation should evoke a similar, though heightened response. While there hasn’t been much research on discursive threat strength in news studies (i.e. to see how reactions change), psychologically it can be assumed that a stronger threat to the individual would instill a similarly strong reaction to that threat. Literature on people’s reactions to very controversial news, or news items with a more negative critique, does show that individuals tend to argue more and feel more negatively about these controversial items (Mejova, Zhang,
Diakopoulos & Castillo, 2014). Perhaps, it can then be expected that this reaction and feeling of negativity will manifest as a stronger embrace of the in-group identity. Therefore, if a news item that concerns the affairs of the United States is combined with a greater presence of negative words, biased language and an ability to provoke arguments (Mejova, Zhang, Diakopoulos & Castillo, 2014), this news item can be seen as more challenging towards the United States and its affairs—thus more challenging to the in-group (of American news consumers). Previous research has shown that when individuals feel their in-group is being challenged, a protectionist reaction will occur (Druckman, 1994; Gilmore et al., 2013) and moreover, the more a news item
challenges the in-group, or offers a stronger critique of the nation, the more individuals will aim to protect that group. Therefore, relying on the idea that a news article offering a stronger critique of the nation is, in turn, challenging the nation (or in-group), the second and third hypotheses are as follows:
H2: A news item offering a stronger critique of the nation will evoke stronger feelings of
national attachment than a news item offering a weaker critique of nation.
H3: Exposure to a domestic news item in the foreign news media will evoke stronger feelings of
national attachment than exposure to the same news item in the domestic news media, but this effect will be more pronounced if the news item offers a stronger critique of the nation than a weaker critique.
Patriotism and In-Group Ties.
Patriotism is often used as a measure of an individuals attachment to the nation and beliefs about the nation (Schatz et al., 1999; Conover & Feldman, 1987) and is arguably one of the most important forms of group attachment in the modern world (Schatz et al., 1999). From the individual American perspective, scholars have defined patriotism as “those who are devoted to the American political values and possess a critical understanding of them” (Berns, 2001, p. 98). However, Schatz et al. (1999) found there are two key issues that underlie how to define patriotism: (a) whether patriotism is linked to a hostility towards outgroups, and (b) whether or not patriotism demands “blind and uncritical allegiance to country” (p. 152). Instead of having one explicit definition, researchers have categorized patriotism into different types based on how well they measure individuals prior dispositions towards their national attachment. One
distinction—blind patriotism or also known as uncritical patriotism—is defined as an
nation, and it often portrays the outlook of “my country—right or wrong” (Schatz et al., 1999). Where a blind patriot views dissent against their nation, or in-group, as disloyal its counterpart— a constructive patriot—does not (Schatz et al., 1999). Instead, constructive patriotism is termed as an “attachment to country characterized by support for questions and criticism of current group practices that are intended to result in positive change” (Schatz et al., 1999, p. 156). The last distinction of patriotism, symbolic, is characterized by an attachment to the nation and its’ core values through symbols (i.e. it combines the love of being American with the love of the American flag, Fourth of July celebrations, the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.) (Parker, 2010; Conover & Feldman, 1987; Huddy & Khatib, 2007).
Overall, when considering the different types of patriotism, it is to be excepted that blind patriotism is most closely aligned with individuals feelings of national attachment because blind patriots are extremely loyal and stand by the phrase “my country—right or wrong” with an unquestioning, positive evaluation of the country and its leaders (Schatz et al., 1999; Huddy & Khatib, 2007; Gilmore et al., 2013). Symbolic patriotism should not be closely aligned with feelings of national attachment because it tends to divide Americans based on a political ideologies (Huddy & Khatib, 2007) as liberals tend to disfavor national symbols as a part of antiwar sentiment (i.e. burning the American flag in protest of the Vietnam War) (Huddy & Khatib, 2007). Further, Huddy and Khatib (2007) support items depicting constructive patriotism to be contradictory of national attachment because while constructive patriots may show a love of country, they may also show a disdain towards the nation and its’ leaders, or the in-group, in order to push for this positive change.
In turn, a blind patriots will not only provide an uncritical support for their in-group, but they will also cast a “blame-the-other framework” which relieves the blind patriots from
associating blame with their own nation, or in-group, by displacement of blame onto others (Gilmore et al, 2013, p. 714). Casting this blame away from the nation is used as a defense mechanism and a way to strengthen in-group ties (Druckman, 1994; Gilmore et al., 2013). Further, casting blame on other nations, or the out-group, has led to an overly positive and
inflated national self-perception (Huddy & Khatib, 2007; Schatz et al, 1999). Research by Huddy and Khatib (2007) supports when individuals feel a sense of national threat, his or her feelings of patriotism and ties to their in-group will become stronger and further, will be more pronounced for individuals align with the ideals of a blind patriot. Therefore, building on the idea that blind patriotism is a strong measure of attachment to the nation, which is heightened under conditions of in-group threat, the fourth hypotheses are as follows:
H4a: Exposure to negative news about an individual’s own nation in the foreign news media will
prompt higher national attachment among high blind patriots than exposure to the name news item in the domestic news media.
H4b: Exposure to a foreign news article offering a stronger critique of the nation will prompt
higher national attachment among more blind patriotic respondents. Method
Procedure
The hypotheses were tested through a 2x2 factorial design with two manipulated independent variables (foreign or domestic news source, and weaker or stronger critique), resulting in 4 conditions.
New Source
Level of Critique Foreign News Source Domestic News Source Weaker Critique
Stronger Critique
Data for this research was collected through an online survey. In the survey, participants were asked about current events concerning the affairs of the United States and more specifically, its current gun polices. The survey was administered through social media platforms, mainly Facebook, and through direct messaging via electronic mail and text messaging. To gather the sample, a snowballing sampling method was administered where respondents were asked to share the survey with his or her own network; however, the respondents had to meet the requirements of being aged 18 or older and being an American citizen.
Participants
Of the initial 223 participants who started the survey, 28.3% of participants did not finish the survey to completion. In the final sample of 160 American participants, 38.1% of the
respondents identified themselves as male and 61.9% identified themselves as female. The mean age of participants was 29.55 (SD = 11.61). Since this research is focused on current events and opinions of the media and gun laws, a topic on which Americans tend to be divided (Iyengar, Sood & Lelkes, 2012), the political affiliation of the respondents was considered. To measure this, participants were asked to choose which political affiliation they most identify with. The response categories ranged from 1 (Extremely Liberal) to 7 (Extremely Conservative). In the final sample, the mean political affiliation of the respondents was 3.70 (SD = 1.55) which shows the respondents were slightly more liberal leaning but overall, the sample is evenly
representative of both political affiliations.
During the survey, respondents were randomly assignment to one of four message conditions and asked to read the short news article in that condition.
Table 1 Condition Placement n Domestic/Weaker Critique 38 Domestic/Stronger Critique 34 Foreign/Weaker Critique 43 Foreign/Stronger Critique 45
A Chi-Square analysis and a one-way analysis of the variance (ANOVA) of these conditions showed the respondents demographics of political affiliation and age are evenly distributed across conditions. However, a Chi-Square analysis shows there were more females (n = 31) than males (n = 12) in the foreign/weaker critique condition. Based on this result, this issue and its implications will be later discussed at the end of this paper.
Operationalization
Independent Variables.
Exposure to a domestic or foreign news item. To manipulate news source, I chose to create fictional news sources to avoid the likelihood that respondents’ prior attitudes toward a real, professional news source would bias their responses. The domestic news source was called American Daily News, whereas the foreign news source was called European News Express.1 The domestic source included the dateline “WASHINGTON, D.C.,” and the foreign source the
1
When choosing the out-group source, a European source was chosen versus, say, a Russian, Arabic or Asian source, because of similarities in language and further, similarities in western reporting styles (Hallin & Mancini, 2017; Voltmer, 2008). If the American respondents were exposed to an article from, say, a Middle Eastern source, there may have been a stronger bias towards the news outlet which could have had an unintended effect on the results of this study.
dateline “LONDON, U.K.” This was designed to further prompt the respondents to notice the origin of source of the news article, either foreign or domestic, that they were being exposed to.
Level of critique of the nation in the news item. This variable was operationalized by exposing the respondents to two separate news articles: one offering a stronger critique of the United States and its policies and the other offering a weaker critique of the United States and its policies. The contents of the articles were based on factual events, and a lot of the content was adapted from several real news articles published in The Guardian (U.K.). In order to create a distinction between the two levels of critique in the articles, the presence of negative words and biased language was altered. In the article offering a stronger critique of the nation, language and wording such as “something is very wrong in America,” “negligent” and “appalling” was used to convey a sense of negativity, bias and an ability to provoke argumentation. In the article offering a weaker critique of the nation, language and wording such as “optimistic,” “keep the peace” and “resilient, democratic spirit” were used to convey a lesser sense of negativity, bias and ability to provoke arguments. It must be noted that the article offering a weaker critique was not absent of critique; however, it conveyed it in a subtler manner (See Appendix A for examples of each condition).
Prior to the main survey being administered for this research, a pilot on 56 people (not only Americans) was conducted to measure if the level of critique in the news articles was indeed perceived differently between conditions. The respondents perception of critique was measured with two questions: “How critical do you think the article was towards the US?” and “How critical do you think the article was of US gun policies?” and response categories were on 1 to 7 scales with a higher score indicating a stronger perception of critique. The items scaled together well with a Cronbach’s alpha of .85; the items were averaged into an index (M = 4.40,
SD = 1.19). An independent samples t-test with level of critique, strong or weak, as the
independent variable and respondents’ perception of article critique as the dependent variable was conducted and showed the respondents exposed to the article offering a stronger critique (M = 5.12, SD = 1.11) thought it was more critical than respondents exposed to the article offering a weaker critique (M = 3.96, SD = 1.03) and further, we found a significant and large effect between the means of the sample (.00), t (53) = -3.97, p < .001, 95% CI [-1.75, -.58], d = 1.08. Dependent variables.
Feelings of national attachment. This variable was operationalized through three questions adapted from research by Huddy and Khatib (2007) asking about the respondents feelings of national attachment to the United States. The items concerning national attachment include: the importance of being American, the perception of being a typical American and how well the term ‘American’ describes the participants. The response categories were on 1 to 7 scales with higher scores indicating more attachment to the nation. The items scaled together well with a Cronbach’s alpha of .85; the items were averaged into an index (M = 5.04, SD = 1.44).
Blind patriotism. This variable was operationalized by asked the respondents questions adapted from research by (Huddy & Khatib; 2007) about respondents’ feelings of blind
patriotism. The items concerning blind patriotism include agreement with the following statements: I support my country’s leaders even if I disagree with their actions, people who do not wholeheartedly support the America should live elsewhere and the United States is virtually always right. The response categories were on 1 to 8 scales, with higher scores indicating stronger feelings of bind patriotism. The items scaled together well with a Cronbach’s alpha of .72; the items were averaged into an index (M = 3.50, SD = 1.69).
Results Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis 1 Test. Hypothesis 1 proposed that exposure to a negative news item about an individual’s own nation in the foreign news media will evoke stronger feelings of national
attachment than exposure the news item in the domestic news media. To test this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted with exposure to a domestic or foreign news item as the independent variable and feelings of national attachment was the dependent variable. Results from this analysis show respondents exposed a domestic news item on average reported stronger feelings of national attachment (M = 5.06, SD = 1.47) than respondents exposed a foreign news item (M = 5.02, SD = 1.42). However, we found a non-significant difference between the means of the sample (.10), t (158) = .18, p = .75. Therefore, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that respondents exposed to a domestic news item and respondents exposed to a foreign news item have the same feelings of national attachment in the population. Hypothesis 1 is not supported.
Hypothesis 2 Test. Hypothesis 2 proposed a news item offering a stronger critique of the nation will evoke stronger feelings of national attachment than a news item offering a weaker critique of the nation. To test this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted with level of critique of the of nation in the news item as the independent variable and feelings of national attachment as the dependent variable. Results from this analysis show respondents exposed to the news item offering a low critique of the nation on average reported stronger feelings of national attachment (M = 5.13, SD = 1.47) than respondents exposed to the news item offering a stronger critique of the nation (M = 4.94, SD = 1.40). However, we found a
non-significant difference between the means of the sample (.53), t (158) = .80, p = .47. Therefore, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that respondents exposed the news item offering a stronger critique of the nation and respondents exposed to the news item offering a weaker critique of the nation have the same feelings of national attachment in the population. Hypothesis 2 is not supported.
Hypothesis 3 Test. Hypothesis 3 proposed exposure to a domestic news item in the foreign news media will evoke stronger feelings of national attachment than exposure to the same news item in the domestic media, and this effect will be more pronounced if the news item offers a stronger critique of the nation than a weaker critique. To test this hypothesis, a one-way analysis of the variance (ANOVA) was conducted with condition placement as the independent variable and feelings of national attachment as the dependent variable. Results from this analysis show a non-significant effect of condition placement on respondent’s feelings of national
attachment, F (3, 159) = .304, p = .30, n² = .01. Further, a post-hoc test indicated there are no statistically significant differences between any groups. The means plot also shows respondents exposed to a news article offering a lower critique of the nation reported stronger feelings of national attachment refuting the hypothesis. Further, respondents exposed to the news article offering a stronger critique and from a foreign news source did not report stronger feelings of national attachment refuting the hypothesis. It must also be noted that we cannot assume equal variances in the population because Levene’s F was non-significant. Hypothesis 3 is not supported.
Table 2
Feelings of National Attachment
n M SD
Domestic/Low Critique 38 5.21 1.40 Domestic/High Critique 34 4.90 1.55 Foreign/Low Critique 43 5.06 1.55 Foreign/High Critique 45 4.99 1.30
Hypothesis 4 Tests. To analyze H4a and H4b the blind patriotism scale had to be used. Recall that H4a and H4b hypothesized that the expected effects will be strongest among high blind patriots—in other words, those scoring at the highest levels of blind patriotism. A histogram of the distribution of the blind patriotism scale variable in the sample showed that it was skewed heavily to the left, with a mean score (M = 3.50, SD = 1.69) well below the midpoint of the scale (which was 4.5). Accordingly, and driven by my focus upon just the ‘high blind patriots,’ I elected to divide the respondents based on their levels of blind patriotism with low blind patriots scoring 0 up to 3 (n = 73), medium blind patriots scoring 3 to 5 (n = 53) and high blind patriots scoring above 5 (n = 34).2
Hypothesis 4a. Hypothesis 4a proposed that exposure a negative news item about an individual’s own nation in the foreign news media will prompt higher national attachment among high blind patriots than exposure to the same news item in the domestic news media. To test this, independent samples t-tests were conducted, comparing domestic/foreign news conditions on feelings of national attachment for each group of blind patriots (low, medium and high). Results from this analysis show that only the high blind patriots reported significantly stronger feelings of national attachment when exposed to critique in the foreign news article (t (32) = -2.08, p =
2 This method may not be ideal; however, I did run the analysis as a regression, with the continuous blind patriotism
scale interacted with message condition, but this did not yield significant results. This is probably due to the fact that the sample size is small, but may have been affected by the skewed distribution as well. The decision to split, which is a method supported in research by Lau and Murnighan (2005), was driven by my interest in focusing specifically on those who scored highest on the blind patriotism scale, and it is meant to illustrate the interesting patterns in this data. In future research, a larger and more diverse sample might ensure that the interaction found holds in both types of analysis.
.05, d = .71). The other two groups did not significantly differ in their response to the source of the news article.
Table 3
Feelings of National Attachment
n M SD
Low Blind Patriots
Domestic News Item 29 4.49 1.58 Foreign News Item 44 4.39 1.41 Medium Blind Patriots
Domestic News Item 26 5.31 1.19 Foreign News Item 27 5.16 1.11 High Blind Patriots
Domestic News Item 17 5.67 1.38 Foreign News Item 17 6.43 0.63
Therefore, there is some support for H4a, as only for high blind patriots does the message source have the intended effect. These scores are represented visually in Figure A.
Hypothesis 4b Test. Hypothesis 4b proposed that exposure to a foreign news article offering a stronger critique of the nation will prompt higher national attachment among high blind patriotic respondents. To examine this, and to take into account the findings just discussed, a one-way analysis of the variance (ANOVA) was run comparing all four article conditions on mean national attachment levels, again for each level of blind patriotism (low, medium and high). The results for high blind patriots—who are of focus for H4b—are presented in Table 4. Table 4
Feelings of National Attachment – High Blind Patriots n M SD Condition Placement Domestic/Low Critique 9 6.00 .87 Domestic/High Critique 8 5.29 1.79 Foreign/Low Critique 9 6.67 .55 Foreign/High Critique 8 6.05 1.12 Table 5
Results of a One-Way Analysis of the Variance (ANOVA) – High Blind Patriots Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p Condition Placement 8.15 3 2.72 2.42 .08 Total 41.81 33 Note. N = 34
Table 4 shows a surprising result—that high blind patriots react very differently to a strong critique message depending on whether it comes in a foreign or domestic news article. Contrary to the expectations, the foreign news source/strong critique message does not prompt the most national attachment among high blind patriots—rather, the foreign news source/low critique message does. Furthermore, high blind patriots report the lowest levels of national attachment after reading the high critique article in the domestic news source. The overall ANOVA was moderately significant (F (3,33) = 2.42, p = .08, n² = .20) and post-hoc tests indicated that the different between domestic/strong critique and foreign/low critique was indeed significant at the p = .01 level. The ANOVA findings were not significant for the medium or low blind patriots (p = .76 and p = .98, respectively). Therefore, although I must reject Hypothesis
H4b, this surprising and interesting interaction was found between critique level and news source, for the high blind patriots. More attention will be devoted to this in my discussion.
Discussion
The purpose of this research was to determine how the source of a news article critiquing the U.S. affected respondents feelings of national attachment, and to what extent the strength of this critique moderated that effect. Though the expected main effects of article source and critique strength were not supported, interesting interactions emerged that have several
implications for journalists, political communication more broadly and future academic research. A brief discussion of the findings is warranted here.
First, the main effects concerning individual feelings of national attachment were limited as the source of the news article, foreign or domestic, did not have the intended effect on the respondents. In fact, those exposed to the domestic news article reported stronger feelings of national attachment than those exposed to the foreign news article. This may be attributed to the fact that the respondents may not have been fully paying attention to the source of the article as more than half of respondents claimed “I don’t know” when asked which news outlet published the article he or she read. Future research on this topic could utilize a pre-test or pre-study panel discussion asking respondents how they received the source and how it could be done in a more explicit manner. Further, and similar to research by Gunther et al. (2017), future research could look only at how respondents with a pre-established motivation or interest in news/current affairs. Although a study of this nature would be less generalizable to the entire population, it could ensure that those reading the news article would be invested while reading it and in turn, this engagement by the reader may allow for better source identification and results more in-line with current national attachment studies.
Another reason the main effects of article source on feelings of national attachment did not emerge could also be explained by the fact that national attachment, once established, cannot be easily manipulated as scholars often define it as an internalized belonging to the nation which develops over time (Huddy, 2003; Gilmore et al., 2013; Bilig, 1995; Smith, 1992). Further, national attachments go deeper than just a physical sense of belonging to a nation; Anderson (1983) defined it by an internalized sense of group loyalty or a “deep, horizontal comradeship” (p. 7) and therefore, reading one news article from an out-group source, while it presents the opportunity to challenge the group dynamic, may not be threatening enough to induce a strengthened detachment from this deeply internalized and loyal group.
Findings concerning the main effects of the article’s level of critique of the nation on national attachment also did not have the intended effect on the respondents. While both articles were perceived as critical of the United States and its gun policies, perhaps this critique of the nation may have caused the respondents to minorly detach from the US, instead of jumping to its’ defense. Previous research supports that when individuals feel an outsider is attacking their in-group, he or she views it as an attack on oneself and a threat to the in-group with which he or she is so closely linked (Tajfel & Turner, 1986, p. 284; Huntington, 1996; Druckman, 1994; Turner, 1982). However, the fact that these patterns were not found in this research might be attributed to the fact that the topic of the news articles, gun violence, is an extremely
controversial issue—perhaps respondents recognize truth in the critiques, rather than being able to simply turn a blind eye to them. That is, the strength of those facts may outweigh the
individual’s subconscious to defend the nation and instead, may have caused them to slightly detach from their national identity. Further, research by Gunther, McLaughlin, Gotlieb and Wise (2017) on hostile media effects supports that attachments to the in-group don’t always require
hostility towards out-groups (Allport, 1954; Brewer, 1999) and therefore, being exposed to a news article offering a critique of the in-group (i.e. an article challenging US gun laws) did not cause the respondents’ to lash out against the out-group, or source of the news item, but instead gave them motivation to detract from their own in-group (Gunter et al., 2017).3
The most interesting findings related to the moderating role of blind patriotism on the expected effects. Given that someone who identifies highly as a blind patriot views any dissent against their nation, or in-group, as disloyal (Schatz et al., 1999), one might expect that the foreign article offering the stronger critique would elicit this heightened group attachment reaction. Since blind patriots are extremely loyal, standing by the phrase “my country—right or wrong” (Schatz et al., 1999; Huddy & Khatib, 2007), even an article that presents the
opportunity to question this loyalty, given the dim national image presented by these brutal facts, should not break the already solid national attachments these blind patriots have created.
Interestingly, however, high blind patriots only exhibited these expected reaction in response to the foreign source—weaker critique news article. And those same high blind patriots reported the
lowest levels of national attachment after reading the domestic source—stronger critique news
article. Put differently, a milder critique of America from a foreign source prompts the expected nationalistic response among high blind patriots; a strong domestic critique prompts the opposite reaction. Therefore, even though blind patriots view the nation unquestioning, positive
evaluation (Schatz et al., 1999), the explicit language used by an American source in the article concerning constant mass murders of American citizens and the lack of hope for a solution could have been too traumatizing for even the high blind patriots to look past. Research by Nelson and Garst (2005) on political message persuasion supports that stronger arguments are more
3 This detachment from the in-group could also be attributed to the fact that the scale measuring national attachment
was skewed high with a mean score (M = 5.04, SD = 1.44) above the midpoint of the graph (which was a 4.5). This could be why there was more movement toward the lower levels of the scale, rather than in the opposite direction.
convincing and will produce more attitude change on the whole than weaker arguments. Further, concerning politically based messages that come from an out-group, these messages were not rejected unless the speaker evoked unexpected values that did not align with those of the audience (Nelson & Garst, 2005). This can be directly related to the current research as our participants were also confronted with a political message from an out-group source and similar to the findings of Nelson and Garst (2005), these participants did not reject the message solely based on out-group source, but instead could have been more accepting of the weaker critique message and more persuaded by it because it aligned with their values (i.e. that they do not support the mass murder of Americans). Which, in turn, further explains the rejection of the stronger critique article which did not align with their American values. Instead in this research, when respondents were exposed to the news article offering a weaker critique of the nation from a foreign news source, the expected reaction of blind patriots rejecting the source occurred— instead of the anticipated reaction from the stronger critique/foreign news article. Future research could focus on a less controversial topic and perhaps, one that does not involve the mass murder of American citizens in order to defer from the hidden effects of extreme controversy.
Limitations
A major limitation of this study was the sample size and means to collect the sample. Had there been more resources to collect a larger sample, there may have been more opportunity to collect a sample that is representative of the American population as a whole (i.e. in terms of location, age, race, political affiliation, etc.). Additionally, since this study utilized a snowball sampling method, which is not a randomized method, it allowed for sampling bias which further hindered this study from reaching a representative population. Once the sample of respondents was selected and the respondents were randomly placed into each condition, the distribution
analysis showed that there were disproportionately more females in the foreign/weaker critique condition. Additionally, the females in the sample scored higher than men on the constructive patriotism scale. This could support why the respondents, especially women, were more eager to reject the foreign source, stronger critique news article. For constructive patriots have a love of country, but more so have a desire to support questions and criticisms of group practice to encourage positive change within that group (Schatz et al., 1999). For these constructive patriots (mainly women), the news articles supported this desire for positive change as they questioned the current practice of gun laws in the US and for these respondents, the best means of action is to question and criticize these actions, not blindly support them—"right or wrong” (Schatz et al., 1999). Because of this, gender could have had a spurious effect on how the message of the article was received and further, how the message affected respondents feelings of national attachment. Future research, with a larger sample, could focus on an even distribution of the sample in each condition as well as an even distribution of males to females to avoid spurious effects. Finally, another limitation for this research is that the topic of gun policy used in the news articles is an extremely controversial issue that the respondents may have already formed a strong and
unwavering opinion on. Therefore, regardless of how the article was manipulated (i.e. by source or level of critique), respondents may have already made up their minds on this issue and
responded accordingly. This issue could have been solved had there been enough time to conduct a full pre-test asking respondents about the level of controversy of the news item topic and if their opinions were malleable around it.
Although the expected main effects of this article were not supported; overall, interesting interactions that emerged in this study have several implications for the journalism field, political communication and future research. This study shows that even the most nationalistically
minded individuals, or those who identify as high blind patriots, cannot turn a blind eye to every action of the nation. Further, the expected nationalistic response among these individuals was only found when a foreign news article offered a milder critique of their nation and not a
stronger critique—which prompted the opposite reaction. This interesting finding shows how
journalism has the power to alter the mindsets of groups that are not easily manipulated. Overall, this research shows that a message, its strength of threat to the national identity and its source can affect even the individuals who view the nation as superior—right or wrong—and even this steadfast group can slightly detach from the nation when they feel the values of this group, and therefore the values they have intertwined with their sense of self, are being threatened.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley. Anderson, B. (1983). Introduction. In Imagined Communities (pp. 1-7). London: Verso. Berns, W. (2001). Making patriots. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blain, N., Boyle, R., & O’Donnell, H. (1993). Sport and National Identity in the European
Media:National and European Identities. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Billig, M. (1995). Introduction. In Banal Nationalism (pp. 1-9). London: Sage.
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429. Retrieved from https://searchebscohost.com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2 443/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a2h&AN=2627447&login.asp?custid=uamster&site=eho st-live&scope=site
Chang, T., & Lee, J. (1992). Factors affecting gatekeepers’ selection of foreign news: a national survey of newspaper editors. Journalism Quarterly, 69(3), 554-561.
Cohen, A., Adoni, H. & Nossek, H. (1993). Television News and the Intifada: A Comparative Study of Social Conflict. Framing the Intifada: People and Media, 116–41.
Conover, P.J., & Feldman, S. (1987). Memo to NES Board of Overseers Regarding ‘Measuring Patriotism and Nationalism.’ Retrieved from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu.
Deutsch, K. (1966). Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundations of
Nationality. New York: Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology/Wiley.
Dietz-Uhler, B. (1999). Defensive reactions to group-relevant information. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, 2(1), 17–29. doi:10.1177/1368430299021002
perspective. Mershon International Studies Review, 38(1), 43-68. doi: 10.2307/222610 Gilmore, J., Meeks, L., & Domke, D. (2013). Why Do (We Think) They Hate Us: Anti-
Americanism, Patriotic Messages, and Attributions of Blame. International Journal of
Communication (19328036), 701-721.
Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2017). Ten years after comparing media systems: What have we learned? Political Communication, 34(2), 155-171.
Higson, A. (2002). National identity and the media. In: Briggs A and Cobley P (eds) The Media:
An Introduction (pp. 401–414). Harlow: Pearson.
Hinkle, S., & Schopler, J. (1986). Bias in the evaluation of in-group and out-group performance. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 196-212). Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup
relations and group processes. London, UK: Routledge.
Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political
involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 63–77. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00237.x
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76 (3), 405-431. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
Coverage, and Abu Ghraib. Political Communication, 26(3), 278-295. doi:10.1080/10584600903053460
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (2015). Interactions Within Groups and Subgroups: The Effects of Demographic Faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17843943
Li, Q., & Brewer, M. (2006). What does it mean to be an American? Patriotism, nationalism, and American identity after 9/11. SAGE Public Administration Abstracts, 33(2), 727–739. Mejova, Y., Zhang, A.X., Diakopoulos N., & Castillo, C. (2014). Controversy and Sentiment in
Online News. Qatar Computing Research Institute.
Muller, P. (2013). National identity building through patterns of an international third-person perception in news coverage. The International Communication Gazette, 75(8), 732-749. doi: 10.1177/1748048513482546
Nelson, T. E., & Garst, J. (2005). Values-based Political Messages and Persuasion: Relationships among Speaker, Recipient, and Evoked Values. Political Psychology, 26(4), 489–515. https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00428.x
Nossek, H. (2004). Our news and their news: The role of national identity in the coverage of foreign news. Journalism, 5(3), 343-368. doi:10.1177/1464884904044941
Parker, C. S. (2010). Symbolic versus Blind Patriotism: Distinction without Difference? Political
Research Quarterly, 63(1), 97–114.https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908327228
Polonska-Kimunguyi, E. & Kimunguyi, P. (2011). The making of the Europeans: Media in the construction of pan-national identity. International Communication Gazette, 73(6): 507 523.
University Press.
Rothgerber H. (1997). External intergroup threat as an antecedent to perceptions of in-group and out-group homogeneity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1206– 1212. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.73.6.1206
Schatz, R. T., Staub, E., & Lavine, H. (1999). On the varieties of national attachment: Blind versus constructive patriotism. Political Psychology, 20(1), 151–174. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00140
Smith. A. D. (1991). National Identity. London: Penguin.
Smith, A. D. (1992). National identity and the idea of European unity. International Affairs, 68(1), 55-76. doi: 10.2307/2620461
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Information (International Social
Science Council), 13(2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup relations. Psychology
of Intergroup Relations, 2, 7–24.
Turner, J.C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(1), 1-34.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420050102
Turner, J.C. (1981). The true self method for studying the self-conception. Symbolic Interaction, 4(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1981.4.1.1
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. Social identity and
Intergroup Relations, 17–40.
Voltmer, K. (2008). Comparing media systems in new democracies: East meets South meets West. Central European Journal of Communication, (01), 23-40.
Wanta, W., Golan, G., & Lee, C. (2004). Agenda setting and international news: Media influence on public perceptions of foreign nations. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 81(2): 364–377.
Wike, R., Stokes, B., Poushter, J., Laura, S., Fetterolf, J., & Devlin, K. (2018). Trump’s
International Ratings Remain Low, Especially Among Key Allies. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2018/10/01/trumps-international-ratings-remain-low-especially-among-key-allies/
Appendix A Stimuli Domestic/Weaker Critique News Article.
