Subjective Patriotism Adams & Gay

Subjective PatriotismAdams & Gaypatriotism to be a balance between affection andconstructive criticism.When it comes to measuring patriotism acrossindividuals, one must be cognizant of different typesof patriotism, and, which type a particularmeasurement strategy speaks to. According to anumber of patriotism scholars, questions that attemptto single out certain types of patriotism often drivepolitically polarized responses (Alemán and Woods2018; Huddy and Khatib 2007; Schatz, Staub, andLavine 1999; Schatz and Staub 1997). In other words,some measures for patriotism will elicit certainresponses among liberals and different responses forconservatives.The literature defines uncritical or “blind”patriotism as an unwillingness to criticize or acceptcriticisms of one’s nation (Parker 2010; Schatz et al.1999; Schatz and Staub 1997). Blind patriotism,according to Huddy and Khatib, is politicallypolarized in that conservatives tend to identify withthis form of patriotism while liberals are generallyhesitant to identify themselves as entirely uncritical oftheir country. According to these authors, blindpatriotism is measured by items which solicit levels ofagreement with statements like: my country is alwaysright in its actions; my country is never wrong; or, mycountry is sometimes wrong. Another form of nationalattachment, symbolic patriotism, is also politicallypolarized and typically expressed in terms of affinityor attachment to national symbols like the Americanflag. Similar to uncritical patriotism, conservatives arefar more likely liberals to identify with this expressionof national attatchment (Mader et al. 2018; Hoyt andGoldin 2016; Huddy and Khatib 2007). A third type ofpatriotism, constructive patriotism, is defined bySchatz and colleagues as “an attachment to countrycharacterized by critical loyalty” or “questioning andcriticism” driven by “a desire for positive change”(1999:153). Survey questions which appeal to thisform of patriotic expression have, according to Schatzand colleagues, increased potential as a measure ofbroad, non-divisive patriotism. Agreement with itemssuch as: I oppose some U.S. policies because I careabout my country and want to improve it, or, I expressmy love for America by supporting efforts at positivechange, are measures which reflect constructivepatriotism.Taken as a whole, the literature suggests thatresearchers employing quantitative surveys to measurepatriotism should avoid politically polarized inquiriesand questions geared toward certain types ofpatriotism. Questions which fail to consider subjectiveSociation Vol. 18 (2), 2019differences in the way individuals think about orexpress patriotism or national attachment can have apolarizing effect on responses (Alemán and Woods2018; Coleman et al. 2018; Schildkraut 2014; Schatzet al. 1999; Schatz and Staub 1997). In an attempt tonavigate this issue and align our approach with recentliterature on the subject, we employ a purelysubjective measure to operationalize the concept ofpatriotism and focusing on the extent in whichindividuals self-identify as a patriotic person (Maderet al. 2018; Hoyt and Goldin 2016; Huddy and Khatib2007). This identity-based approach, we argue, allowsthis study to sufficiently circumnavigate issuessurrounding individual definitions and types ofpatriotism.Birth CohortThis research is centered under a theoreticalframework developed in 1928 by sociologist KarlMannheim. Mannheim’s theory of generationspresumes that individual attitudes and beliefs aresignificantly influenced by socio-historical factorsexperienced during the life-course, particularly duringan individual’s youth. Although social scientistsregularly examine or control for age-effects, includingthe use of a quadratic (squared) term to examine nonlinear effects of age, this study attempts to highlightdistinct generational differences or cohort-effects onpatriotism that may otherwise have remained hiddenwhen focusing on age-effects alone. According toMannheim, socialization can be experiencedcollectively within and across groups of individuals insociety. Differential patterns of attitudes, beliefs, andbehaviors have the potential to emerge from theseshared experiences when significant socio-historicalevents are taking place and, more importantly, theeffect of said events on attitudes and beliefs variesacross different age groups in society (1952). In otherwords, younger and older age groups experienceevents like the Vietnam War, the September 11thterrorist attacks, or the last financial crisis differentlyand, as a result, these events may have differentialeffects on attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors for youngerand older individuals at the time said events occur.In order to examine cohort variations in subjectivepatriotism, this study operationalizes cohort inalignment with existing cross-cohort research. Each ofthe cohorts included in this study are displayed inTable 1 along with birth-year intervals, age intervals(at the time respondents participated in the 2014 PewISSN 1542-630016

Subjective PatriotismAdams & GayResearch Center study), and mean scores for thesubjective patriotism dependent variable.TABLE 1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS:BIRTH-YEARS, AGE RANGE (2014), ANDMEAN SUBJECTIVE PATRIOTISMSCORES BY COHORT (N 1,466).COHORTBirthyearsMILLENNIAL1981 to19941965 to19801946 to1964Before1946GENERATIONXBABY BOOM“SILENTGENERATION”Ages(as of2014)20 to3334 to4950 to6869 Patriotism Score(mean)4.404.945.415.72The Millennial GenerationHaving recently come of age, Millennials are nowsufficiently represented in national probabilitysampling performed by organizations like the PewResearch Center and the American National ElectionStudy. As of 2014, the general consensus among birthcohort scholars place Millennials in their 20s and early30s. Younger Millennials have only recently reachedthe age when personal and national identities are fullyexplored (Arnett 2000). A 2014 article by the PewResearch Center describes Millennials as taking adistinctive path into adulthood, relatively detachedfrom organized politics and religion, highly connectedby social media, generally distrusting of people, andburdened by debt yet generally optimistic about thefuture. For purposes of this study, we operationalizethe Millennial generation as individuals born between1981 and 1994.Generation X, Baby Boomers, & The SilentGenerationMost of the earlier literature focuses on differencesbetween the Silent Generation, people born in the1930’s, and the Baby Boom cohort, persons born inthe 1950’s (Craig and Bennett 1997). Researchattention devoted to Generation X, those born in the1970’s, rose significantly during the 1990s (Arnett2000; Ortner 1998; Trenton 1997; Roof and Landres1997). Widespread use of the name Generation Xappears to have originated from a 1991 novel bySociation Vol. 18 (2), 2019Douglas Coupland. Lower birth rates and considerabledifferences from previous generations across a widerange of socio-political attitudes, beliefs, andperceptions distinguish Gen X as unique fromprevious generations (Giles 1994; Peterson 1993).Some studies define Gen X as individuals bornbetween 1965 and 1976 (Mitchell 1995) while others(Dunphy 1999) offer a range from 1963 to 1980.Although specific start and end-points for this cohortis somewhat inconsistent, much of the literature on thesubject defines Gen X in agreement with Howe andStrauss (2000) as those born between 1965 and 1980.Baby Boomers consistently fall between the birthyears of 1946 and 1964 among existing cohort studies.Defined in conjunction with a large spike in childbirths during this time, Boomers were socializedwithin a political, social, and economic climate uniquefrom preceding generations which, in turn, fosteredunique differences in socio-political attitudes andbehaviors (Bass 2000; Alwin 1998; Williamson et al.1997; Hill 1997; Miller 1994). Alternatively, theliterature defines the Silent Generation as individualsborn between 1930 and 1945 (Mitchel 1995).Members of the Silent Gen generally appear confidentin American institutions and exhibit the highest levelsof religiosity among mondern cohorts (Gay andLynxwiler 2013).CROSS-COHORT SUBJECTIVE PATRIOTISMSome studies have identified a pattern of increasedpatriotism with age (Bonikowski and DiMaggio,2016), however, to our knowledge the only empiricallink between contemporary generational birth cohortsand patriotism offered from prior research come froma 2014 Pew Research Center report on numbers, facts,and trends associated with the Millennial generationand a 2013 Pew Research Center article authored byKatie Reilley. The 2014 report was based on the samedata used for this research (Pew Research Center2014) while the 2013 article used 2011 Pew ResearchCenter data (Reilley). In both of the aforementionedarticles, younger generations expressed considerablyless agreement with statements that had respondentsidentify themselves as a patriotic person. According tothe 2013 article, the patriotic gap between younger andolder generations has remained largely consistent insurveys dating back to 2003. These original links,however, are largely descriptive in nature and extendno further than providing a univariate analysis ofproportional generational differences.ISSN 1542-630017

Subjective PatriotismAdams & GayThis study expands these prior descriptive inquiriesusing multivariate OLS linear regression and PewResearch Center 2014 Political Survey data. Given thepattern of cohort differences in patriotism describedabove, we hypothesize the following: (1) significantpatriotic differences will be observed betweencategories of birth cohort, (2) birth cohorts willaccount for a significant amount of variation insubjective patriotism observed for the sample, (3)cohort effects will remain significant while controllingfor sociodemographic and attitudinal control variableeffects, and (4) cross-cohort differences will follow apattern of increased patriotic self-identificationmoving from younger to older cohorts similar to whatwas described in the 2014 Pew Research Center reportand Reilley’s 2013 article.CONTROL VARIABLESSeveral studies have demonstrated that individualpatriotic self-identification varies across a wide rangeof sociodemographic variables, many of which includemembers from dominant groups in society. Withincreased access to valuable resources, dominantgroup members often house strong nationalattachment while subordinate groups, feelingexploited or otherwise disadvantaged, tend to haveweaker patriotic identities (Coleman et al. 2018;Bonikowski 2016; Van der Toorn et al. 2014; Peña andSidanius 2002; Ishio 2010). With this in mind, weexamine gender and race, family income, educationalattainment, political views, religiocity, and southernresidency and assess the role each plays in shaping therelationship between birth cohort and patriotism.Gender and RaceFindings from a 1987 study by Kelly and Ronanreveal distinct gender differences when it comes topatriotic identity and expression. For females, patrioticassociations tended to be general and symbolic whilemen were specific and concrete. Interestingly, psychocultural similarities among females were consistentregardless of ethnicity and measures of educationalattainment (Kelly and Ronan 1987). Race also appearsto be an important factor for patriotic selfidentification (Coleman et al. 2018; Burkey andZamalin 2016; Carter and Pérez 2016; Van der Toornet al. 2014). Recall from the previous section thatmembers of socially dominant groups tend to holdgreater emotional attachment to their country asopposed to socially subordinate groups. WhiteSociation Vol. 18 (2), 2019Americans have a dominant status in society which, inturn,

comes to defining the concept of patriotism. Hurwitz and Peffley (1999) define patriotism as affective attachment to one’s country. Expanding beyond affective attachment, Huddy and Khatib (2007) conceptualized patriotism as a conc