The Journal of Social Psychology, 2002, 142(6), 782–790 U.S Patriotism and Ideologies of Group Dominance: A Tale of Asymmetry YESILERNIS PEÑA JIM SIDANIUS Department of Psychology University of California, Los Angeles ABSTRACT Using a random sample (N = 405) of White and Latino Americans from Los Angeles County, the authors explored whether there is an asymmetrical relationship between U.S patriotism and two different dimensions of social dominance orientation: group antiegalitarianism and group dominance Although there was no evidence of asymmetry in the relationship between U.S patriotism and group antiegalitarianism, there was evidence of consistent asymmetry in the relationship between U.S patriotism and group dominance Among Whites (the dominant North American ethnic group) and depending on demographic variables such as age, education, income, and gender, the greater the respondents’ tendency to subordinate “inferior groups,” the greater their level of U.S patriotism In contrast, among Latino Americans (the major subordinate group in Southern California), the opposite trend was found Here, higher levels of group dominance orientation were associated with lower levels of U.S patriotism The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed Key words: ethnic status, group dominance, Latino, nationalism, social dominance orientation, U.S patriotism, xenophobic DOES NATIONAL PRIDE necessarily imply ethnocentric and xenophobic regard for others? Recent empirical research suggests that the answer to this question depends on at least two major variables: the precise definition of national pride and the social status of the in-group being questioned A consistent body of research suggests that there are two major dimensions of national pride: patriotism and nationalism (Feshbach, 1994; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989; Sidanius, Feshbach, Levin, & Pratto, 1997) Social scientists generally define nationalism as the sense of national superiority and dominance over other nations and peoples (Feshbach, 1994; de Figueiredo & Elkins, 2000; Address correspondence to Yesilernis Peña, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563; yesil@ucla.edu (e-mail) 782 Peña & Sidanius 783 Sidanius et al., 1997) Because of nationalism’s implied in-group–out-group structure, it is not surprising that the sentiment is positively associated with domination ideologies such as ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and social dominance orientation (de Figueiredo & Elkins, 2000; Lea, 1996; Pratto et al., 2000; Sidanius et al., 1997) More interesting is the relationship between patriotism, xenophobia, and group-based dominance Patriotism is generally defined as love of and pride in a nation and its symbols Although it is possible to define different subdimensions of patriotism (Sullivan, Fried, & Dietz, 1992), at their core all the definitions express a strong identification with and positive attachment to a specific nation and its defining symbols However, unlike nationalism and consistent with social identity theory (Brewer, 1979; Brewer & Campbell, 1976; Herring, Jankowski, & Brown, 1999; Hinkle & Brown, 1990; Struch & Schwartz, 1989), neither in-group attachment nor patriotism implies a zero-sum relationship between in-group and out-group affect, a rejection of out-groups or a desire to dominate and oppress out-groups Because favoritism toward the in-group does not necessarily imply hostility toward or denigration of out-groups (Brewer, 1979; de Figueiredo & Elkins, 2000), we did not expect patriotic attachment to a particular nation to be positively associated with group-based inequality and domination ideologies as exemplified by social dominance orientation (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) In contrast, social dominance theorists have argued that within strongly hierarchical social systems, both nationalistic attachment and patriotic attachment are associated with ideologies of group-based dominance Because very hierarchically structured social systems are usually established by military conquest and the subsequent subordination or even enslavement of defeated groups (e.g., the United States, Australia, South Africa; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), the concept of nationalism is usually defined as expression of the values and cultural and racial identity of the dominant group Nations are often disproportionately controlled by the dominant group and allocate more of their valued resources to members of the dominant group rather than the subordinate groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) As a result, members of dominant groups are expected to feel a particularly keen sense of ownership of the nation and its symbols Because of this sense of ownership, we also expected to find a positive association between patriotic attachment to the nation and ideologies of group dominance We expected members of subordinated groups to have little, if any, positive association between patriotic attachment to the nation and ideologies of group-based dominance Social dominance theorists regard this expected asymmetrical relationship between patriotism and group dominance ideologies as a special case of the ideological asymmetry hypothesis (Fang, Sidanius, & Pratto, 1998; Levin, Sidanius, Rabinowitz, & Federico, 1998; Sidanius, 1993; Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 1996) Sidanius et al (1997) initially found support for this type of asymmetry by using a sample of university students in Southern California Their results showed that although measures of classical racism 784 The Journal of Social Psychology and social dominance were positively correlated with patriotism among ethnic dominants—White students—they were either unrelated or negatively related to patriotism among ethnic subordinates such as Asian, Latino, and African Americans (Sinclair, Sidanius, & Levin, 1998) For example, although patriotism increased as a function of social dominance among White Americans (B = 0.23, p < 01), it decreased as a function of social dominance among African Americans (B = –0.36, p < 01) The difference in slopes was statistically significant at the 05 level Similarly, patriotism increased as a function of classical racism among White Americans (B = 0.30, p < 01), but it decreased as a function of classical racism among Asian Americans (B = –0.24, p < 05) and was not related to classical racism among Latinos (B = 0.05, ns) The slope differences were statistically significant at the 01 and 05 levels, respectively (Sidanius et al., 1997) Despite the consistency of these asymmetrical relationships between patriotic attachment to the nation and antiegalitarian ideology, it is still unclear whether this type of asymmetry can be generalized to the population at large or is simply restricted to the university campus A further complication is that recent studies using the Social Dominance Scale (SDS) show this instrument to consist of two distinct and relatively orthogonal subdimensions: group dominance (the desire to subordinate inferior groups) and group antiegalitarianism (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).1 Assuming that the asymmetrical relationship between social dominance orientation and patriotism can be generalized across broader populations, we expected the group dominance subdimension to be positively related to patriotism among ethnic dominants but unrelated or negatively related to patriotism among ethnic subordinates However, it is not clear whether the ideological asymmetry hypothesis applies to the antiegalitarianism subdimension In this study, we examined both issues Method Participants The data came from the Los Angeles County Social Survey (LACSS), conducted every year by the Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR) at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) The survey assessed approximately 250 variables, including standard demographics and general attitudes regarding ethnicity, political ideology, job satisfaction, income distribution, and ethnic dispersal The 1999 LACSS total data set consisted of 791 respondents We selected members of the two largest ethnic groups (Whites: n = 290; U.S Latinos: n = 265) From these two groups, we then selected only those who were U.S citizens This left a total of 405 respondents (Whites: n = 275; Latinos: n = 130) for final analysis For a slightly different conceptualization of these two dimensions, see Jost and Thompson, 1998 Peña & Sidanius 785 Sampling Procedure The LACSS was drawn as a probability sample of adult residents of Los Angeles County The computer-assisted telephone interviewing unit of ISSR conducted the survey, which used a random digit-dial telephone technique directed at households To fully capture the views and opinions of Los Angeles County’s large Latino population, the questionnaire was translated into Spanish for use with monolingual Spanish speakers and those who preferred to be interviewed in Spanish rather than English Measures Patriotism was measured by three items that tap into the core elements of patriotic attachment: love of country and pride in the nation The three items were (a) “I have great love for the United States,” (b)“I am proud to be an American,” and (c) “I find the sight of the American flag very moving.” All items were answered on a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree) The higher the score, the stronger the patriotism (Cronbach α = 77) Social dominance orientation (SDO) was measured using items from the full 16-item SDS (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).2 SDO is defined as a very general individual difference orientation that expresses the value people place on nonegalitarian and hierarchically structured relationships among social groups The SDS has proven to be consistently reliable, with a substantial degree of convergent and divergent validity, and is conceptually and empirically distinct from constructs such as political conservatism, personal dominance, and authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1998; McFarland & Adelson, 1996; Sidanius & Pratto; Whitley, 1999) The items used in this survey were (a) “It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom,” (b) “Inferior groups should stay in their place,” (c) “Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place,” (d) “We should what we can to equalize conditions for different groups,” (e) “We should increase social equality” and (f) “We would have fewer problems if we treated different groups more equally.” All items were answered on a 5-point response scale ranging from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree).3 The first three items in the preceding list define the group dominance subdimension, whereas the last three define the group antiegalitarianism subdimension To confirm this two-dimensional factor model, we performed a confirmatory fac2 Because of the limited space available on the omnibus survey, only three questions were chosen to tap into each of the dimensions of social dominance theory The correlation between this short version of the SDS and the full 16-item scale was computed using a random sample from the Los Angeles County in 1996 This correlation was found to be 882 (p < 0001) 786 The Journal of Social Psychology tor analysis by using LISREL The results of this analysis strongly supported the two-dimensional hypothesis and proved an excellent fit to the empirical data, χ2(8, N = 374) = 9.94, p < 27, adjusted goodness-of-fit index = 98 The reliability of the group dominance dimension was 80, and the reliability of the group antiegalitarianism subdimension was 78 (Dillon & Goldstein, 1984),4 using the construct reliability approach on the factor loadings Furthermore, these two dimensions were found to be only marginally correlated with one another (r = 11, p < 04).5 After we confirmed the two-dimensional structure of these SDS items, we generated scores for each factor by computing composite scores across the items defining each subdimension Results and Discussion Within each of the two ethnic groups (Whites and Latinos), we used two separate least-squares regression analyses and regressed U.S patriotism on one of the two SDS subdimensions, controlling for education, family income, gender, and age (see Table 1) Depending on demographic variables, U.S patriotism was not related to group antiegalitarianism for either the Whites or the Latinos However, the picture was quite different for the dimension of group dominance (see Table 2) This dimension clearly evidenced the predicted type of ideological asymmetry Among the Whites, depending on the net effects of demographic variables such as income, age, education, and gender, there was a small, statistically significant, and positive effect for group dominance The greater the degree of group dominance among the Whites, the higher the level of U.S patriotism (B = 0.46, β = 14, p < 05) In contrast, the exact opposite trend was found among the Latinos: the greater the level of group dominance, the lower the level of U.S patriotism (B = –0.77, β = –.25, p < 01) Furthermore, an interaction analysis showed that the multiple regression coefficient of group dominance among the Whites was significantly more positive than the corresponding coefficient among the Latinos (B = 0.46 vs β = –.77), t(1346) = 3.86, p < 001 (Aiken & West, 1993) Clearly, the participants’ group dominance orientation had different implications for their level of U.S patriotism depending on their ethnicity Thus, results from this random sample of Los Angeles County adults confirmed the asymmetrical relationship between patriotism and social dominance orientation found among university students (Sidanius et al., 1997; Sinclair et al., 1998) However, this asymmetrical relationship appears to be restricted to the subdimension of group dominance or the desire to actively subordinate inferior groups The present results not only are broadly consistent with earlier findings The reliability for the group dominance was similar for both groups, 79 for White Americans and 75 for Latino Americans Antiegalitarianism was more reliable for White Americans, 84, than for Latinos, 51 In order to normalize the distributions of these SDS subdimensions, each variable was log-transformed TABLE Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Demographic Variables, Patriotism, Antiegalitarianism, and Group Dominance Variable Income Education Gender Age Patriotism Group dominance Antiegalitarianism M SD 5.50 17.92 3.30 44.96 4.50 0.18 0.19 3.28 4.49 1.98 16.76 0.68 0.22 0.20 — 37** — –.08 –.10* — 02 –.03 09 — 05 –.10 10* 29** — –.25** –.25** 02 –.02 –.01 — –.01 –.01 –.15** 06 04 16** — *p < 05 **p < 01 Peña & Sidanius 787 788 The Journal of Social Psychology TABLE U.S Patriotism Regressed on Group Antiegalitarianism and Group Dominance for Whites’ and Latinos’ Net Income, Education, Gender, and Age Independent variable Group antiegalitarianism Group dominance Whites B β 0.10 0.46* 03 14* Latinos B β –0.01 –0.77** –.00 –.25** *p < 05 **p < 01 among student populations but also are theoretically congruent with recent findings in national probability samples of White and Black Americans with measures of relative ethnic favoritism: Although patriotism was positively related to affective preference for the racial in-group among Whites, the opposite was found among ethnic minorities (Sidanius & Petrocik, 2001) In other words, among all groups, U.S patriotism was associated with the preference for White Americans over other U.S ethnic groups (Blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans) This result is broadly consistent with the notion that White Americans are viewed as having more proprietary rights to the United States than other U.S ethnic groups (see Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) Because social dominance theorists (e.g., Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) regard the United States as a group-based social hierarchy defined largely in terms of race, a hierarchy in which Whites are the dominant group, there is reason to expect that love of country and loyalty to the nation as a whole should have implications for both general ideologies of group-based dominance and affective preference for Whites compared with other racial and ethnic groups Although these results are consistent with the social dominance perspective, they also show a certain amount of convergence with research programs that are outside the social dominance theory tradition For example, congruent with research findings by Sullivan, Fried, and Dietz (1992), the present results suggest that U.S patriotism means different things to members of different ethnic groups U.S patriotism shows a slight tendency to be associated with increased commitment to group dominance among Whites, but it has exactly the opposite implications for Latinos For members of the Latino American community, greater patriotic commitment to the United States appears to be even more strongly associated with the rejection of group-based social dominance However, unlike suggestions made by Sullivan et al (1992), we assert that these implied differences are tied to the hierarchical power relationships among the groups and the history of ethnic and racial domination within the nation Although asymmetrical relationships between patriotism and ideologies of group dominance seem to be reasonably well established in the United States, and Peña & Sidanius 789 to a certain extent in Israel as well (Sidanius et al., 1997), it remains to be seen whether this asymmetry generalizes also to nations with very different types and degrees of group-based social hierarchy Although this type of asymmetry might apply both to herrenvolk democracies (e.g., the United States, apartheid South Africa) and nondemocratic societies with extreme levels of racial and ethnic hierarchy (e.g., Nazi Germany), it is not clear whether such asymmetry also applies to societies that are hierarchically structured but have a less intense degree of ethnic–racial hierarchy, such as Brazil, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic (Freyre, 1951) Not only is more cross-cultural work needed to determine whether this asymmetry can be generalized across a broad range of hierarchically structured social systems, but we also need to determine whether this asymmetry is restricted to only one type of group dominance ideology REFERENCES Altemeyer, B (1998) The other “authoritarian personality.” In Mark P Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol 30, pp 48–92) San Diego, CA: Academic Press Aiken, L S., & West, S G (1991) Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions Newbury Park, CA: Sage Brewer, M B (1979) In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive–motivational analysis Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324 Brewer, M B., & Campbell, D T (1976) Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes: East African evidence New York: Halstead Dillon, W R., & Goldstein, M (1984) Multivariate analysis: Methods and applications New York: Wiley Fang, C Y., Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F (1998) Romance across the social status continuum: Interracial marriage and the ideological asymmetry effect Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 290–305 Feshbach, S (1994) Nationalism, patriotism and aggression: A clarification of functional differences In L Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp 275–291) New York: Plenum de Figueiredo, R J P., Jr., & Elkins, Z (2000, July) Are patriots bigots? An inquiry into the vices of in-group pride Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Seattle, WA Freyre, G (1951) Brazil: An interpretation New York: Knopf Herring, S., Jankowski, T B., & Brown, R E (1999) Pro-Black doesn’t mean anti-White: The structure of African American group identity The Journal of Politics, 61, 363–386 Hinkle, S., & Brown, R (1990) Intergroup comparisons and social identity: Some links and lacunae In D Abrams & M Hogg (Eds.), Advances in social identity theory (pp 48–70) New York: Harvester Wheat Sheaf Jost, J T., & Thompson, E P (2000) Group justification and system justification as distinct components of social dominance orientation among African Americans and European Americans Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209–232 Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S (1989) Towards a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes Political Psychology, 10, 257–274 Lea, S J (1996) “That ism on the end makes it nasty”: Talking about race with young White South Africans South African Journal of Psychology, 26, 183–190 790 The Journal of Social Psychology Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Rabinowitz, J L., & Federico, C (1998) Ethnic identity, legitimizing ideologies and social status: A matter of ideological asymmetry Political Psychology, 19, 373–404 McFarland, S G., & Adelson, S (1996, July) An omnibus study of personality, values and prejudices Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Society for Political Psychology, Vancouver, British Columbia Pratto, F., Liu, J H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., et al (2000) Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 369–409 Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L M., & Malle, B F (1994) Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763 Sidanius, J (1993) The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective In S Iyengar & W McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp 183–219) Durham, NC: Duke University Press Sidanius, J., Feshbach, S., Levin, S., & Pratto, F (1997) The interface between ethnic and national attachment: Ethnic pluralism or ethnic dominance? Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 103–133 Sidanius, J., Levin, S., & Pratto, F (1996) Consensual social dominance orientation and its correlates within the hierarchical structure of American society International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 385–408 Sidanius, J., & Petrocik, J R (2001) Communal and national identity in a multiethnic state: A comparison of three perspectives In R D Ashmore, L Jussim, & D Wilder (Eds.), Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction (Rutgers Series on Self and Social Identity, Vol 3) New York: Oxford University Press Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F (1999) Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression New York: Cambridge University Press Sinclair, S., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S (1998) The interface between ethnic and social system attachment: The differential effects of hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating environments Journal of Social Issues, 54, 741–757 Struch, N., & Schwartz, S H (1989) Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctions from in-group bias Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 364–373 Sullivan, J L., Fried, A., & Dietz, M G (1992) Patriotism, politics and the presidential election of 1988 American Journal of Political Science, 36, 200–234 Whitley, B E., Jr (1999) Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126–134 Received January 17, 2001 Accepted May 30, 2001 ... each subdimension Results and Discussion Within each of the two ethnic groups (Whites and Latinos), we used two separate least-squares regression analyses and regressed U. S patriotism on one of. .. defeated groups (e.g., the United States, Australia, South Africa; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), the concept of nationalism is usually defined as expression of the values and cultural and racial identity... with ideologies of group- based dominance Because very hierarchically structured social systems are usually established by military conquest and the subsequent subordination or even enslavement of