Active rejection or passive indifference? Mixed-methods evidence on national (dis)identification

IF 4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Group Processes & Intergroup Relations Pub Date : 2024-02-19 DOI:10.1177/13684302241229981
Vukašin Gligorić, Sandra Obradović
{"title":"Active rejection or passive indifference? Mixed-methods evidence on national (dis)identification","authors":"Vukašin Gligorić, Sandra Obradović","doi":"10.1177/13684302241229981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Much of the research on national identity investigates its negative aspects through the form of nationalism. However, what happens at the opposite end of the spectrum, when someone does not glorify the national ingroup but actively rejects it? Across two studies conducted in Serbia ( Ns = 349 and 554), we investigated national identification and disidentification, their antecedents, and consequences. We found no evidence to distinguish between (low) national identification and disidentification. Regarding antecedents of national identification, we found that self-stereotypes (positive and lack of negative) were the most important contributors, followed by right-wing social ideology. Regarding consequences, low national identifiers endorsed wider identities (e.g., European, world citizen) and had higher intentions to migrate. Most strikingly, low identifiers blatantly dehumanized ingroup members, even more so than high identifiers dehumanized (high-status) outgroups. In analyzing qualitative data, we contextualized the quantitative findings by showing that low identification is mainly articulated as a mismatch between self and ingroup prototype, consequently leading to dehumanization. We conclude that low national identification can have detrimental effects, but that more research in the non-Western context is necessary to properly understand this phenomenon.","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241229981","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Much of the research on national identity investigates its negative aspects through the form of nationalism. However, what happens at the opposite end of the spectrum, when someone does not glorify the national ingroup but actively rejects it? Across two studies conducted in Serbia ( Ns = 349 and 554), we investigated national identification and disidentification, their antecedents, and consequences. We found no evidence to distinguish between (low) national identification and disidentification. Regarding antecedents of national identification, we found that self-stereotypes (positive and lack of negative) were the most important contributors, followed by right-wing social ideology. Regarding consequences, low national identifiers endorsed wider identities (e.g., European, world citizen) and had higher intentions to migrate. Most strikingly, low identifiers blatantly dehumanized ingroup members, even more so than high identifiers dehumanized (high-status) outgroups. In analyzing qualitative data, we contextualized the quantitative findings by showing that low identification is mainly articulated as a mismatch between self and ingroup prototype, consequently leading to dehumanization. We conclude that low national identification can have detrimental effects, but that more research in the non-Western context is necessary to properly understand this phenomenon.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
主动拒绝还是被动漠视?关于国家(不)认同的混合方法证据
关于国家认同的大部分研究都是通过民族主义的形式来研究其消极方面的。然而,在相反的情况下,当一个人不美化民族内聚群体,而是积极拒绝它时,会发生什么呢?通过在塞尔维亚进行的两项研究(人数分别为 349 人和 554 人),我们调查了民族认同和不认同、其前因和后果。我们没有发现任何证据可以区分(低)民族认同和非认同。关于民族认同的前因,我们发现自我刻板印象(积极的和缺乏消极的)是最重要的因素,其次是右翼社会意识形态。在结果方面,低国家认同者认可更广泛的身份(如欧洲人、世界公民),并有更高的移民意愿。最令人震惊的是,低身份认同者公然将内群体成员非人化,甚至比高身份认同者将外群体(高地位)非人化的程度更高。在对定性数据进行分析时,我们结合定量研究结果表明,低认同感主要表现为自我与内群体原型之间的不匹配,从而导致非人化。我们的结论是,民族认同感低会产生有害影响,但要正确理解这一现象,还需要在非西方背景下开展更多研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: Group Processes & Intergroup Relations is a scientific social psychology journal dedicated to research on social psychological processes within and between groups. It provides a forum for and is aimed at researchers and students in social psychology and related disciples (e.g., organizational and management sciences, political science, sociology, language and communication, cross cultural psychology, international relations) that have a scientific interest in the social psychology of human groups. The journal has an extensive editorial team that includes many if not most of the leading scholars in social psychology of group processes and intergroup relations from around the world.
期刊最新文献
Judgments toward displays of national (dis)loyalty in members of nations other than one’s own: Universalistic and parochial perspectives Two Paths to Violence: Individual versus Group Emotions during Conflict Escalation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories “Ins and outs”: Ethnic identity, the need to belong, and responses to inclusion and exclusion in inclusive common ingroups Divergent views of party positions: How ideology and own issue position shape party perception through convergence and divergence processes Corrigendum to “Tackling loneliness together: A three-tier social identity framework for social prescribing”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1