New study demonstrates the problem with uncritical patriotism

New research published in Self & Identity suggests that not all forms of patriotism carry the same moral implications. Those who express uncritical, nationalistic forms of love for country often prioritize group loyalty and authority over fairness and harm prevention.

While patriotism is generally celebrated across societies, its ethical dimensions are complex. Critics suggest that patriotic sentiment can foster favoritism that privileges in-group loyalty over fair treatment of outsiders or even fellow citizens.

Maryna Kołeczek and colleagues investigated this tension through Moral Foundations Theory, which distinguishes between values promoting individual welfare (harm and fairness) and those binding groups together (loyalty, authority, and purity). Their research examined how three distinct forms of patriotism—glorification, conventional patriotism, and constructive patriotism—relate to these fundamental moral values.

The researchers conducted two studies in Poland. The first surveyed 1,062 participants via social media, measuring their patriotic attitudes using standardized scales.

Glorification was captured through statements like “It is disloyal to criticize your own country,” conventional patriotism through sentiments such as “I feel strongly connected with my nation,” and constructive patriotism through positions like “I oppose some of Poland’s policies because I care about my country and want to improve it.” Participants also completed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire to assess their moral priorities.

To isolate the specific moral profile of each patriotism type, the researchers controlled for demographics, political orientation, and the natural overlap between patriotic attitudes.

The second study recruited 1,041 Polish adults through a stratified sample designed to represent the national population. Participants faced four political dilemmas where binding values (loyalty or authority) conflicted with individualizing ones (harm or fairness)—such as whether Poland should continue supporting refugees despite potential costs to citizens. After responding to these scenarios, participants completed the same patriotism measures used in the first study.

The results revealed distinct moral profiles across patriotism types. Glorification showed positive associations with authority and purity values but negative relationships with harm prevention and fairness. Interestingly, its connection to loyalty was only marginally significant. This suggests that those who glorify their nation tend to prioritize obedience to national symbols and traditional purity values while being less concerned with preventing harm or ensuring fairness.

Conventional patriotism demonstrated a more nuanced profile, positively connecting with both loyalty and harm prevention, without clearly favoring either individualizing or binding values overall. Constructive patriotism was uniquely associated with fairness but had no significant links with other values.

When facing concrete moral dilemmas in the second study, those high in glorification consistently preferred loyalty and authority over individual welfare and fairness. They more readily accepted decisions that might harm individuals or treat them unfairly if such choices benefited the nation or upheld its symbols.

Constructive patriots showed no systematic preference for either binding or individualizing values across the dilemmas, suggesting moral neutrality in their critical stance. Conventional patriots displayed a more complex pattern, prioritizing authority over individual welfare but also favoring individual well-being over loyalty in certain contexts.

Of note is that the correlational nature of these studies precludes causal claims.

The research, “Patriotic morality: links between conventional patriotism, glorification, constructive patriotism, and moral values and decisions,” was authored by Maryna Kołeczek, Maciej Sekerdej, Mirjana Rupar, and Katarzyna Jamróz-Dolińska.