Is patriotism helpful to fight the crisis? The role of constructive patriotism, conventional patriotism, and glorification amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

We examined the link between constructive patriotism, glorification, and conventional patriotism and COVID-19-related attitudes and behaviors at different stages of the pandemic in Poland. In Study 1 (N = 663), constructive patriotism was positively associated with support for internal measures (e.g., raising awareness about health practices). Glorification was negatively linked to support for such measures and positively connected to support for external measures (e.g., closing the borders). In Study 2 (N = 522), constructive patriots showed greater compliance with hygiene and social distance practices. In Study 3 (N = 633), the attribution of responsibility for fighting the crisis to the state and particularly to individuals underlined the link between constructive patriotism and compliance with health practices. Additionally, constructive patriotism was linked to support for international collaboration. Study 4 (N = 1051), conducted on a representative sample, further corroborated these findings. The results regarding conventional patriotism were not consistent across studies.

INTRODUCTION

The COVID‐19 virus emerged in Asia in 2019, and over less than two months, its outbreak was declared a global health emergency by the World Health Organization (WHO). The consequences included a wide range of symptoms such as fever or dry cough and more serious ones such as difficulty breathing and chest pain that could lead to death. As the COVID‐19 virus has been rapidly affecting the globe, each country had to react quickly to mitigate its negative consequences. More than ever, intra‐ and intergroup collaboration has become crucially important. State leaders faced numerous challenges, such as the need to decide which measures to implement in response to COVID‐19, along with the questions of how society would react to them, who would support these measures, or whether and what would make people comply with these measures. We suggest that national identification may help answer these questions, as national identification involves attachment to and caring for the group.

Previous research has shown that national identification plays an important role in explaining citizenship behavior (e.g., Richey, 2011; Rupar et al., 2020a). However, only a few studies have considered multidimensional aspects of national identification (e.g., Huddy & Khatib, 2007; Rupar et al., 2020a). Moreover, these previous studies were done in relatively peaceful times or during a continuing crisis and notably within the context of intergroup relations focusing on the link between national identification and attitudes and behaviors toward a group that poses a potential threat (e.g., Roccas et al., 2006). We examined the role of different forms of national identification amid the COVID‐19 crisis, a unique situation in many aspects, including its size and scope calling for urgent responses. Moreover, this crisis is not only ongoing, but it is novel and emerging, and it is caused by no particular outgroup, thus allowing us to examine the role of group identification at different stages of the crisis and within an intragroup context. To investigate the role of national identification on attitudes and behaviors related to the virus, we examined––during different stages of the COVID‐19 crisis—the link between three forms of national identification (constructive patriotism, conventional patriotism, and glorification) and support for and compliance with measures introduced to fight COVID‐19. To further explain our results, we examined the attribution of responsibility to different actors—individuals and the state—–as underlying factors of these relationships.

The COVID‐19 crisis

With COVID‐19 spreading rapidly around the world, each country had to make decisions and organize itself on its own. Measures undertaken in response to the COVID‐19 virus needed not only to minimize health consequences, but also to include a minimum negative impact on social welfare, stability, and people's livelihoods. At the very beginning of the crisis, different measures were suggested to slow down the spread of the COVID‐19. Some of them were external in their nature and focused on the protection of the group members against the external threats. This would include closing borders, isolating people arriving from particularly infected areas, or monitoring of the newcomers. Other measures were more internal in their nature and focused on the protection of the group members within the group. This would include, for example, raising the awareness of the citizens about the ways to protect themselves during the pandemic or monetary investments in health facilities. It is crucial to understand who supports these response measures, as low levels of support for a country's policies may represent a barrier to their successful implementation.

The virus that caused the pandemic, the SARS‐CoV‐2, is novel, and we do not currently know how to stop its transmission or fight off the infection medically. Thus, an effective response to such pandemics relies heavily on the mass behavioral change of the people. While in the first stages of the crisis, governments enforced external measures, such as shutting down the borders, in the later stages, internal measures needed to be implemented. Hygiene practices, such as proper handwashing or wearing masks and gloves, as well as social distance practices, including physical distancing and movement restrictions, were introduced to slow down the spread of the virus. It became of the utmost importance not only to understand who supports such measures but to understand what makes people comply with such practices.

Finally, as the COVID‐19 pandemic did not quickly abate, it became increasingly clear that collaborative, international approaches such as the exchange of information or medical support needed to be embraced (OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus, 2020). Consequently, it became necessary to explain not only citizens” support for, and compliance with, domestic measures, but also their attitudes to international collaboration (i.e., their country's foreign policies). Support for, and compliance with, both domestic and international measures that may help the country and its citizens during the crisis reflect not only care for self, but also care for the well‐being of fellow‐citizens, something that should lie at the core of one's identification with the nation. Thus, in the next section, we discuss the potential role of national identification within the COVID‐19 crisis.

National identification and COVID‐19 crisis

National identification, also referred to as patriotism, is a form of emotional attachment to one's country (Bar‐Tal & Staub, 1997; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989). It has been invoked in many spheres—military sacrifice, tax compliance, politics, and as a factor in history and during various crises, now including the COVID‐19 pandemic. Specifically, many national and community leaders, experts, and media have communicated to citizens about the patriotic duty of each person to help their country in fighting against COVID‐19 (e.g., Smith, 2020). For example, they emphasized the care toward country and people (i.e., conventional patriotism, Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016; the similar concept is the importance of national identity which is a part of attachment scale by Roccas et al. (2006); yet conventional patriotism includes additional aspect referring to emotional attachment and love toward country). For example, in the Polish context, a quarantine caused by the pandemic has been discussed in terms of “national quarantine” and solidarity between fellow nationals (Suski o nazwie, która “pochodzi od premiera”, 2020). Similarly, some experts pointed out that compliance with measures to fight COVID‐19 (e.g., wearing masks) is a form of patriotism (Patriotyzm to noszenie maseczek, 2020; Prezydent: Dziś przestrzeganie zaleceń epidemicznych to wyraz patriotyzmu, 2020). Yet, national identification is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon and cannot be defined only by pure love of one's country. Apart from attachment and love for the nation, national identification may also entail critical reflection, motivation, and devotion to working to make the country better (i.e., constructive patriotism, Schatz et al., 1998; Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016). On the other hand, when this love is accompanied by unquestioning, blind loyalty to the nation's policies and structures, and by thinking of the nation in terms of its superiority, we are speaking about nationalism or glorification (Roccas et al., 2006; similar concepts include nationalism: Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989, and blind patriotism: Schatz et al., 1999; Staub, 1997). In order to fully understand the role of national identification in shaping attitudes and behaviors, it is necessary to consider its different forms simultaneously (e.g., Rupar et al., 2020a; Rupar et al., 2020b; Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016).

A recent study conducted in 67 countries showed a positive link between national identification and compliance with public health behavior (Van Bavel et al., 2020). The authors considered only basic attachment to the nation and national narcissism (Golec de Zavala et al., 2009). We employ a more comprehensive multidimensional concept of national identification. Specifically, we consider conventional patriotism that contains not only mere affiliation with a nation, as considered in Van Bavel et al.’s (2020) study, but also emotional attachment and love of the country. Second, we take into account glorification. Glorification is sometimes considered as a similar measure to national narcissism used in the study mentioned above. Yet, compared to the national narcissism that involves the need for recognition from others, glorification comprises beliefs in loyalty to the nation and deference to the leaders, which could be particularly relevant in compliance with the measures introduced by the government. Finally, we consider constructive patriotism that, compared to conventional patriotism and glorification, contains critical thoughts about the country aimed at improving it.

Indeed, research has shown that different forms of national identification are differently related to engagement within the society (e.g., Rupar et al., 2020a). Conventional patriotism has been linked only to one form of civic engagement, specifically, (pro)social behavior such as donation of the money or volunteering in the community (Rupar et al., 2020a). These changes are of an interpersonal and prosocial nature and may lead to changes only on a local rather than national or countrywide scale. However, conventional patriotism was not shown to be a good predictor of other forms of civic engagement such as political activities (Rupar et al., 2020a; Rupar et al., 2020b) or investment of time and effort in the tasks that can benefit the country in general (Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016). Given the individual effort one needs to make to comply with measures against COVID‐19, we expected that conventional patriotism would not be a good or consistent predictor of COVID‐19‐related attitudes and behavior.

Contrary to conventional patriotism, individuals high on constructive patriotism are particularly motivated to engage in various activities aimed at benefiting their country and fellow citizens (e.g., voting, protests, signing a petition; Rupar et al., 2020a). For example, a recent study conducted in Poland even operationalized constructive patriotism in terms of civic activity and local engagement (Mąrzęcki, 2019). Moreover, constructive patriotism is future‐oriented, and constructive patriots (i.e., individuals high on constructive patriotism) are more likely to favor actions that have long‐term goals (Jamróz‐Dolińska et al., 2021). Thus, we expected constructive patriotism to be positively associated with support for internal measures and compliance with hygiene and social practices in the later stages of the crisis.

Glorification is characterized by a belief in the nation and the state determined by political and geographical characteristics (Feshbach, 1987; Bar‐Tal, 1993), and it engenders external group boundaries (Schatz et al., 2018). Thus, we expected glorification to be positively associated with support for external measures such as closing the borders or monitoring of people coming from particularly infected countries. Moreover, glorification is linked to national conservatism (Jost et al., 2003) and is characterized by lower engagement in actions that may lead to changes in the country, like protests or signing a petition (Rupar et al., 2020a). Internal measures encompass potential changes in the country and citizens” behavior that may imply some sort of defect, or shortcoming, in the nation. Thus, we expected glorification to be linked to lower levels of support for such measures and, consequently, lower compliance rates with hygienic and social practices.

Finally, constructive patriots have a broad image of what constitutes a contribution to the nation (Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016), thus, they may not only be particularly likely to perceive measures within the country as a way to help the country and their fellow citizens, but they may also be more inclined to support international collaboration. On the other hand, collaboration with other countries may suggest that one's own country is not capable of dealing with the crisis on its own, a suggestion that may be rejected by glorifiers (i.e., individuals high on glorification). Moreover, since glorification is confined to the country, they might just not be interested in what is taking place beyond the boundaries of the country. Thus, we expected constructive patriotism to be positively associated with support for international collaboration. In contrast, we would expect glorification to be either negatively correlated with such collaboration or to show no correlation.

Being part of the group implies responsibility and duties toward that group and its members. Thus, in the next section, we turn to the attribution of responsibility to fight the crisis to different actors in society. We believe this to be a mechanism underlying the relationship between national identification and COVID‐19‐related attitudes and behaviors.

National identification and the attribution of responsibility

While previous studies have shown that national identification is linked to country‐related attitudes and behaviors such as civic engagement (Rupar et al., 2020a), no research has addressed how it does so—that is, through which underlying psychological processes it occurs. Many community leaders have appealed to their citizens, not only to their sense of patriotic duty to help their country but also their individual responsibility to help in the fight against COVID‐19. Moreover, some countries, such as Sweden, almost entirely relied on their citizens' sense of responsibility in fighting the pandemic. Indeed, responsibilities and duties are inherent to many relationships, including one's relationship with one's country. Patriotism implies individuals' sense of community and personal responsibility towards one's country and one's compatriots. Thus, those individuals who highly identify with their country may feel a higher sense of individual responsibility to act, which in turn may influence attitudes and behavioral responses, including those related to the COVID‐19 crisis (Everett et al., 2020; Oosterhoff & Palmer, 2020). Individuals who strongly identify with the nation may also hold a strong perception that the state bears responsibility in protecting its citizens during a crisis. Past research has shown that acknowledging the responsibility of one's country is related to individual responses oriented at preventing future harm (e.g., Čehajić et al., 2009; Iqbal & Bilali, 2017). Therefore, not only the sense of individual responsibility, but also country or state responsibility, might explain the links between national identification, attitudes, and behaviors related to the COVID‐19 crisis.

We expect that different attributions of responsibility are more important for some forms of national identification than others. Constructive patriotism is characterized by the belief that not only the state, but also each individual, should try to improve the country (Schatz, 2018). Moreover, constructive patriots are particularly inclined to invest time and effort (Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016; Sekerdej & Szwed, 2021) and engage in behaviors that might benefit the country (Rupar et al., 2020a; Rupar et al., 2020b). Thus, we expect that a higher sense of both state responsibility and individual responsibility would explain the links between constructive patriotism and support for, and compliance with, health‐related measures introduced during the COVID‐19 crisis.

The foundation of glorification lies in loyalty to the country; thus, glorifiers may be particularly likely to believe that this loyalty should be returned and therefore, they may attribute the responsibility to fight the crisis to the state. However, glorifiers also think of their nation and country in idealistic terms, which prevents them from ascribing responsibility to the state. Thus, the link between glorification and group responsibility may not be straightforward. Although glorification involves a desire to enhance the nation, in comparison to constructive patriotism, the gains of the nation are looked at from a self‐interested perspective. In other words, only those actions that do not require personal investment yet enhance personal welfare in terms of recognition or acceptance are supported by individuals high on glorification (e.g., engaging in intergroup comparisons, competitions; Worchel & Coutant, 1993). In line with this theorizing, recent research has shown that glorifiers are indeed less likely to engage in civic activities that require effort from the individual (Rupar et al., 2020a). Thus, it could be that individual responsibility is not inherent to glorifiers and, as such, does not play a role in explaining the links between glorification and attitudes and behaviors.

THE PRESENT RESEARCH

We conducted four studies in which we examined the links between national identification and COVID‐19‐related attitudes and behaviors within the national context of Poland (see Figure 1 for the tested models and overview of the studies). Studies were conducted at different moments of the crisis. To summarize, in Study 1, conducted at the very beginning of the crisis when no measures to fight the COVID‐19 pandemic have been introduced, we expected constructive patriotism to be positively related to support for internal measures (H1), and glorification to be positively associated with support for external measures (H2) and negatively correlated with support for internal measures (H3).

FIGURE 1

The models tested in the each of the studies. Paths marked with “+” indicate positive and paths marked with “‐” negative expected paths between constructs. All studies were conducted in 2020: Study 1 (March 9–13); Study 2 (March 3–April 2); Study 3 (April 29–May 3); Study 4 (May 18–22). Covariates included in the model in all studies were age, gender, individual and collective threat from COVID‐19, and political attitudes; and in Study 4 additionally, education and place of residence. Studies 1, 2, and 3 were conducted on a student sample, and Study 4 was conducted on a representative sample

In Study 2, conducted one month later, after the borders were shut down and Poland had imposed hygiene and social distance practices, we expected that constructive patriotism would be related to greater compliance with those practices (H4) via support for internal measures (H4a). In contrast, we expected that glorification would be negatively associated with compliance with such practices (H5) and that this link would be mediated by lower levels of support for internal measures (H5a).

In Study 3, conducted three months after the beginning of the crisis and after obligatory gloves and masks had been introduced, we examined whether the attribution of responsibility to deal with the crisis to different actors in society (individuals and the state), could explain the links examined in the previous study. We predicted that the links between constructive patriotism and compliance with hygiene and social distance practices would be explained by greater ascriptions of individual and state responsibility (H6). Furthermore, we expected that group but not individual responsibility would mediate the link between glorification and support for external measures (H7).

In Study 3 and Study 4, we also investigated the links between multidimensional national identification and support for international collaboration, wherein we expected constructive patriotism to be positively correlated (H8), and glorification negatively correlated or not linked at all, with support for international collaboration (H9). We expected that the effects of glorification and constructive patriotism on support for international collaboration will be explained by support for both state and individual responsibility in the same way as seen in H6 and H7, meaning that group and individual responsibility would explain the links between constructive patriotism and support for international cooperation and that ascriptions of state responsibility would explain the link between glorification and support for international collaboration. In Study 4, we tested the same paths as in Study 3, but on a representative sample, stratified by age, gender, education, and place of residence. Finally, we had no specific hypothesis about the link between conventional and COVID‐19‐related attitudes and behavior.

In all studies, we accounted for demographic variables that may influence COVID‐19‐related responses (e.g., Hamer et al., 2020). In all studies, we controlled for age and gender. For example, it was shown that women are more likely to support public policy measures again COVID‐19 and comply with them (e.g., Galasso et al., 2020). Also, given that the COVID‐19 virus has been significantly affecting the older population, older people may be more likely to comply with measures adopted to fight the virus. In Study 4, we also controlled for education and place of residence that may also matter in compliance with measures against COVID‐19. For example, people with higher education may more often work from home, which facilitates following social distance measures. Similarly, people who live in rural areas have fewer social contacts or use less public transport compared to people living in urban areas. Finally, in all studies, we controlled for the feeling of threat from COVID‐19, which may influence attitudinal and behavioral responses during the COVID‐19 crisis (e.g., Kachanoffe et al., 2020). Measures used in all studies were part of a larger questionnaire. All materials, source data, and data analysis codes are available on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/8bfpj/?view_only = 6df27ed6b55f482fb812014c47d4a065). In each study, we aimed at recruiting a minimum of 250 participants because correlations tend to stabilize at this number (Schönbrodt & Perugini, 2013). All analyses were performed using the statistical software R. To test the factor structure of the used measurement, we conducted both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis for each construct separately. In the case of national identification, we only conducted CFA given that we used well‐established scales of national identification. We split the data randomly into two datasets. In the first dataset, we conducted exploratory factor analysis with a maximum likelihood approach using oblimin rotation. To estimate acceptable model fit, we used the following criteria: a non‐significant chi‐square value, a comparative fit index (CFI) score above .90, a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value of less than .08, and the standardized root‐mean‐square residual (SRMR) value less than or equal to .08 (see Hu & Bentler, 1999). In the second dataset, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis. To test our hypothesis, we performed path analysis using the statistical package Lavaan (Rossel, 2012). For mediating effects, bootstrapping (with 10,000 resamples) was used to estimate the 95% confidence intervals.

STUDY 1

In Study 1, conducted at the very beginning of the COVID‐19 crisis in Poland, we examined the relationship between three forms of national identification—conventional patriotism, constructive patriotism, and glorification—and support for internal and external measures that the government may take in order to fight the coronavirus. We controlled for the level of collective and individual threat, political attitudes, age, and gender. When we started the data collection (March 9, 2020), there were only 16 registered cases of the virus in Poland. By the end of data collection (March 13, 2020), the overall number was 68.

Participants and procedure

The sample consisted of 663 participants who completed an online questionnaire on attitudes toward “various social topics” (81.6% female, mean age = 23, SD = 4.6). The participants were recruited by posting links on student Facebook groups from different universities across Poland. Only those participants who declared themselves as Poles were included in the analysis. In exchange for taking part in the study, participants were included in a lottery and had a chance to win a monetary prize worth €15 or €25.

Measures

Unless otherwise indicated, all items were assessed on scales from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much).

National identification

Constructive patriotism was assessed with five items adapted from Schatz et al. (1999) (e.g., “People should work hard to move this country in a positive direction”, “I oppose some Polish policies because I care about my country and want to improve it”). To measure conventional patriotism, we used five items adapted from Sekerdej and Roccas (2016) and partially from Roccas et al. (2006) (e.g., “I love my country”, “The fact that I am a Pole is an important part of my identity”). To measure glorification, we adapted eight items adapted from Roccas et al. (2006) formed the ingroup glorification scale (e.g., “My nation is better than other nations in all aspects”, “It is disloyal to criticize Poland”). To confirm our structure of national identification, we ran a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). After removing one item of constructive patriotism and correlating two errors within the factors, the model had satisfactory, χ(114) = 567.61, p < .001, CFI = .913, RMSEA = .077 [.071, .084], SRMR = .077. The reliabilities of three subscales were acceptable (constructive patriotism, a = .65; conventional patriotism, a = .89; glorification, a = .86).

Support for internal and external measures

Participants were presented with a list of self‐invented four internal and four external measures that could be helpful in the fight against the coronavirus. They were told that the country's authorities were considering implementing those measures and asked how much they were likely to support each of the presented measures. As expected, exploratory factor analyses (EFA) identified two forms of measures: external measures (e.g., closing the borders, monitoring people coming from highly affected regions) and internal measures (e.g., raising awareness about health practices, healthy lifestyle practices, or increasing national funding for the healthcare system). We ran CFA that yielded acceptable model fit, χ(19) = 70.57, p < .001, CFI = .926, RMSEA = .090 [.068, .113], SRMR = .057. Reliabilities for the two subscales were acceptable (external α = .80; internal α = .60).

Threat

The perceived coronavirus threat was measured with seven items, five items individual threat, and two collective threat, partially adapted from Main et al. (2011). Exploratory factor analysis revealed two types of threat: collective threat (e.g., “I am worried that the coronavirus poses a threat to the health of the Polish people”) and individual threat (e.g., “I am worried I could get infected with the coronavirus”). The CFA model yielded a satisfactory fit, χ(13) = 35.91, p < .001, CFI = .974, RMSEA = .073 [.045, .102], SRMR = .043. Reliabilities for both subscales were acceptable (collective threat α = .76; individual threat α = .82).

Results and discussion

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables are reported in Table 1. To determine the extent to which each form of national identification predicts support for different measures aimed at fighting the spread of COVID‐19, we ran multiple linear regressions with collective threat, individual threat, political attitudes, age, and gender as covariates.i Three forms of national identification explained a significant percentage of the variance of support for both internal and external measures, 13% and 26%, respectively. As expected, constructive patriotism was positively linked to support for internal measures, B = .14, SE = .03, p < .001 (H1 supported). Glorification positively predicted support for external measures, B = .57, SE = .07, p < .001 (H2 supported) and negatively predicted support for internal measures, B = ‐.13, SE = .04, p < .001 (H3 supported). Conventional patriotism was negatively linked to support for external measures, B = ‐.13, SE = .05, p = .011.

TABLE 1

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of conventional and constructive patriotism, glorification, support for internal and external measures, collective and individual threat, political attitudes, and age (N = 663, Study 1)

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Constructive Patriotism	4.65	0.72	–
2. Conventional Patriotism	4.16	1.05	.41**	–
3. Glorification	2.65	0.82	.13**	.61**	–
4. Internal measures	5.44	0.58	.19**	−.01	−.15**	–
5. External measures	3.52	1.10	.03	.20**	.43**	−.06	–
6. Collective Threat	4.35	1.12	.19**	.24**	.23**	.19**	.23**	–
7. Individual Threat	3.52	1.03	.04	.05	.06	.13**	.25**	.51**	–
8. Political Attitudes	3.52	1.38	.02	.36**	.54**	−.17**	.30**	.04	.02	–
9. Age	23.01	4.57	.10**	.15**	.06	−.01	−.00	.04	.06	.03	–

p ≤ .01.

Overall, the results supported our hypotheses that constructive patriotism and glorification differently predict support for different measures aimed at fighting COVID‐19.

STUDY 2

As the crisis was developing, schools and universities were closed, an official epidemic was declared, and Poland closed its borders (March 10–12, 2020). The next step was the implementation of some of the internal measures, such as hygiene practices or social distancing measures. Poland imposed restrictions on people leaving their homes and on public gatherings and limited everyday activities to those deemed necessary, such as shopping for food, buying medicine, or jogging (March 25, 2020). Thus, in Study 2, we examined the link between different forms of national identification, support for internal and external measures, and compliance with hygiene and social distancing practices. When we began data collection (March 30, 2020), there were 2,055 registered cases of the virus in Poland. By the end of data collection (April 2, 2020) there were 2,946 registered cases (Koronawirus w Polsce Dzień po Dniu, 2020).

The sample consisted of 522 Polish participants (75.5% female, mean age = 23.4, SD = 5). The recruitment of participants was the same as in Study 1.

The same measures for national identification were used as in Study 1. After we had removed one item of constructive patriotism and allowing residuals to correlate within the factors, the model had acceptable fit, χ(113) = 433.36, p < .001, CFI = .928, RMSEA = .074 [.066, .081], SRMR = .062. The reliabilities for all three subscales were acceptable (constructive patriotism, a = .66; conventional patriotism, a = .89; glorification a = .88).

The same measures were used as in Study 1, and exploratory analysis again revealed two factors. One item referring to closing the borders was removed from the scale as it loaded on both factors. This may have happened because when we conducted the study, Poland already closed its borders. Consequently, as this measure was already implemented, it could have been accepted by all groups in the society. We ran a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The model yielded a satisfactory fit, χ(13) = 18.93, p < .001, CFI = .984, RMSEA = .042 [.000, .080], SRMR = .044. The reliabilities for the two scales were acceptable (external measures: a = 0.76; internal measures: a = 0.71).

Compliance with hygiene and social distance practices

Participants were asked how much they adhere to the recommended hygiene and social distancing measures to protect themselves and others from the coronavirus, with five items each. Exploratory analysis revealed three factors: hygiene practices officially recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Polish government (e.g., washing one's hands), hygiene practices not officially recommended at that time by the WHO and the Polish government (e.g., wearing a protective mask on one's mouth), and social distancing practices (e.g., avoiding public transport, physical distancing, avoiding visiting family and friends). We removed one item referring to social distancing practices as it had a low loading. We then ran CFA. The model yielded a satisfactory fit, χ(24) = 50.43, p < .001, CFI = .953, RMSEA = .065 [.040, .090], SRMR = .049. The reliabilities of all subscales were acceptable (officially recommended hygiene practices, a = 0.60; not‐officially recommended hygiene practices, a = 0.69; social distancing practices, a = 0.69).

The perceived threat from coronavirus was measured with six items, similar to those in Study 1, four items measuring individual and two items collective threat. As expected, EFA revealed two factors. We then ran CFA and correlating two errors within the factors. The model yielded a satisfactory fit, χ(7) = 21.44, p < .001, CFI = .971, RMSEA = .089 [.048, .133], SRMR = .043. The reliabilities of two subscales were acceptable (collective threat: α = .67; individual threat: α = .82)

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables are reported in Table 2. We conducted path analysis with the three forms of national identification as predictors, with the levels of support for internal and external measures as parallel mediators, and with collective threat, individual threat, political attitudes, age, and gender as covariates. In line with Study 1, constructive patriotism was positively related to support for the internal measures, B = .24, SE = .06, 95% CI [0.109, 0.351], p < .001 (H1 supported). Glorification was linked to greater support for external measures, B = .50, SE = .07, 95% CI [0.356, 0.640], p < .001 (H2 supported) and lower levels of support for internal measures, B = −.18, SE = 0.5, 95% CI [−0.281, −0.093], p < .001 (H3 supported). The total effect of constructive patriotism on compliance with both official, B = .15, SE = .06, 95% CI [0.036, 0.267], p = .012, and non‐official hygiene practices, B = .33, SE = .10, 95% CI [0.141, 0.510], p = .001, as well as on levels of compliance with social distancing practices, B = .18, SE = .05, 95% CI [0.080, 0.281], p = .001 was significant (H4 supported). Greater support for internal measures mediated the link between constructive patriotism and compliance with official health practices, B = .08, SE = .03, 95% CI [0.037, 0.144], p = .003 and social distancing measures, B = .08, SE = .03, 95% CI [0.037, 0.149], p = .002 but not non‐official practices, B = .04, SE = .02, 95% CI [−0.001, 0.092], p = .106 (H4a partially supported). The total effect of glorification on compliance with non‐official hygiene practices was positive, B = .27, SE = 0.09, 95% CI [0.090, 0.446], p = .003, while its effect on official hygiene practices was non‐significant, B = ‐.09, SE = .06, 95% CI [−0.199, 0.019], p = .110, and its effect on compliance with social distancing practices was significant and negative, B = −.13, SE = .05, 95% CI [−0.236, −0.040], p = .007 (H5 partially supported). Lower levels of support for internal measures mediated the link between glorification and compliance with official health measures, B = −.06, SE = .02, 95% CI [−0.110, −0.032], p = .001 and social distancing measures, B = −.06, SE = .02, 95% CI [−.112, −0.031], p = .001, but not non‐official measures, B = ‐.03, SE = .02, 95% CI [−0.069, 0.002], p = .0104 (H5a partially supported). Finally, the total effect of conventional patriotism on compliance with non‐official hygiene practices was negative, B = ‐.16, SE = .08, 95% CI [−0.315, −0.009], p = .038.

TABLE 2

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of conventional and constructive patriotism, glorification, support for internal and external measures, compliance with non‐official and official hygiene practices, social distance practices, collective and individual threat, political attitudes, and age (N = 522, Study 2)

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Constructive patriotism	4.64	0.72	–
2. Conventional patriotism	4.24	0.91	.51**	–
3. Glorification	2.83	0.91	.26**	.65**	–
4. Internal measures	5.39	0.68	.26**	.06	−.13**	–
5. External measures	3.66	1.28	.20**	.31**	.43**	.05	–
6. Non‐Official hygiene Practices	3.83	1.39	.18**	.07	.07	.19**	.14**	–
7. Official hygiene practices	5.13	0.78	.15**	.01	−.09*	.39**	.03	.31**	–
8. Social distance practices	5.41	0.71	.21**	.05	−.08	.42**	.05	.27**	.36**	–
9. Collective threat	5.07	0.91	.36**	.32**	.13**	.27**	.21**	.22**	.24**	.27	–
10. Individual threat	4.31	1.02	.15**	.09*	.02	.22**	.09*	.29**	.28**	.25**	.36**	–
11. Political Attitudes	3.77	1.46	18**	.43**	.54**	−.12**	.33**	−.08	−.08	−.02	−.02	−.02	–
12. Age	23.37	5.02	.04	.12**	.09**	.01	−.01	−.05	.06	−.11*	.01	.09*	.09*	–

p ≤ .05.

p ≤ .01.

In Study 2 we confirmed our hypotheses that constructive patriotism is not only related to greater levels of support for internal measures, but that it is also linked to greater rates of compliance with hygiene and social distancing practices within the COVID‐19 crisis. Interestingly, support for internal measures by those individuals who scored high on constructive patriotism did not translate into compliance with measures not officially recommended by the WHO. Constructive patriotism is linked to greater exposure to the news and information that may be important for the nation (Parker 2010; Schatz et al., 1999). During the crisis, there were many fake news stories and misleading information that could have had a negative impact on managing the crisis. It could be that constructive patriots “chose” to follow only those practices that were recommended by official sources and were thus trusted to be beneficial for the country. The reasons for the links between glorification and compliance with hygiene and social distancing practices are less clear, requiring further investigation.

STUDY 3

In Study 2, we focused on the link between national identification and support for and compliance with measures aimed at fighting the COVID‐19 crisis within the country. In Study 3, we additionally considered support for international collaboration. Moreover, we examined whether the attribution of responsibility to the individuals and the state can explain the links between national identification and the outcomes of interest. Finally, Study 3 was conducted two weeks after masks and gloves were made mandatory in Poland. Compliance with mandatory requirements could be driven by additional factors (e.g., fear of fines), thus we did not consider compliance with those measures as an outcome within the study, and we focused only on compliance with recommendations. When the data collection started (April 29, 2020), there were 12,640 registered cases of the virus in Poland. By the end of data collection (May 3, 2020), there were 13,693 reported cases.

The sample consisted of 632 Polish participants (78.3% female, mean age = 26.2, SD = 9.4). The recruitment of participants was the same as in the previous studies.

The same measures for national identification were used as in Study 1. After removing one item of constructive patriotism, and correlating two errors within the factors, the model yielded satisfactory fit, χ(114) = 539.89, p < .001, CFI = .923, RMSEA = .077 [.070, .083], SRMR = .066.The reliabilities for all three subscales were acceptable (constructive patriotism, a = .73, M = 4.81, SD = 0.68; conventional patriotism, a = .90; glorification a = .86).

Three items to measure internal and four items to measure external measures were used. As expected, EFA revealed two factors. As in Study 2, the item referring to closing the borders was removed as it loaded on both factors. The CFA model yielded a satisfactory fit, χ(9) = 12.97, p = .164, CFI = .983, RMSEA = .041 [.000, .087], SRMR = .043. The reliabilities for two scales were acceptable (external measures: a = 0.87; internal measures: a = 0.70).

Participants were asked how much they adhere to the recommended hygiene and social distancing measures to protect themselves and others from the coronavirus, with four items each. As expected, the exploratory analysis revealed two factors (compared to Study 2, in Study 3, we did not consider compliance with wearing gloves and masks). Confirmatory factor analysis yielded a model with a satisfactory fit, χ(19) = 46.325, p < .001, CFI = .959, RMSEA = .067 [.043, .092], SRMR = .042. The reliabilities of all subscales were acceptable (hygiene practices, a = 0.72; physical distancing, a = 0.78).

Responsibility

To access to whom people ascribed the duty to stop the COVID‐19 pandemic, we presented participants with eight items that attributed that responsibility to different bodies in society, five items referring to individuals, and three items referring to state responsibility. Exploratory factor analysis revealed two factors: individual responsibility (e.g., “Helping in slowing down the spread of the coronavirus is every person's duty”), and state responsibility (e.g., “Stopping the coronavirus pandemic is the state's responsibility”). After residual variance within the same factor to covariate, the model yielded a satisfactory fit, χ(17) = 30.88, p = .021, CFI = .992, RMSEA = .051 [.020, .079], SRMR = .042. The reliabilities of the two scales were acceptable (individual responsibility: a = 0.93; state responsibility: a = 0.83).

Support for international collaboration

With six items, we asked participants about their support for international collaboration (e.g., “Close international cooperation is necessary to fight the coronavirus pandemic”, “Poland should cooperate with other countries in order to stop the virus”). Exploratory factor analysis revealed one factor. We ran CFA, residual variance within the same factor to covariate. The model yielded a satisfactory fit, χ(5) = 8.23, p = .144, CFI = .997, RMSEA = .045 [.000, .098], SRMR = .015. The reliability of the scale was acceptable, a = .87.

Similar items as in previous studies were used, four for individual and three for collective threat. Again, exploratory factor analysis revealed two factors. We removed one item due to low loadings on both factors. Confirmatory factor analysis yielded a satisfactory fit, χ(8) = 22.68, p < .001, CFI = .987, RMSEA = .076 [.040, .105], SRMR = .025. Reliabilities for both subscales were acceptable (collective threat α = .87; individual threat α = .81.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables are reported in Table 3. Using path analysis, we estimated the relationship between constructive patriotism, glorification, and conventional patriotism and compliance with hygiene and social distancing practices via attributions of responsibility to individuals and the state and support for internal measures. We entered the three forms of national identification as predictors, individual and state responsibility as first‐level parallel mediators, support for internal and external measures as second‐level parallel mediators, compliance with hygiene and social distancing practices and support for international collaboration as dependent variables, and collective threat, individual threat, age, and gender as covariates. We allowed the same level mediators to correlate.

TABLE 3

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of conventional and constructive patriotism, glorification, support for internal and external measures, compliance with hygiene and social distance practices, individual and the state responsibility, support for international collaboration, collective and individual threat, political attitudes, and age (N = 632, Study 3)

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Constructive patriotism	4.74	0.72	–
2. Conventional patriotism	4.18	1.07	.38**	–
3. Glorification	2.55	0.87	.03	.61**	–
4. Internal measures	5.37	0.61	.29**	.05	−.10**	–
5. External measures	3.63	1.47	.00	.23**	.45**	.07	–
6. Hygiene practices	4.65	0.93	.17**	.09*	.00	.32**	.12**	–
7. Social practices	4.99	0.88	.16**	.05	.00	.28**	.09*	.43**	–
8. Individual responsibility	5.24	0.83	.26**	.12**	.03	.44**	.15**	.47**	.57**	–
9. The State Responsibility	4.89	0.84	.22**	−.08*	−.10**	.31**	.09**	.29**	.33**	.35**	–
10. Support for international cooperation	5.19	0.68	.22**	−.07	−.21**	.46**	−.06	.30**	.28**	.46**	.37**	–
11. Collective threat	4.54	1.10	.22**	.24**	.16**	.30**	.19**	.37**	.46**	.54**	.32**	.34**	–
12. Individual threat	4.03	1.02	.17**	.02	−.09*	.31**	.08*	.39**	.41**	.43**	.23**	.30**	.55**	–
13. Political Attitudes	3.51	1.35	.12**	.47**	.54**	−.10*	.32**	−.07	−.03	−.05	−.16**	−.25**	−.01	−.13**	–
14. Age	26.19	9.38	.19**	.19**	−.04	.05	−.21**	−.01	−.06	−.08	−.01	.10**	−.02	.09*	.07	–

p ≤ .05.

p ≤ .01.

In line with our previous studies, constructive patriotism was positively related to support for internal measures, B = .20, SE = .04, 95% CI [0.123, 0.270], p < .001 (H1 supported), and glorification was positively associated with support for external measures, B = .67, SE = .08, 95% CI [0.522, 0.816], p < .001 (H2 supported). In line with expectations, glorification was negatively liked to support for internal measures, B = ‐.10 SE = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.170, −0.026], p = .008 (H3 supported). There was a total effect of constructive patriotism on compliance with hygiene practices, B = 0.11, SE = .05, 95% CI [0.001, 0.214], p = .049 but not social distancing measures, B = .10, SE = .06, 95% CI [−0.018, 0.213], p = .085 (H4 partially supported). The total effects of glorification on compliance with hygiene, B = −.03, SE = .06, 95% CI [−0.136, 0.082], p = .645 and social distance practices, B = −.05, SE = .05, 95% CI [−0.144, 0.049], p = .342 were not significant (H5 not supported). Support for internal measures mediated the link between constructive patriotism and compliance with hygiene, B = .06, SE = .02, 95% CI [0.030, 0.106], p = .002 but not social distancing practices, B = −.002, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.019, 0.012], p = .769 (H4a partially supported). Similarly, it mediated the link between glorification and compliance with hygiene, B = −.01, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.031, −0.001], p = .156 but not social distancing practices, B = .001, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.008, 0.014], p = 0.776 (H5a partially supported). Higher levels of support for internal measures explained the link between constructive patriotism and support for international collaboration, B = .04, SE = .01, 95% CI [0.015, 0.063], p = .003, and lower levels of support for those measures explained the link between glorification and support for international cooperation, B = −.02, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.048, −0.005], p = .037.

In line with our predictions, individual responsibility mediated the link between constructive patriotism and compliance with hygiene, B = .06, SE = .02, 95% CI [0.030, 0.106], p = .002, and social distancing practices, B = .08, SE = .02, 95% CI [0.042, 0.126], p < .001, and international collaboration, B = .04, SE = .01, 95% CI [0.015, 0.063], p = .003. Likewise, state responsibility mediated the link between constructive patriotism and compliance with hygiene, B = 0.04, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [0.009, 0.062], p = .020 and social distancing practices, B = .03, SE = .01, 95% CI [0.014, 0.063], p = .005, and international collaboration, B = .03, SE = .01, 95% CI [0.010, 0.051], p = .003 (H6 supported). The link between glorification and support for external measures was not mediated neither by state, B = −.004, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.027, 0.015], p = .678 or individual responsibility, B = −.005, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.030, 0.003], p = .507 (H7 partially supported). In line with expectations, constructive patriotism was positively B = .18, SE = .04, 95% CI [0.102, 0.274], p < .001, and glorification negatively, B = ‐.11, SE = .04, 95% CI [−0.185, −0.029], p = .005 associated with support for international collaboration (H8 and H9 supported). Finally, conventional patriotism negatively predicted compliance with hygiene and social distancing practices and international collaboration through lower attributions of responsibility to the state, B = ‐.02, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.041, −0.006], p = .031, B = ‐.02, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.044, −0.008], B = ‐.02, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.033, −0.006], p = .014, respectively.

Overall, the results from Study 3 further corroborated the findings from the previous two studies and provided additional evidence that the attribution of responsibility to fight the crisis to individuals and the state underlies the links between constructive patriotism and COVID‐19‐related attitudes and behaviors.

STUDY 4

In Study 4, we aimed to confirm the findings from the previous studies on a representative sample, while additionally accounting for education (elementary/vocational, high school, or university level) and place of residence (village, place up to 20,000 people, a place from 20,000 to 100,000 people, a place from 100,000 to 50,000 people, and place above 500,000 people). When the data collection started (May 18, 2020), there were 18,685 registered cases of the virus in Poland. By the end of data collection (May 22, 2020), there were 20,619 reported cases.

The sample consisted of 1,051 Polish participants (51.5% female, mean age = 46.8, SD = 16.3). The recruitment of participants was done online through panel agency Pollster.

The same measures for national identification were used as in Study 1. After allowing residual variance to correlate, the CFA yielded a model with satisfactory fit, χ(112) = 825.75, p < .001, CFI = .941, RMSEA = .078 [.073, .083], SRMR = .072. The reliabilities for all three scales were acceptable (constructive patriotism, a = .72, conventional patriotism, a = .90; glorification a = .92).

To measure support for internal and external measures, the same measures were used as in Study 3. Exploratory analysis suggested two factors. As in the previous study, one item referring to closing the borders was removed, as the borders were already closed when conducting the study. After allowing allowing residuals to correlate confirmatory factor analysis yielded a model with a satisfactory fit, χ(7) = 25.67, p < .001, CFI = .985, RMSEA = .071 [.0543, .102], SRMR = .028. The reliabilities for the two scales were acceptable (external measures: a = 0.84; internal measures: a = 0.84).

Compliance with hygiene and social distancing practices

Participants were asked how much they adhere to the recommended hygiene and social distancing measures to protect themselves and others from the coronavirus, using the same items as in Study 3. As in Study 3, the exploratory analysis revealed two factors: hygiene practices and physical distancing. The CFA, allowing one pair of standard errors to correlate, yielded a model with satisfactory fit, χ(18) = 72.16, p < .001, CFI = .972, RMSEA = .076 [.058, .094], SRMR = .034. The reliabilities of all subscales were acceptable (hygiene practices, a = 0.83; social practices, a = 0.84).

To measure responsibility, the same items were used as in Study 3. Exploratory factor analysis revealed two factors. After allowing residual variance within the same factors to correlate, the CFA showed a model with satisfactory fit, χ(17) = 49.17, p < .001, CFI = .990, RMSEA = .060 [.041, .080], SRMR = .024. The reliabilities of the two scales were acceptable (individual responsibility: a = 0.94; state responsibility a = 0.87).

To measure support for international collaboration, the same items as in Study 3 were used. Again, exploratory factor analysis revealed one factor. We ran confirmatory factor analysis, residual variance of items to correlate. The model yielded a satisfactory fit, χ(6) = 27.28, p < .001, CFI = .993, RMSEA = .082 [.053, .115], SRMR = .013. The reliability of the scale was acceptable, a = .94).

To measure threat, we used the same items as in Study 3. Exploratory factor analysis revealed two factors, and we removed one item due to cross loadings. The CFA model yielded a satisfactory fit, χ(8) = 26.75, p = .001, CFI = .992, RMSEA = .067 [.040, .096], SRMR = .023. The reliabilities of both subscales were acceptable (collective threat α = .95; individual threat α = .85).

The means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables are reported in Table 4. We ran the same model as in Study 3, while additionally controlling for education and place of residence. In line with our previous studies, constructive patriotism was positively related to support for internal measures, B = .13, SE = .04, 95% CI [0.056, 0.210], p = .001 (H1 supported), and glorification was positively associated with support for external measures, B = .46, SE = .05, 95% CI [0.371, 0.551], p < .001 (H2 supported) and negatively associated with support for internal measures, B = −.05, SE = .03, 95% CI [−0.097, −0.001], p = .053 (H3). The total effects of constructive patriotism on compliance with hygiene, B = .06, SE = .04, 95% CI [−0.021, 0.150], p = .136 and social distancing practices, B = .03, SE = .05, 95% CI [−0.054, 0.125], p = .332 were not significant (H4 not supported). Unexpectedly, there were positive total effects of glorification on compliance with hygiene, B = .17, SE = .03, 95% CI [0.098, 0.232], p < .001 and social distancing practices, B = .10, SE = .04, 95% CI [0.032, 0.177], p = .005 (H5 not supported). As in Study 3, support for internal measures did not mediate the link between constructive patriotism and compliance with hygiene, B = .01, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.001, 0.027], p = .128 or social distancing measures, B = .01, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.001, 0.019], p = .252 (H4a not supported), nor its link with support for international collaboration, B = .02, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.001, 0.041], p = .90. Lower levels of support for internal measures mediated the link between glorification and compliance with hygiene practices, B = −.01, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.021, −0.002], p = .037 and support for international collaboration, B = ‐.02, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.031, −0.004], p = .015, but not social distancing practices, B = −.01, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.015, 0.001], p = .168 (H5a partially supported).

TABLE 4

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of conventional and constructive patriotism, glorification, support for internal and external measures, compliance with hygiene and social distance practices, individual and the state responsibility, support for international collaboration, collective and individual threat, political attitudes, and age (N = 1051, Study 4)

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Constructive patriotism	4.93	0.76	–
2. Conventional patriotism	4.85	0.93	.49**	–
3. Glorification	3.45	1.15	.12**	.62**	–
4. Internal measures	5.15	0.80	.32**	.34**	.12**	–
5. External measures	4.34	1.33	.06*	.35**	.51**	.35**	–
6. Hygiene practices	4.66	1.01	.20**	.31**	.27**	.49**	.27**	–
7. Social practices	4.56	1.09	.16**	.25**	.21**	.47**	.28**	.60**	–
8. Individual responsibility	5.08	0.94	.29**	.40**	.28**	.63**	.30**	.57**	.60**	–
9. The State Responsibility	5.02	0.93	.26**	.22**	.04	.50**	.19**	.39**	.38**	.47**	–
10. Support for international cooperation	5.23	0.82	.30**	.22**	.07*	.62**	.19**	.48**	.47**	.64**	.52**	–
11. Collective threat	4.58	1.22	.24**	.34**	.22**	.52**	.27**	.51**	.57**	.60**	.45**	.53**	–
12. Individual threat	3.97	1.12	.11**	.12**	.06	.38**	.14**	.41**	.49**	.48**	.29**	.42**	.66**	–
13. Political Attitudes	4.09	1.49	.00	.29**	.49**	‐.02	.27**	.03	.02	.08**	−.10**	−.05	−.01	−.03	–
14. Age	46.78	16.29	.22**	.21**	−.01	.15**	−.10**	.12**	.19**	.13**	.19**	.23**	.16**	.19**	−.05

p ≤ .05.

p ≤ .01.

In line with our predictions, individual responsibility mediated the link between constructive patriotism and compliance with hygiene, B = .04, SE = .01, 95% CI [0.013, 0.065], p = .006 and social distancing practices, B = .05, SE = .02, 95% CI [0.018, 0.082], p = .005, and international collaboration, B = .04, SE = .01, 95% CI [0.014, 0.063], p = .004. State responsibility mediated the link between constructive patriotism and compliance with hygiene practices, B = 0.02, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [0.003, 0.032], p = .039 and international collaboration, B = .02, SE = .01, 95% CI [0.007, 0.038], p = .008 but not social distancing practices, B = .01, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.001, 0.023], p = .141 (H6 partially supported). Neither individual nor state responsibility mediated the link between glorification and support for external measures, B = .01, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.001, 0.002], p = .174, B = ‐.01, SE = .01, 95% CI [−0.001, 0.002], p = .018 (H7 partially supported). In line with expectations, constructive patriotism was positively associated with support for international collaboration, B = .19, SE = .04, 95% CI [0.111, 0.260], p < .001 (H8 supported). There was no significant link between glorification and support for international collaboration, B = ‐.02, SE = .03, 95% CI [−0.071, 0.032], p = .462 (H9 not supported).

Finally, conventional patriotism was positively linked to compliance with hygiene practices and international collaboration through greater support for internal measures (B = .02, SE = .02, 95% CI [0.006, 0.035], p = .014; B = .03, SE = .01, 95% CI [.011, .052], p = .003, respectively) and greater individual responsibility (B = .04, SE = .01, 95% CI [.018, .069], p = .002; B = .04, SE = .01, 95% CI [0.019, 0.067], p < .001, respectively) and to compliance with social distancing measures through greater individual responsibility, B = .05, SE = .02, 95% CI [0.023, 0.089], p = .002.

Overall, Study 4 provided further confirmation for our hypotheses, providing evidence on a nationally representative sample of Polish society.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research addressed the association between constructive patriotism, conventional patriotism, and glorification in explaining support for and compliance with measures introduced to fight COVID‐19. We conducted a series of four consecutive studies throughout the COVID‐19 crisis in Poland. The results show that it is necessary to consider a multidimensional conceptualization of national identification in order to explain the links between national identification and COVID‐19‐related attitudes and behaviors.

Constructive patriotism and COVID‐19

Past research has shown that individuals high in constructive patriotism are the most likely to engage in social, and particularly political, activities (Rupar et al., 2020a; Schatz et al., 1999; Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016), as well as to support actions that have long‐term goals for the nation (Jamróz‐Dolińska et al., 2021). We extended these results by showing that constructive patriots may also be the ones who react to problems in the time of crisis. Constructive patriotism was consistently related to greater support for and compliance with measures aimed at limiting the spread of COVID‐19. Specifically, individuals high in constructive patriotism were more likely to support measures that included raising the awareness of protective practices against COVID‐19 among citizens, and investing additional money into the medical system, both at the beginning and in the later stages of the crisis. Importantly, these individuals were also more prone to comply with hygiene or social distancing practices introduced in the later stages of the crisis (to explain the inconsistencies in results, see the limitations section below). Finally, our results showed that constructive patriots favored international collaboration in sharing information, supplies, and scientific and health research. Overall, these findings suggest that constructive patriotism may promote a wide range of attitudes and behaviors aimed at fighting the crisis across its different stages.

The attribution of responsibility to fight the crisis to the state and individuals played a role in explaining the link between constructive patriotism and support for internal measures and compliance with hygiene and social distancing practices. Previous research has shown that constructive patriots are ready to invest in and devote their time and energy to improving their country (e.g., Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016). We extended these studies by examining the underlying mechanisms of the effects of constructive patriotism and directly testing the notion that constructive patriotism is characterized by the belief that individuals bear responsibility for their country and fellow citizens (Schatz et al., 2018). Overall, our findings suggest that a sense of personal responsibility is highly ingrained in those individuals high on constructive patriotism (compared to those high on conventional patriotism or glorification), indicating a very different, namely, socially responsible mindset concerning one's country.

Glorification and COVID‐19

Individuals high on glorification are likely to have their focus not only on the ingroup but also on the outgroup, such as for example thinking in terms of ingroup superiority. We showed that individuals high on glorification were more prone to support external measures, such as closing the borders at the beginning of the crisis, or monitoring of people coming from infected areas or immigrants during all stages of the crisis, and less likely to support internal measures focused on changing behavior or investing additional money in the healthcare system, both at the beginning and in the later stages of the crisis. Moreover, lower levels of support for such measures were further translated into lower levels of compliance with hygiene practices (Study 2 and Study 4). However, the overall link between glorification and self‐reported behavior (i.e., compliance with hygiene and social distancing practices) and support for international collaboration was less clear and not consistent (see the explanation of this in the limitations section). Overall, these results suggest that glorification may be used as a tool to promote support for immediate measures in the country at the beginning of the crisis. However, due to the tendency of glorifiers not to support internal measures, invoking glorification could be unproductive or even detrimental in the long run. Moreover, glorification may contribute to closing a country off from collaboration with other countries, which may be particularly pernicious in a time of global pandemics, precisely when cooperation is crucial.

In line with our expectations, individual responsibility did not underlie the relationship between glorification and support for external measures. Yet, in contrast to our expectations, the attribution of responsibility to the state did not explain the link between glorification and support for exclusive measures. It could be that glorifiers believe that the state bears the primary responsibility to ensure an appropriate response to the crisis. However, after the state reacts in line with their expectations (which in the case of COVID‐19 was introducing external measures, such as closing the borders and monitoring of people coming from infected areas), they believe that the state fulfilled its role and that there is nothing else for it to do. Consequently, the belief that the state has done everything it could have done, accompanied by thinking of the country in ideal terms, could lead glorifiers to believe that the state is no longer responsible for dealing with the crisis. Future studies should address which conditions may give rise to the feelings of the greater or lower individual and state responsibility and their interplay among individuals high in glorification.

Conventional patriotism and COVID‐19

Previous findings on conventional patriotism showed that individuals high in this form of national identification engage in civic activities but that the range of such activities is limited (Rupar et al., 2020a; Rupar et al., 2020b; Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016). Our results showed that conventional patriotism had no consistent relationship with support for and compliance with measures introduced to fight COVID‐19. In contrast to a recent study that showed the link between basic attachment to the nation and compliance with public health behavior (Van Bavel et al., 2020), our results showed that basic, positive attachment to the country and nation, even when accompanied by love, may not be enough to trigger any specific actions that require individual effort. These findings stress again the need for the multidimensional conceptualization of national identification and the importance of constructive patriotism.

Limitations and future directions

Several limitations of this research should be addressed. First, all the current studies were conducted in a single country. It would be useful to examine whether our results could be replicated in other countries. Yet, we do not believe our findings are country specific. Similar measures for compliance with measures implemented to stop COVID‐19 have been used in many other countries (e.g., Zingora et al., 2020). Moreover, a multidimensional measure of national identification has been confirmed in several countries across Europe (Rupar et al., 2020b).

Second, all studies were correlational, and thus, causality could not be tested. For example, one could speculate that there are individuals who find it challenging to comply with the social distancing recommendations (e.g., due to feeling lonely). Consequently, to avoid feeling guilty, they may place the responsibility for stopping the pandemic on the state rather than on themselves. While experimental studies could address this issue, manipulating national identification, particularly conventional or constructive patriotism, could be difficult, given their high levels, as well its stability over time (Jugert et al., 2021). Therefore, future research on this topic could benefit from longitudinal studies to enhance causal inference.

We also need to address some of the inconsistencies that arose within our studies. First, the link between constructive patriotism and compliance with hygiene practices was more consistent than its link to social distancing practices. Specifically, constructive patriots complied with social distance practices in the time immediately after these practices were introduced (Study 2), but not two months afterward (Studies 3 and 4). This inconsistency could be because Study 3 and Study 4 were conducted when some of the social restrictions were being relaxed across the country, which may have created a sense that compliance with such measures was no longer required. Also, we found no significant link between constructive patriotism and hygiene measures in Study 4 compared to the previous two studies. Possibly the shift from a convenience sample in Study 3 to a representative sample in Study 4 could account for that.

Second, in line with past research that showed that glorifiers are not likely to engage in civic activities that not only require individual effort but that may signalize the need of the society to change (e.g., Rupar et al., 2020a), we expected recommended hygiene and social distancing practices to be rejected by those individuals who glorify the nation. The obtained results on the association between glorification and compliance with those practices were mixed. While in Study 2, we found no link, or a negative link, between glorification and compliance such measures, in Study 3, these relationships were not significant, and in Study 4 they were positive. In Study 4, the sample was representative and characterized by a higher mean age and higher glorification levels compared to the other samples. It could be that with age, glorification not only increases, but also that it has a different influence on attitudes and behaviors than with younger generations. However, this is only an assumption that needs to be tested in future research.

CONCLUSION

Our four studies constitute a test of the links between national identification and COVID‐19‐related attitudes and behaviors. The results suggest that national identification is linked to support for and compliance with measures introduced to fight the crisis. To fully understand these links, the multidimensionality of national identification should be considered. We showed that constructive patriotism, compared to glorification and conventional patriotism, is the most reliable form of national identification in a time of crisis. Individuals high on constructive patriotism supported measures that implied change in the nation, were more in favor of international cooperation, and were more likely to comply with hygiene and social distancing practices introduced to fight COVID‐19. In contrast, individuals high on glorification were more in favor of measures focusing on stopping external factors that could contribute to the spread of the COVID‐19 virus, and their compliance with hygiene and social distancing practices was not consistent across the studies. The links between conventional patriotism and support for, and compliance with, measures introduced to fight COVID‐19 were not consistent across the studies. Additionally, we also demonstrated that the attribution of responsibility to the state and particularly to individuals underlined the link between constructive patriotism and support for, and compliance with, measures introduced to fight COVID‐19. This knowledge may help to better tailor governmental responses to patriotism in the public sphere.

Overall, our findings suggested that appealing to national identity, particularly constructive patriotism, in a time of crisis may be a promising strategy to promote support for, and compliance with, measures and policies introduced to fight the crisis. Moreover, encouraging self‐responsibility among citizens may be particularly beneficial for increasing desired behavior. However, a more thorough understanding of the causal nature of the relationships examined in the current study is needed before developing interventions based on constructive patriotism that aim to promote support for and compliance with measures designed to fight such crises.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.