1 Converse, Philip E., “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” in Apter, David (ed.), Ideology and Discontent (New York: Free Press, 1964), 206–61.Google Scholar

2 The support is particularly evident among associates of the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan. See: Butler, David and Stokes, Donald, Political Change in Britain (New York: St. Martin's Press Inc., 1969)Google Scholar; McClosky, Herbert, “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics,” American Political Science Review 58 (1964), 361–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stokes, Donald E. and Miller, Warren E., “Party Government and the Saliency of Congress,” Public Opinion Quarterly 26 (1962), 531–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 The Converse position, however, has not gone unchallenged. See: Achen, Christopher H., “Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response,” American Political Science Review 69 (1975), 1218–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Field, J. O. and Anderson, R. E., “Ideology in the Public's Conceptualization of the 1964 Election,” Public Opinion Quarterly 33 (1969–70), 380–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 For a more general discussion of the analytical usefulness of ideological terms, see Mullins, Willard A., “On the Concept of Ideology in Political Science,” American Political Science Review 66 (1972), 498–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 The research was made possible through Canada Council grant S73–1607.

6 The design should have yielded 240 rather than 221 interviews. The shortfall primarily arose because some of the clusters contained insufficient households to complete the walking path, particularly when substitutions were necessary.

7 Sumner, William Graham, Folkways (Boston: Dover Publications, 1906), 13.Google Scholar

8 For example, see: Murphey, Gardner, Murphy, L. B. and Newcomb, J. M., Experimental Social Psychology (rev. ed.; New York: Greenwood Press, Inc., 1937)Google Scholar; Levinson, Daniel J. and Sanford, R. N., “A Scale for the Measurement of Anti-Semitism,” Journal of Psychology (1944), 339–70Google Scholar; Allport, Gordon W., The ABC's of Scapegoating (New York, 1948).Google Scholar For more recent Canadian data see Scott, William A., “Psychological and Social Correlates of International Images,” In Kelman, Herbert C. (ed.), International Behavior (New York, 1965), 71–103.Google Scholar

9 Adorno, T. W., Frankel-Brunswick, Else, Levinson, Daniel J. and Sanford, R. Nevit, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Norton, 1950).Google Scholar

10 For example, see: Doob, Leonard W., Patriotism and Nationalism: Their Psychological Foundations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Fensterwald, Bernard Jr., “The Anatomy of American Isolationism and Expansionism, Part II,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 2 (1958), 295Google Scholar; Kohn, Hans, The Idea of Nationalism (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc., 1944), 20Google Scholar; Roseblatt, Paul C., “Origins and Effects of Group Ethnocentrism and Nationalism,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 8 (1964), 131–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Bay, Christianet at., Nationalism: A Study of Identifications with People and Power (Oslo, 1950)Google Scholar; LeVine, Robert A. and Campbell, Donald T., Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes, and Group Behavior (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1972)Google Scholar; Perry, Stewart, “Notes on the Role of the National,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 1 (1957), 346–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The equation with ethnocentrism is also indicative of the generally negative outlook that prevailed towards nationalism in the post-war years. For a capsule description, see Symmons-Symonolewicz, Konstantin, Modern Nationalism: Toward a Consensus in Theory (New York: Maplewood Press, 1968), 11–23.Google Scholar

12 Levinson, Daniel J., “Authoritarian Personality and Foreign Policy,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 1 (1957), 38.Google Scholar Rosenblatt, while admitting the conceptual parallel, goes on to point out that “nationalism, more often than ethnocentrism, involves loyalty to a politically distinct entity, membership in an elaborately organized and relatively populous social grouping, adherence to a formalized ideology, and performance of relatively stereotyped allegiance-expressing behavior.” In “Origins and Effects of Group Ethnocentrism and Nationalism,” 131.

13 For example, see: Hayes, Carlton J. H., Nationalism: A Religion (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; Minogue, K. R., Nationalism (New York: Basic Books, 1967)Google Scholar; Shafer, Boyd C., Faces of Nationalism (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1972)Google Scholar; Snyder, Louis L., The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick: Greenwood Press, Inc., 1954).Google Scholar

14 Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism,. 11.

15 Shafer, Boyd C., Nationalism: Myth and Reality (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1955), 15.Google Scholar

16 Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture (Princeton: Little, Brown & Co., 1963), 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Levinson, “Authoritarian Personality and Foreign Policy,” 42.

18 Deutsch, Karl W., Nationalism and Social Communication (New Haven: MIT Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Nationalism and its Alternatives (New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 1969).

19 For similar findings, see Johnstone, John C., Young People's Images of Canadian Society (Ottawa, 1969).Google Scholar

20 Examples of the semantic differential technique for the measurement of person perception generally and group images specifically include: Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. and Tannenbaum, P. H., The Measurement of Meaning (Urbana: Illinois University Press, 1957)Google Scholar; Osgood, C. E. and Stagner, R., “Impact of War on a Nationalistic Frame of Reference,” Journal of Social Psychology 24 (1946), 187–215Google Scholar; Warr, Peter B. and Knapper, Christopher, The Perception of People and Events (London: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1968)Google Scholar; Willis, Richard H., “Ethnic and National Images: People Versus Nations,” Public Opinion Quarterly 32 (1968–69), 186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For Canadian examples, see: Gardner, R. C., Wonnacott, E. J., and Taylor, D. M., “Ethnic Stereotypes: A Factor Analytic Study,” Canadian Journal of Psychology 22 (1968), 35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gardner, R. C., Taylor, D. M. and Feenstra, H. J., “Ethnic Stereotypes: Attitudes or Beliefs?” Canadian Journal of Psychology 24 (1970), 321–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Snider, James D., “Profiles and Some Stereotypes Held by Ninth-Grade Pupils,” in Snider, James G. and Osgood, Charles E. (eds.), Semantic Differential Technique: A Sourcebook (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1969), 493–502.Google Scholar

21 Given the abstractness of the respondent's task, the response rate of 94 to 96 per cent for the semantic differential scales was very satisfactory.

22 The safe-dangerous scale provides an example; in semantic evaluations of the United States this scale was at best ambiguously linked to other images of the American society.

23 Sumner, Folkways, 11–12.

24 Campbell, Donald T. and LeVine, Robert A., “A Proposal for Cooperative Cross-Cultural Research on Ethnocentrism,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 5 (1961), 82–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 For example, see: James E. Brinton, “Deriving an Attitude Scale from Semantic Differential Data,” in Snider and Osgood (eds.), Semantic Differential Technique, 467–73; Diab, L. N., “Studies in Social Attitude: III: Attitude Assessment through Semantic Differential,” Journal of Social Psychology 67 (1965), 303–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 For a discussion of the relative merits of this scaling technique, see Selitiz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M. and Cook, S. W., “Attitude Scaling,” in Jahoda, Marie and Warren, Neil (eds.), Attitudes (Baltimore: Penguin, 1966), 305–24.Google Scholar The split-half reliability coefficients, corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula, were as follows: Canadians .89; French Canadians .84; Americans .77; Canada .69; Quebec .68; United States .58.

27 Fensterwald Jr., “The Anatomy of American Isolationism and Expansionism,” 290.

28 For a further perspective on the nation as an ingroup, see Forbes, H. D., “Two Approaches to the Psychology of Nationalism,” Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism 2 (1974), 177.Google Scholar

29 Levinson, “Authoritarian Personality and Foreign Policy,” 42.

30 Adorno et al., The Authoritarian Personality, 102.

31 The general factor analysis programme employed was that found in Nie, Norman H., Bent, Dale H. and Hull, C. Hadlai, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970).Google Scholar The specific programme was principal factoring with iteration and varimax rotation.

32 Forbes, “Two Approaches to the Psychology of Nationalism,” 173.

33 Lane, Robert E., Political Ideology (New York: Free Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Political Thinking and Consciousness (Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1969).

34 Converse, “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” 211.

35 See Cuneo, Carl J., “Education, Language and Multidimensional Continentalism,” this Journal 7 (1974), 536–49.Google Scholar

36 Of the forty-five-item intercorrelations, only four were not significant at the .05 level of confidence. When the original fourteen-item pool was factor-analyzed, only one factor emerged with an eigenvalue greater than one; this factor accounted for 56.5 per cent of the total variance in the item pool. Of the ten items included in the American antipathy index, nine were significantly correlated to this first factor, the sole exception being the desirability of Canadian content regulations for radio broadcasts.

37 Of the forty-five-item intercorrelations, only one was not significant at the .05 level of confidence. When the original eleven-item pool was factory-analyzed, only one factor emerged with an eigenvalue greater than one; this factor accounted for 66.5 per cent of the total variance in the item pool. Of the ten items in the Quebec antipathy index, eight were significantly correlated to this factor.

38 The mean item intercorrelation of the six items was=r=. 124; of the fifteen intercorrelations, nine were insignificant at the .05 level of confidence.

39 Of the twenty-eight index item intercorrelations, only four were not significant at the .05 level of confidence. When the original fifteen-item pool was factor-analyzed, two factors emerged with an eigenvalue greater than one. All eight items in the Western alienation index and only those eight were strongly correlated with the first factor, which accounted for 47.1 per cent of the total variance in the item pool.

40 The existence of multiple nationalist ideologies, reflective of distinct political traditions but co-terminous within the same state, has been noted before. See Smiley, Donald, “Canada and the Quest for a National Policy,” this Journal 8 (1975), 40–62.Google Scholar

41 Converse, “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” 251.

42 Lane, Political Ideology, 16.

43 See McRae, K. D. (ed.), Consociational Democracy: Political Accommodation in Segmented Societies (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Ltd., 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simeon, Richard and Elkins, David J., “Regional Political Cultures in Canada,” this Journal 7 (1974), 431.Google Scholar

44 See also: Converse, “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” 211–12; Levinson, “Authoritarian Personality and Foreign Policy,” passim.

45 See “The Normality of Prejudgment,” in Allport, Gordon W., The Nature of Prejudice (New York: Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1958)Google Scholar, chap. 2.

46 Trudeau, Pierre E., Federalism and the French Canadians (Toronto: Macmillan, 1968), 193.Google Scholar

47 Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York and London: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960)Google Scholar; Converse, “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” 217–19; Lane, Robert E. and Sears, David O., Public Opinion (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), 81ff.Google Scholar; Pomper, Gerald M., Elections in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1968).Google Scholar