Most theoretical and empirical approaches to nationalism not only distinguish between ethnic and civic notions of national belonging but also differentiate national identity from national hubris, pride, and attachment. In this research note, we examine recently published research on nationalist sentiments in the United States that takes a different approach. The study in question, ‘Varieties of American Popular Nationalism' by Bonikowski and DiMaggio (2016), has already become quite influential in the field and has the potential to change how we conceptualise and operationalise attitudes about the nation. In this research note, we revisit its analytical strategy and exploratory methods. We ask two questions. First, does this study allow us to draw conclusions about American nationalism? To answer this, we replicate the original model and then execute additional postestimation analyses, whose results undermine the study's main conclusions. Second, we investigate whether judicious revisions to the study's model generate results that would lead us to the article's same conclusions. The 385 additional models lend no support. Based on this evidence, we argue that the original study's conclusions stem from a misinterpretation of its latent class analysis (LCA), as our own analyses demonstrate that there is no empirical basis for its claims.

中文翻译：

---

识别民族主义的多样性：对纯粹归纳方法的批判

民族主义的大多数理论和实证方法不仅区分民族归属的种族和公民概念，而且区分民族认同与民族狂妄、骄傲和依恋。在本研究报告中，我们研究了最近发表的关于美国民族主义情绪的研究，该研究采用了不同的方法。Bonikowski 和 DiMaggio（2016 年）的研究“美国流行民族主义的多样性”已经在该领域产生了相当大的影响，并有可能改变我们如何概念化和实施对国家的态度。在本研究报告中，我们重新审视了其分析策略和探索方法。我们问两个问题。首先，这项研究是否能让我们得出关于美国民族主义的结论？要回答这个问题，我们复制原始模型，然后执行额外的后估计分析，其结果破坏了研究的主要结论。其次，我们调查对研究模型的明智修改是否会产生导致我们得出文章相同结论的结果。385 个附加型号不提供支持。基于这一证据，我们认为原始研究的结论源于对其潜在类别分析 (LCA) 的误解，因为我们自己的分析表明其主张没有经验基础。