Dialect Speakers Report Stronger Regional Social Identity Than non-Dialect Speakers in Sweden

Abstract

Previous research on the relationship between language and social identity has mainly focused on national or ethnic groups. Here, we investigated this relationship at the intra-national level in Sweden by exploring whether regional social identity was stronger among dialect speakers compared to non-speakers, and how it varies across regions. Additionally, we examined the association of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) with regional social identity and dialect knowledge to measure individual differences that could be interlinked with social identity. Swedish residents (N = 840) reported their regional identity, dialect knowledge, completed measures of regional social identity, and filled out the RWA and SDO scales. Results indicated that dialect speakers reported higher regional social identity than non-speakers. Regional social identity was higher in Norrland compared to Mid Sweden and Stockholm, but otherwise similar across the country. Regional social identity correlated positively with RWA, but in non-dialect speakers only, and negatively with SDO for all speakers. These findings suggest a correlation between dialect knowledge and regional social identity, but also that the relationship between regional social identity and RWA varies based on dialect knowledge, highlighting the complex interplay between language, identity, and personality.

Keywords

regional dialects regional social identity right-wing authoritarianism social dominance orientation

Language is deeply intertwined with various aspects of our lives, including our social identity, which the social identity theory defines as “that part of an individual's self-concept which derives from his [or her] knowledge of his [or her] membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63). While social identity can be based on various factors such as gender, age, or ethnicity, research suggests that language (including accents and dialects) can be a particularly salient marker of social identity (e.g., Kinzler, 2021; Kinzler et al., 2007, 2010). This aligns with the ethnolinguistic identity theory (Giles & Johnson, 1987), which extends the social identity theory to linguistic groups specifically, positing, among other things, that language is a key marker of social group membership that can be more or less salient in different contexts and can be used to accentuate or attenuate group differences and social identity boundaries. Numerous sociolinguistic studies using different tasks, contexts, and populations support the notion that language is central to social identity (e.g., Botsis et al., 2022; Champoux-Larsson et al., 2022; Dehghani et al., 2015; Dragojevic et al., 2018; Jensen et al., 2015; Jones, 2001; Kim-Bossard & Badenhorst, 2023; Lauring, 2008; Lorenzoni et al., 2021; Pietraszewski & Schwartz, 2014; Rakić et al., 2011; Tong et al., 1999: see Fuertes et al., 2012 for a meta-analysis). However, much of this work has focused on ethnic or national identities, with few studies examining the relationship between linguistic varieties and regional identities within a nation.

Although the overlap is not necessarily perfect, regions within a country are often associated with a specific language variation, namely a regional dialect. While direct evidence is limited, existing findings suggest that knowing a regional dialect is associated with a stronger sense of regional social identity. For instance, in a recent study, Alshehri and AlShabeb (2024) found that Arabic speakers actively strive to use a dialect that aligns with their social background and identity, reinforcing their social identity through language. However, this study did not directly investigate whether the strength of social identity was associated with regional dialects use.

Similarly, an earlier study by Abrams and Hogg (1987) found that Scottish teenagers exhibited ingroup favoritism towards fellow Scottish-accented speakers over speakers of other English variations. Notably, this preference was proportional to the strength of their social identity with Scotland. In other words, the stronger the participants’ Scottish identity, the more they preferred Scottish-accented speakers. However, this study did not measure participants’ social identity towards Scotland directly, nor their dialect use.

A related finding comes from Frendreis and Tatalovich (2023), who examined attitudes toward English-only language policies in the US. They found that support of English-only language policies (i.e., a preference for their language variation) was associated with stronger feelings of national identity. Again, this study also suggests that a strong sense of social identity is related to language use. However, as with the other studies presented above, the specific relationship between the strength of social identity and knowledge of a specific language variation was not investigated. Taken together, these studies suggest that language variations can be associated with social identity, but it remains to be explored at the intra-national level whether there is an association between knowing a regional dialect and the strength of regional social identity.

However, social identity, such as identification with a region or a dialect, does not occur in a vacuum. Individual differences are also intertwined with social identity and perception of ingroups and outgroups (Banyasz et al., 2016; Hanson et al., 2021; Heaven & Quintin, 2003; Osborne et al., 2017; Peitz et al., 2018, but see Reynolds et al., 2007), and people vary in the extent to which they value conformity, group cohesion and hierarchy, which influences the strength of social identity. Two properties at the individual level that are linked to social identity are right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). According to the dual process model, these two concepts independently foster ingroup and outgroup perceptions (Duckitt, 2001).

RWA, a concept introduced by Altemeyer (1981), refers to an individual's relation to the ingroup, consisting of three components: conventional thoughts and attitudes, submission to authorities, and authoritarian aggression. SDO, developed by Sidanius and Pratto (1999), refers to the extent to which an individual “endorses, desires, and supports a system of group-based social hierarchy” (p. 39). While RWA seems to stem from a worldview that the world is a dangerous place and is evoked by perceptions of threat to one's group (Duckitt, 2001), SDO stems from a worldview that the world is a competitive jungle and is particularly related to the status of one's group.

Research has repeatedly found positive relationships between RWA and ingroup favoritism, such as patriotism and nationalism (Duckitt & Sibley, 2016; Osborne et al., 2017; Vargas-Salfate et al., 2020), as well as ethnic and religious identity (Sibley et al., 2006). Relatedly, the ethnolinguistic identity theory suggests that people with a strong ethnolinguistic identity tend to conform to their linguistic group's norms more than to overarching societal norms (Giles & Johnson, 1987), suggesting a positive correlation between this tendency to conform to their linguistic group's norms and RWA. However, this is not known and needs to be investigated.

SDO has also been consistently found to be related to ingroup perceptions, such as religious and ethnic identity (Sibley et al., 2006); however, these relationships appear to be qualified by the group's status. Specifically, a study by Levin and Sidanius (1999) found that SDO correlated positively with social identity in high-status groups but negatively in low-status groups. Regarding dialects, while the “standard” form of a language (i.e., “the variety that has undergone a process of standardization, during which it is organized for description in grammars and dictionaries and encoded in such reference works” and that is “used by a group of people in their public discourse—newspapers, radio broadcasts, political speeches, college and university lectures, and so on”: Finegan, 2008, p. 14) tends to be attributed higher status by speakers of that variety and speakers of other varieties, speakers of lower status dialects tend to be more loyal to their own language variety (e.g., Luhman, 1990).

Analogous to conceptualizations of national identification, where a critical distinction has been made between nationalism and patriotism (Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989), regional identification may stem from similar sources. While nationalism reflects a belief in the superiority of one's group, patriotism captures people's attachment to their group (Osbourne et al., 2017). While nationalism most often is found to positively correlate with outgroup bias (for a summary of findings, see Osbourne et al., 2017), patriotism is not (Parker, 2010; Wagner et al., 2012). Thus, regional identity could be conceptualized as a belief in one's region and dialect as superior to other regions and dialects, or it could be viewed as a feeling of attachment and pride in one's own region and dialect, regardless of its status. If people who strongly identify with their dialect and attribute higher status to their group, they may also exhibit higher SDO. On the other hand, if identification sooner is based on feelings of attachment and pride towards one's region and dialect, regardless of status, a positive correlation with SDO is not expected. In fact, a negative correlation could be expected given that patriotism often has been found to be associated with various prosocial outcomes, such as multiculturalism and immigration (Ariely, 2012; Spry & Hornsey, 2007).

Linguistic Context of the Study

In Sweden, regional dialects, namely variations of the Swedish language within given geographic areas (Institutet för språk och folkminnen [Isof], 2020), remain common today and can be heard even on national television or radio (Thelander, 2011). The exact number of regional dialects currently spoken in Sweden is virtually impossible to determine due to considerable variation both across and within different regions throughout the country (Isof, 2021). However, Swedish dialects are generally clustered into six dialect groups: Svealand Swedish (which is further divided into Upper Swedish and Central Swedish), Götaland Swedish, South Swedish, Norrland Swedish, Gotland Swedish, and East Swedish (which is only spoken in parts of Finland and Estonia: Bergman, 2013, p. 220).

While dialects differed the most in terms of pronunciation, vocabulary, and conjugation during the 1800s and early 1900s (Isof, 2022), over time, they gradually became less distinctive (Thelander, 2011). This change was due to factors such as rural-to-urban migration, the increased use of standardized Swedish in the media (e.g., radio, newspapers, television), and the establishment of compulsory schooling, where language was also standardized (Bergman, 2013, pp. 185–186). Despite these influences, dialects in Sweden continue to display distinct pronunciation, vocabulary, and conjugation, particularly in rural areas (Bergman, 2013, p. 219). As in other languages, “standard” Swedish has been influenced by regional dialects spoken in or near the capital (Bergman, 2013, p. 219). However, it is noteworthy that other regional dialects, such as Norrland Swedish, have also contributed to the development of standard Swedish, despite their considerable geographical distance from each other (Bergman, 2013, p. 190).

Aims

This study aims to expand the current body of knowledge on social identity and language by exploring them in an intra-national context. Namely, our goal is to investigate the relationship between regional dialects and regional social identity by (i) determining whether people knowing a regional dialect experience stronger regional social identity, (ii) determine whether the strength of regional social identity varies across regions in Sweden between speakers and non-speakers of a regional dialect¹, and (iii) whether individual factors (RWA and SDO) correlate with regional social identity for speakers and non-speakers of a regional dialect. We hypothesize that, since regional dialects are assumed to be a strong marker of regional social identity, people who know the regional dialect of the region they identify with will also have a stronger regional social identity. However, we do not present a specific hypothesis related to finding differences in regional social identity across different regions of Sweden as this aim is exploratory. On the other hand, we expect RWA to correlate positively with regional social identity, particularly among speakers of a regional dialect, as higher RWA is associated with stronger conformity to the group and a strong ethnolinguistic identity is known to foster greater adherence to group norms. Finally, regarding SDO, either a positive or a negative correlation could be expected, as a regional identity, like national identity, could be based either on a notion of superiority of or attachment towards the region. Since there is a lack of research linking RWA and SDO to regional identification, these hypotheses must be seen as merely exploratory.

Method

Participants

Adults across Sweden were recruited online through Qualtrics’ data collection service. While we were aiming for a sample size of 800 participants to ensure broad representation across Sweden with the practical goal of having enough participants from each area to conduct meaningful subgroup analyses, a total of 840 participants completed the study (M_age = 45.8 years, SD_age = 16.4 years, range: 18–84 years). Gender was equally distributed across men (49.5%, n = 416) and women (49.8%, n = 418), with the remaining participants reporting being non-binary, identifying as another gender, being unsure, or preferring not to answer (0.7%, n = 6). The mode for the highest completed education level was 4 (n = 214, 3 years or more of high school), with two other peaks at 8 (n = 130, 3 years or more of university studies) and 9 (n = 129, 4 years or more of university studies) on a scale from 1 (less than 9 years of elementary school) to 10 (doctoral studies). A total of 509 participants reported knowing a regional dialect. On a scale from 0 to 100, the mean self-rated oral comprehension score was 86.4 (SD = 18.4) and the mean self-rated oral production score was 77.4 (SD = 23.9). Most participants had Swedish or a regional variation as their only first language (n = 704, 83.8%) or one of their first languages (n = 39, 4.6%). Swedish was not a first language for 88 participants (10.5%), and nine participants (1.1%) refrained from providing this information or provided an answer that could not be interpreted (e.g., mother tongue). Most participants reported being born in Sweden (n = 767, 91.3%), with the remaining 73 participants reporting being born abroad (8.7%). Forty-eight participants (5.7%) reported not growing up mainly in Sweden, and 17 (2%) reported not spending most of their adulthood in Sweden. However, all participants currently lived in Sweden and reported feeling a sense of belonging to a Swedish region.

To make data manageable and meaningful, regions (participants could choose from 27 different regions) were grouped based on the Swedish dialect areas found in Sweden (i.e., Upper, Central, Götaland, South, Norrland, and Gotland Swedish) in addition to the two largest cities of Sweden (i.e., Stockholm and Gothenburg). Although dialect groups do not necessarily completely overlap with the different regions, each region is often characterized by a main dialect. Thus, regions were clustered into dialect groups based on the main dialect found in this region. The main dialects for each region are thus Norrland dialects for Norrland, Upper dialects for Mid Sweden, Götaland dialects for West Sweden, Central dialects for East Sweden, South dialects for South Sweden, Gotland dialects for Gotland, Gothenburg dialects for Gothenburg, and Stockholm dialects for Stockholm (see Figure 1 and Table S1 the Supplementary Materials for more information on how the 27 regions were grouped into eight overarching regions including the number of participants in each original region). In our sample, 98 felt a connection to Norrland (11.7%), 119 to Mid Sweden (14.2%), 136 to West Sweden (16.2%), 111 to East Sweden (13.2%), 7 to Gotland (0.8%), 152 to South Sweden (18.1%), 44 to Gothenburg (5.2%), and 173 to Stockholm (20.6%). For detailed participant demographics by region, refer to Table 1.

Figure 1.

The eight overarching regions.

Table 1.

Demographics by Region.

Region	Age^aM(SD)	Gender^b(%)			Education^c(%)
Region	Age^aM(SD)	Male	Female	Non-Binary/Other	Elementary	Gymnasium	Post-Gymnasium	University
Norrland	46.7 (15.5)	48	51	1	11.2	35.7	11.2	41.8
Mid Sweden	44.5 (16.3)	55	45	–	8.4	42	16	33.6
West Sweden	45.9 (16.6)	51	49	–	5.1	39.7	13.2	41.9
East Sweden	47.7 (16.2)	51	49	–	2.7	39.6	20.7	36.9
South Sweden	45.1 (16.1)	46	53	1	3.9	40.1	17.8	38.2
Gotland	45.3 (17.5)	29	71	–	–	71.4	–	28.6
Gothenburg	43.5 (14.8)	27	73	–	4.5	27.3	20.5	47.7
Stockholm	45.9 (17.7)	54	45	1	5.2	25.4	16.2	53.2

Note. This table summarizes the demographic variables by region used in the analyses. Participants from the region Gotland were excluded from analyses where the region was included as a variable, due to the small number of participants from that area.

^aAge is reported in years.

^bFor gender, participants could select male, female, non-binary, other, unsure/do not know, or prefer not to answer. Due to the small number of participants in the non-binary, other, unsure/do not know, or prefer not to answer categories, these responses were grouped as “non-binary / Other.”

^cFor education, participants selected from 10 response options, which were grouped for readability as follows: Elementary (Elementary school or equivalent less than 9 years; Elementary school or equivalent 9 years or more), Gymnasium (Gymnasium or equivalent less than 3 years; Gymnasium or equivalent 3 years or more), Post-gymnasium (Post-gymnasium or equivalent [non-university] less than 3 years; Post-gymnasium or equivalent [non-university] 3 years or more), and University (University less than 3 years; University 3 years or more but less than 4 years; University 4 years or more; Doctoral studies).

We collected data online between November 2022 and December 2022. Participants were informed about the study's general aim, procedure, how data would be handled and presented, voluntariness of participation and their right to withdraw from the study at any time. They provided informed consent upon participation directly in the survey. Participants were compensated for their participation through Qualtrics data collection service. This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and adhered to best practices for informed consent, data protection, and participant confidentiality. Following the Swedish Act concerning the Ethical Review of Research Involving Humans (SFS 2003:460, 2003), which does not require ethical approval for studies (such as the current one) that are anonymous, non-interventional, and do not collect sensitive data, no application for ethical review was necessary.

Measures

Modified (Regional) Social Identity Scale

We modified the 12-item Social Identity Scale (α = .83) by Cameron (2004) to fit our research question (i.e., investigating social identity for a specific region, which we henceforth call regional social identity). The scale consists of three dimensions related to social identity: ingroup ties, centrality, and ingroup affect. Ingroup ties refer to how much a person feels attached to the group, either in terms of feeling a strong sense of belonging to the group or feeling “trapped” in it. Centrality refers to the frequency with which a person thinks about their association with their social group and how significant that identity is to the individual's self-identity. Ingroup affect regards the feelings and emotions that a person feels concerning belonging to their social group, either positive or negative. Each dimension is measured by four items (e.g., I have a lot in common with other [ingroup members] for the ingroup ties dimension), where two of them are reversed for each dimension (e.g., I don’t feel good about being a [ingroup member] for ingroup affect). Items were translated from English to Swedish by the first author, and the wording of the items was somewhat modified so that it would be grammatically compatible with how the different regions are expressed. Specifically, the region that the participant had indicated as being the region they identified the most with was inserted directly into the items. For instance, for a participant selecting Stockholm as the region they identified the most with, all items referred specifically to this region (e.g., I feel a strong bond with everyone who is from Stockholm), while for a participant who had selected another region, for instance Jämtland, all items related directly to that region (e.g., I feel a strong bond with everyone who is from Jämtland). Both authors then compared the Swedish version to the original version. Items were further modified and improved until clarity and comprehensibility were deemed satisfactory (see the Supplementary Materials for the items in Swedish). Items are answered on a 7-step scale from Do not agree at all to Completely agree. In our sample, Cronbach's alpha was .88, which corresponds to a good internal consistency. To ensure that the factor structure of this modified version was similar to the original version, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis testing the three-factor structure. The three-factor structure was supported, and internal consistencies were satisfactory for all subscales (α = .77 - .82). The model and full results are reported in the Supplementary Materials.

Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale

We used a validated Swedish short version of the RWA scale (Zakrisson, 2005) in this study (α = .72). This version of the scale consists of 15 items that have been modified to address some of the issues with the original RWA scale (e.g., long and ambiguous items, harsh extreme wording). Eight of the items are statements where a positive attitude towards them indicates high RWA (e.g., The ‘‘old-fashioned ways’’ and ‘‘old-fashioned values’’ still show the best way to live) and seven of the items are reversed so that a positive attitude towards the items indicates low RWA (e.g., It is better to accept bad literature than to censor it). Items are answered on a 7-step scale from Very negative to Very positive. In our sample, Cronbach's alpha was .71, which corresponds to an acceptable internal consistency similar to the value of the validated scale.

Social Dominance Orientation Scale

We used a Swedish version of the SDO scale from Zakrisson (2008) in this study (α = .79). The scale consists of 14 items where high ratings on half the statements (e.g., Some people are just more worthy than others) indicate high SDO, and high ratings on half the statements (e.g., All humans should be treated equally) indicate low SDO. Items are answered on a 7-step scale from Very negative to Very positive. In our sample, Cronbach's alpha was .90, which corresponds to an excellent internal consistency.

Design

After providing informed consent, participants chose the Swedish region to which they felt the strongest sense of belonging (i.e., “Which area do you identify with the most, regardless of where you were born, grew up, have lived, or currently live?”) by selecting one of the 25 Swedish regions, Stockholm, or Gothenburg from a list sorted in alphabetical order. Afterwards, they described in a few words (3 to 5 words) what they found to be the most positive about the people of the region they chose and, afterwards, what they found to be the most negative about the people of the region they chose (the order of the questions about positive and negative characteristics was counterbalanced across participants). These questions were asked to elicit thoughts and feelings about the people from the selected region before answering the social identity scale. Then, the 12 items of the social identity scale were presented in random order. Participants then provided information on which region they were born in, spent most of their childhood in, spent most of their adulthood in, and which one they live in today. They then answered whether they knew a regional dialect related to the region to which they felt the strongest sense of belonging (by selecting “yes” or “no”). Participants who knew a regional dialect provided information on which dialect, how well they spoke the dialect on a scale from 0 (I do not understand a single word) to 100 (I can speak the dialect without needing to complete with Swedish words) and on how well they understood the dialect on a scale from 0 (I do not understand a single word) to 100 (I understand all the words). Afterwards, participants filled out the RWA and SDO questionnaires. The questions of both scales were presented together in a randomized order. Three attention-check questions (e.g., Please choose the alternative “neither or” here) were inserted randomly throughout the survey (one amongst the regional social identity questions and two in total amongst the RWA and SDO questions). All participants answered the attention-check questions correctly. Finally, participants provided information about their gender, age, highest completed level of education, and first language(s).

Analysis

Knowledge of a Regional Dialect and Regional Social Identity

To determine whether participants who spoke a regional dialect reported a stronger regional social identity than participants who did not know a regional dialect (Aim 1), the means of the total regional social identity for each group were compared. A Shapiro–Wilk test showed that normality could not be assumed (p < .001) and a one-tailed Mann–Whitney test was therefore conducted. To break down the result of this analysis and control whether the subscales behaved similarly to the total regional social identity score, a one-way MANOVA using Pillai's trace test was conducted with knowledge of a dialect as independent variable and the scores of each subscale (i.e., ingroup ties, centrality, ingroup affect) as dependent variables. For exploratory purposes, we also conducted a one-tailed correlation analysis between the total regional social identity score of participants knowing a regional dialect and their self-reported mean of proficiency for a regional dialect (i.e., mean of self-reported oral production and of oral comprehension from 0 to 100). The Shapiro–Wilk test was significant, suggesting that data were not normally distributed. Therefore, a Spearman test was conducted. This was to explore whether a better knowledge of a regional dialect correlates with a stronger regional social identity, where we expected a positive correlation.

Variation of Regional Social Identity and Dialect Knowledge Across Regions

To determine whether the relationship between knowing a regional dialect and regional social identity varied across different regions (Aim 2), we performed a two-way between-subjects ANOVA with knowledge of a regional dialect (yes, no) and the different regions as the independent variables and the total regional social identity score as the dependent variable. Note that the region of Gotland is not included in this analysis due to the small number of participants who reported identifying with this region (n = 7). In the case of a significant main effect of regions and/or a significant interaction effect between knowledge of an accent and regions, this relationship will be unpacked with pairwise comparisons using a Bonferroni correction.

Dialect Knowledge and Regional Social Identity Related to Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation

We investigated whether there was a relationship between the total regional social identity score and RWA as well as SDO, and whether knowing a regional dialect moderated this relationship (Aim 3). We conducted a multiple linear regression with regional social identity as the outcome variable and RWA, SDO, dialect knowledge (dummy coded: 1 = knowledge, 0 = no knowledge), gender (dummy coded: 1 = female, 0 = male), and their interactions as predictors. All scale scores were standardized (z-scores). Because research suggests that, compared to men, women tend to exhibit lower levels of SDO (e.g., Heaven & Bucci, 2001; Levin, 2004; Pratto et al., 2000; Schmitt & Wirth, 2009; Zakrisson, 2008), but that the strength of SDO is moderated by the strength of social identity where stronger social identity correlates positively with SDO in males but negatively in females (Wilson & Liu, 2003), gender was included in this model (only participants who reported identifying as male or female were used in this analysis). A one-tailed independent samples Mann–Whitney U test confirmed this difference in our sample with males (n = 416, M = 2.99, SD = 1.08) having higher SDO scores than females (n = 418, M = 2.5, SD = 0.95), U = 109,517, p < .001, r = .26. To examine whether the effects of RWA and SDO on regional social identity were modulated by dialect knowledge, we included the RWA × dialect knowledge and SDO × dialect knowledge interactions. Additionally, we included a gender × SDO interaction to explore whether gender moderated the relationship between SDO and regional social identity. Since a one-tailed independent samples Mann–Whitney U test showed no significant difference in RWA scores between males (M = 3.64, SD = 0.76) and females (M = 3.66, SD = 0.74), U = 86,905, p = .505, r = .04, the interaction between gender and RWA was not added to the model. These interaction terms tested whether the impact of RWA and SDO on regional social identity varied based on dialect knowledge and gender. All analyses were performed in JASP version 0.17.2.1 (JASP Team, 2023).

Results

Knowledge of a Regional Dialect and Regional Social Identity

Our first aim was to determine whether people who know a regional dialect experience stronger regional social identity, hypothesizing that they would. The one-tailed Mann–Whitney U test with the total regional social identity score as a dependent variable showed that participants who knew a regional dialect (n = 509, M = 5.19, SD = 0.98) had significantly higher scores than participants who did not know a regional dialect (n = 331, M = 4.81, SD = 1.01), U = 64,587, p < .001, r = .23. This suggests a small but significant difference between the groups.

However, since older participants could be more likely to know a regional dialect than younger participants, we controlled whether a significant age difference between the speakers and non-speakers could explain this effect. A Shapiro–Wilk test showed that normality could not be assumed (p < .001), and a one-tailed Mann–Whitney U test was therefore conducted. The analysis showed no significant difference in mean age between participants who reported knowledge of a regional dialect (M = 46.3 years, SD = 16.5 years) and those who reported not knowing a regional dialect (M = 45.1 years, SD = 16.3 years), U = 80,818, p = .16.

Furthermore, we examined whether the significant difference between speakers and non-speakers could be attributed to the proportion of their lives spent in the region they identified with most. Indeed, spending a greater proportion of one's life in a particular region likely increases both the likelihood of speaking the regional dialect and feeling a stronger regional social identity with that region. To account for this, we created a region index ranging from 0 to 4, reflecting the extent to which participants’ life experiences aligned with the region they identified most with. Specifically, we used the four questions regarding where participants were born, where they spent most of their childhood, where they spent most of their adulthood, and where they currently lived. For each question, a score of 1 was assigned if the region matched the one they identified most with, and a score of 0 if it did not. These scores were then summed to create a region index representing the degree of life spent in the identified region. A region index score of 0 thus represents a participant who identifies with a region they were neither born in, mostly grew up in, spent most of their adulthood in, nor currently live in. Conversely, a region index score of 4 indicates that the participant was born, mostly raised, spent most of their adulthood, and currently resides in the same region they identify with most. The mode for the region index was 4 (n = 461). A one-tailed Spearman correlation between the region score and regional social identity was not significant, r_s(838) = .027, p = .215, suggesting that the region index cannot explain a stronger regional social identity.

Having controlled for potential confounding variables for the total regional social identity score, we turned our attention to the subscales to verify that the effect was not driven by only one or two of the subscales. The one-way MANOVA using Pillai's trace test with knowledge of a dialect as independent variable and the scores of each subscale (i.e., ingroup ties, centrality, ingroup affect) as dependent variables showed a significant difference between the groups (with vs. without knowledge of a dialect) as well, F(3, 836) = 9.97, p < .001, Pillai's trace = .04, where all subscales were significantly different between them. Specifically, participants who knew a regional dialect (M = 5.07, SD = 1.15) had significantly higher scores on the ingroup ties subscale than participants who did not know a regional dialect (M = 4.72, SD = 1.18), F (1, 838) = 17.74, p < .001, η² = .02. For the centrality subscale, participants who knew a regional dialect (M = 4.63, SD = 1.27) had significantly higher scores than participants who did not know a regional dialect (M = 4.18, SD = 1.28), F (1, 838) = 25.38, p < .001, η² = .03. For the ingroup affect subscale, participants who knew a regional dialect (M = 5.86, SD = 1.07) had significantly higher scores than participants who did not know a regional dialect (M = 5.52, SD = 1.14), F (1, 838) = 19.03, p < .001, η² = .02. All effect sizes suggest small effects.

Our exploratory correlation analysis between regional social identity and dialect proficiency for participants knowing a dialect (n = 509) was significant, r_s(507) = .148, p < .001. This suggests a weak positive correlation between regional social identity and proficiency, where regional social identity's strength increases as self-reported proficiency increases.

Variation of Regional Social Identity and Dialect Knowledge Across Regions

Our second aim was to explore whether the strength of regional social identity varies across regions in Sweden between speakers and non-speakers of a regional dialect, with no specific hypothesis for the outcome of the analyses. The two-way between-subjects ANOVA with knowledge of a regional dialect (yes, no) and the different regions as the independent variables and the total regional social identity score as the dependent variable showed a small significant main effect of the region, F(6, 819) = 3.35, p = .003, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02. As expected based on the results presented above, the main effect of knowledge of a regional dialect was also small but significant, F(1, 819) = 31.05, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04, where participants with knowledge of a regional dialect (n = 502, M = 5.19, SD = 0.98) had higher scores than participants without knowledge of a regional dialect (n = 331, M = 4.81, SD = 1.01). However, the interaction between the region and knowledge of a regional dialect was not significant, F(6, 819) = 1.69, p = .121, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01.

To ensure that the significant main effect of region was not confounded by age differences across regions, given that older participants may be more likely to report a stronger regional social identity, we conducted a one-way ANOVA with region as the independent variable and age as the dependent variable. The analysis revealed no significant age differences between regions, F(6, 826) = 0.607, p = .725 (see Table 1 for the mean age per region).

After controlling for age, we used pairwise comparisons to unpack the main effect of region. They showed that participants from Norrland (M = 5.32, SD = 0.97) had a stronger regional social identity to their region than participants from Mid Sweden (M = 4.83, SD = 0.99, p = .045) and from Stockholm (M = 4.83, SD = 1.03, p = .042). All other differences were non-significant (see Table S3 in the Supplementary Materials for all means and standard deviations for all non-significant comparisons).

Dialect Knowledge and Regional Social Identity Related to Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation

Our third aim was to determine whether individual factors (RWA and SDO) correlate with regional social identity for speakers and non-speakers of a regional dialect, expecting RWA to correlate positively with regional social identity, particularly among speakers of a regional dialect, and expecting either a positive or negative correlation with SDO. The multiple linear regression analysis with the total score of regional social identity (n = 834, M = 5.04, SD = 1.01) as the outcome variable, RWA (M = 3.65, SD = 0.75), SDO (M = 2.75, SD = 1.04), knowledge of a dialect (n with = 507, n without = 327), and gender as predictors was significant, F(7, 827) = 5.69, p < .001, $R_{a d j}^{2}$ = .038. The individual factors were examined further, and the results indicated that RWA, SDO, and knowledge of a dialect, but not gender, were significant predictors of regional social identity (see Table 2 for the statistics on the main predictors). Specifically, the higher the RWA scores were, the higher regional social identity was, while the higher the SDO scores were, the lower regional social identity was. Unsurprisingly, we found here again that knowledge of a dialect predicted higher regional social identity scores, while no effect of gender was found, although the p-value suggested a trend where males tended to have higher regional social identity scores.

Table 2.

Regression Results for Predictors of Regional Social Identity.

Predictor	β	t	p	95% CI
RWA	0.27***	4.33	< .001	0.15, 0.4
SDO	−0.18**	2.48	.01	−0.31, −0.04
Knowledge of a dialect	0.11***	3.98	< .001	0.11, 0.32
Gender	−0.05	1.8	.073	−0.23, −0.01

Note. **p = .01; ***p < .001;RWA = right-wing authoritarianism; SDO = social dominance orientation.

Furthermore, the interaction between RWA and knowledge of a dialect was significant, (β = −0.15, t = 2.35, p = .019, 95% CI [−0.35 −0.03]), meaning that the relationship between RWA and regional social identity depended on whether participants knew a regional dialect or not. Specifically, RWA predicted regional social identity for participants without knowledge of a regional dialect but not for participants with knowledge of a regional dialect. The interactions between SDO and knowledge of a dialect (β = −0.009, t = 0.13, p = .893) and between SDO and gender (β = 0.05, t = 1.17, p = .244) were not significant.

Discussion

In this study, we investigated whether regional social identity differs between Swedes who know a regional dialect and those who do not. As we predicted, our results indicate that participants who knew a regional dialect showed higher regional social identity scores for the region with which they felt the strongest sense of belonging. This supports the notion that language and dialects are associated with regional social identity.

Furthermore, all the regional social identity subscales demonstrated that participants who spoke a regional dialect also reported stronger ingroup ties, a greater sense of centrality to their identity, and deeper ingroup affect. Higher ingroup ties scores indicate that dialect speakers feel a stronger sense of connection and coherence with their social group. This aligns well with the notion that dialects serve as markers of group identity, reinforcing a sense of belonging. Since dialects can be challenging to learn or convincingly imitate, knowing a regional dialect serves as a clear and distinguishing sign of membership within a particular group. Higher centrality scores among dialect speakers align with the idea that a dialect is inherently present whenever one engages in oral communication. Since dialects can serve as markers of group identity, being regularly reminded of them (consciously or not) would also align with the concept of the ingroup, bringing it to mind more frequently and, in turn, making it more central to the dialect speaker. Higher ingroup affect scores suggest that dialect speakers experience greater positivity toward their regional social identity, as higher scores indicate a stronger positive affect. Consequently, knowing a dialect not only is associated with one's sense of regional social identity but also with increased positive emotions associated with identifying with a particular region. These results are in line with our exploratory analysis, where we examined whether higher proficiency in a regional dialect correlates positively with stronger regional social identity. Our analysis confirmed this correlation, further strengthening the idea that dialects are important markers of group identity.

Although we did not necessarily expect to find differences in regional social identity across regions, our results revealed some regional variations. Despite these differences, the overall level of reported regional social identity remained relatively consistent throughout the country. The only significant differences were found between Norrland and Mid Sweden, as well as Norrland and Stockholm, where regional social identity was stronger in Norrland than in the other two regions. This suggests that, while most Swedes’ regional social identity toward their region is fairly uniform across the country, stronger regional bonds may exist in the northernmost area of Sweden. A possible explanation for the lower level of regional social identity in Mid Sweden and Stockholm compared to Norrland may be the participants’ perception or understanding of what a dialect is. Indeed, Svealand dialects, which Mid Sweden and Stockholm dialects are a part of, are often considered “standard” Swedish dialects. This may have influenced respondents’ perceptions, as some individuals may not have considered themselves dialect speakers since these dialects are considered the “norm.” As our results suggest that knowing a regional dialect is associated with stronger regional social identity, the perceived lack of a dialect may dampen the sense of regional social identity. Furthermore, Norrland is a sparsely populated area of Sweden. Since regional dialects in Sweden tend to be more distinctive in rural areas (Bergman, 2013, p. 219), a possibility is that the level of distinctiveness of the dialects in Norrland is higher. However, whether dialect distinctiveness correlates with the strength of regional social identity should be investigated further.

Nonetheless, despite these minor regional differences, we found no significant interaction between regional social identity and dialect knowledge across regions. The lack of interaction between region and dialect knowledge indicates that while knowledge of a regional dialect may contribute to regional social identity, it is not the sole factor. Other factors, such as lifestyle and shared values, likely contributed to the heightened regional social identity observed in Norrland.

Interestingly, our multiple regression analysis revealed that, for participants who spoke a dialect, regional social identity did not correlate with RWA. However, among participants without knowledge of a regional dialect, we found a significant positive correlation between regional social identity and RWA. This finding contradicts our initial hypothesis that higher RWA scores in dialect speakers would be associated with higher regional social identity. Instead, the opposite was found for RWA. A possible explanation could be that dialects procure a sense of cultural self-confidence, leading dialect speakers to feel unthreatened by outgroups. Since higher RWA is linked to perceiving the world as a threatening and dangerous place (Duckitt, 2001), individuals who do not know a dialect may experience a greater threat to their identity, which may be less firmly established compared to that of dialect speakers, who may feel more secure in their regional social identity. However, future research should include measures of symbolic threat to determine whether this can be an underlying mechanism explaining our results.

Regarding SDO, we found that participants with the lowest SDO scores had a stronger regional social identity, regardless of their dialect knowledge. A possible explanation could be that there was no ingroup positivity bias where participants did not perceive their own group as having higher prestige. Based on Kosterman and Feshbach's (1989) definition of national identity, which consists of both nationalism (a belief in one's country's superiority) and patriotism (a sense of pride irrespective of the nation's status), perhaps regional identity in the present study constitutes a sense of pride rather than feelings of superiority. However, to understand our findings better, future research should also include measures of nationalism and patriotism.

Nonetheless, although our analyses identified significant effects, the effect sizes were small. As such, we acknowledge that the effects we observed are modest but argue that they are nonetheless meaningful. Specifically, in a global context where nationalism and xenophobia are prevalent, our findings suggest that a strong regional identity is not linked to a worldview that emphasizes hierarchical group relations (i.e., SDO) or, at least among dialect speakers, perceptions of outgroups as dangerous or threatening (i.e., RWA). In other words, a strong regional social identity, especially when paired with dialect knowledge, does not appear to undermine social cohesion, but may instead foster it (although this claim remains to be empirically tested).

This finding has important policy and societal justice implications. First, it highlights the need for language policies that actively recognize and support dialect diversity as a valuable cultural resource. Although the Swedish Language Act (SFS 2009:600, 2009) establishes Swedish as the principal language of Sweden, it makes no mention of Swedish dialects. This underscores the relevance of our findings in advocating for the active preservation of regional dialects. Promoting dialect visibility in media, education, and public institutions could help sustain regional identities and foster a sense of belonging among dialect speakers. Regional dialects are already present in national media such as television and radio in Sweden (Thelander, 2011), and our findings suggest that such representation should not only continue but be actively encouraged.

Second, supporting regional dialect diversity would not only preserve linguistic variation but also challenge linguistic hierarchies that often privilege standardized varieties, thereby addressing symbolic marginalization. However, further research is needed to assess the current status of various regional dialects in Sweden and societal attitudes toward them. Nevertheless, language policies that promote dialect diversity can contribute to greater social inclusion, cultural sustainability, and regional cohesion in an increasingly mobile and centralized society. Thus, fostering and embracing dialect diversity is not merely a matter of cultural preservation, but also a way to promote social justice and resilience.

While our findings offer valuable insights into the positive relationship between regional identity and knowledge of a dialect, certain limitations of our sample also warrant caution in interpreting our results. While our sample size was relatively large, it was not entirely representative of Sweden's population distribution. Some regions, such as Gothenburg, had relatively few respondents compared to their actual population size. In addition, the overarching regions that we created grouped multiple regions together. While our sample size did not allow individually analyzing each of these regions, significant differences may exist within these overarching regions. Thus, our findings should be considered indicative rather than definitive for these regions. Relatedly, it is crucial to recognize that this study was conducted within a specific cultural context where regional dialects are numerous, prominent, and salient. As such, the generalizability of our findings is limited to Sweden. However, we acknowledge that similar outcomes could likely be found elsewhere in countries with similar cultures (such as the other Nordic countries with similar languages and dialectal richness) and, especially for SDO, in other equality-enhancing societies. Nonetheless, future studies should investigate regional social identity and regional dialects in other contexts to determine whether similar patterns emerge. The same applies to the observed association between regional social identity and RWA among dialect non-speakers, as well as regional social identity and SDO.

Moreover, we cannot determine whether higher RWA among dialect non-speakers leads to increased regional social identity with our design, or whether lower SDO leads to higher regional social identity; we can only observe the correlations. Additionally, our results do not imply that dialect knowledge, and by extension, stronger regional social identity, can never be associated with exclusionary attitudes. Notably, RWA and SDO levels in our sample were relatively high compared to other Swedish samples in previous studies (Lindén et al., 2018; Zakrisson, 2008). This suggests that these tendencies may be increasing in Sweden. As such, future research should explore the relationship between regional social identity and RWA as well as SDO, for instance, in relation to political opinions. Indeed, given that RWA and SDO have been found to correlate with more conservative political ideologies, at least in some societies (e.g., Wilson & Sibley, 2013), examining participants’ political opinions would provide further insight into our findings. For instance, it would be valuable to investigate whether dialect speakers with far-right or far-left political leanings exhibit higher RWA and/or SDO scores. Although we did not find an interaction between SDO and gender, future studies should also consider gender as a between-group variable more systematically, not least in populations where gender equality is lower than in Sweden.

Additionally, in light of our insignificant results regarding regional social identity and SDO, and given that we did not investigate pride and the perceived status of different dialect groups by ingroup and outgroup members, this would be an important aspect to explore further. Social identity is often accompanied by a positivity bias towards one's ingroup and a negativity bias towards outgroups. Since regional dialects are associated with stronger feelings of regional social identity, future research should examine attitudes and potential biases among and towards different dialect speakers, particularly those with a pronounced regional identity such as in Norrland.

In conclusion, our study suggests that while knowledge of a regional dialect is associated with a stronger regional social identity, it is not linked to exclusionary attitudes toward outsiders. Although regional social identity levels are relatively consistent across Sweden, people in Norrland may have a slightly stronger sense of identity compared to certain other regions. Our findings contribute to the broader understanding of regional social identity and linguistic factors, highlighting the importance of regional dialects as social markers of group identity and meaningful expressions of social belonging. Furthermore, the findings indicate that strong regional social identities, particularly when linked to dialect knowledge, are not associated with exclusionary or hierarchical worldviews, suggesting that regional identity can coexist with broader societal cohesion.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jls-10.1177_0261927X251401260 - Supplemental material for Dialect Speakers Report Stronger Regional Social Identity Than non-Dialect Speakers in Sweden

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jls-10.1177_0261927X251401260 for Dialect Speakers Report Stronger Regional Social Identity Than non-Dialect Speakers in Sweden by Marie-France Champoux-Larsson and Ingrid Zakrisson in Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Marie-France Champoux-Larsson

Ingrid Zakrisson

Ethical Considerations

This study followed national and international ethical regulations, and all participants provided informed consent prior to participation in the study.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Vetenskapsrådet, (grant number 2020-00325).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset used in this study is publicly available in the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository at: .

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

1.
Abrams D. Hogg M. A. (1987). Language attitudes, frames of reference, and social identity: A Scottish dimension. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6(3–4), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8763004

2.
Act concerning the Ethical Review of Research Involving Humans (SFS 2003:460). (2003). Svensk författningssamling [Swedish Code of Statutes]. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-2003460-om-etikprovning-av-forskning-som_sfs-2003-460/

3.
Alshehri A. AlShabeb A. (2024). Exploring attitudes, identity, and linguistic variation among Arabic speakers: insights from acoustic landscapes. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 24(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.33806/ijaes.v24i2.587

4.
Altemeyer B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press.

5.
Ariely G . (2012). Globalization, immigration and national identity: How the level of globalization affects the relations between nationalism, constructive patriotism and attitudes towards immigrants? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(4), 539–557. 10.1177/1368430211430518Spry and Hornsey

6.
Banyasz A. M. Tokar D. M. Kaut K. P. (2016). Predicting religious ethnocentrism: Evidence for a partial mediation model. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 8(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000020

7.
Bergman G. (2013). Kortfattad Svensk Språkhistoria. Studentlitteratur.

8.
Botsis H. Kronlund Rimfors M. Jonsson R. (2022). Speaking ortensvenska in prestigious spaces: Contemporary urban vernacular and social positioning at an inner-city Stockholm school. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 21(2), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1777871

9.
Cameron J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3(3), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000047

10.
Champoux-Larsson M. F. Ramström F. Costa A. Baus C. (2022). Social categorization based on language and facial recognition. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X211035159

11.
Dehghani M. Khooshabeh P. Nazarian A. Gratch J. (2015). The subtlety of sound: Accent as a marker for culture. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34(3), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14551095

12.
Dragojevic M. Berglund C. Blauvelt T. K. (2018). Figuring out who’s who: The role of social categorization in the language attitudes process. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(1), 28–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17706942

13.
Duckitt J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). Elsevier.

14.
Duckitt J. Sibley C.G . (2016). Personality, ideological attitudes, and group identity as predictors of political behavior in majority and minority ethnic groups. Political Psychology, 37(1), 109–124. 10.1111/pops.12222

15.
Finegan E. (2008). Language: Its structure and use (5th ed.). Thomson Wadsworth.

16.
Frendreis J. Tatalovich R. (2023). Who Supports English-Only Language Laws? Evidence from the 1992 National Election Study .

17.
Fuertes J. N. Gottdiener W. H. Martin H. Gilbert T. C. Giles H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the effects of speakers’ accents on interpersonal evaluations: Effects of speakers’ accents. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.862

18.
Giles H. Johnson P. (1987). Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A social psychological approach to language maintenance. Ijsl, 1987(68), 69–100. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1987.68.69

19.
Hanson K. O’Dwyer E. Lyons E. (2021). The national divide: A social representations approach to US political identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(4–5), 833–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2791

20.
Heaven P. C. L. Bucci S. (2001). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and personality: An analysis using the IPIP measure. European Journal of Personality, 15(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.389

21.
Heaven P. C. L. Quintin D. S. (2003). Personality factors predict racial prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(4), 625–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00046-6

22.
Institutet för språk och folkminnen. (2020). Dialekter [Dialects]. Institutet För Språk Och Folkminnen. https://www.isof.se/lar-dig-mer/skolwebben/svenska-fran-olika-hall—laromedel-om-spraklig-variation/svenska-fran-olika-hall/dialekter

23.
Institutet för språk och folkminnen. (2021). Utforska Sveriges dialekter [Discover Sweden’s Dialects. Institutet För Språk Och Folkminnen. https://www.isof.se/lar-dig-mer/kunskapsbanker/lar-dig-mer-om-svenska-dialekter/utforska-sveriges-dialekter

24.
Institutet för språk och folkminnen. (2022). Dialekter förr och nu [Dialects Now and Then]. Institutet För Språk Och Folkminnen. https://www.isof.se/lar-dig-mer/kunskapsbanker/lar-dig-mer-om-svenska-dialekter/dialekter-forr-och-nu

25.
JASP Team. (2023). JASP (Version Version 0.17.2) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/

26.
Jensen N. H. Petersen M. B. Høgh-Olesen H. Ejstrup M. (2015). Testing theories about ethnic markers: Ingroup accent facilitates coordination, not cooperation. Human Nature, 26(2), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-015-9229-4

27.
Jones K. W. (2001). I’ve called “em Tom-ah-toes All My Life and I’m Not Going to Change!”: Maintaining linguistic control over English identity in the U.S. Social Forces, 79(3), 1061–1094. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0012

28.
Kim-Bossard M. Badenhorst P. (2023). Racialized language and social complexity: The multilayered plurilingual lives of filipina migrants in South Korea. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 24(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-022-00936-3

29.
Kinzler K. D. (2021). Language as a social cue. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 241–264. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103034

30.
Kinzler K. D. Dupoux E. Spelke E. S. (2007). The native language of social cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(30), 12577–12580. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705345104

31.
Kinzler K. D. Shutts K. Correll J. (2010). Priorities in social categories. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.739

32.
Kosterman R. Feshbach S . (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology, 10(2), 257–274.

33.
Lauring J. (2008). Rethinking social identity theory in international encounters: Language use as a negotiated object for identity making. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(3), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595808096673

34.
Levin S. (2004). Perceived group Status differences and the effects of gender, ethnicity, and religion on social dominance orientation. Political Psychology, 25(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00355.x

35.
Levin S. Sidanius J. (1999). Social dominance and social identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation? Political Psychology, 20(1), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00138

36.
Lindén M. Björklund F. Bäckström M. (2018). How a terror attack affects right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and their relationship to torture attitudes. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 59(5), 547–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12463

37.
Lorenzoni A. Santesteban M. Peressotti F. Baus C. Navarrete E. (2021). Dimensions of social categorization: Inside the role of language. PLOS ONE, 16(7), e0254513. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254513

38.
Luhman R. (1990). Appalachian English stereotypes: Language attitudes in Kentucky. Language in Society, 19(3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500014548

39.
Osborne D. Milojev P. Sibley C. G . (2017). Authoritarianism and national identity: Examining the longitudinal effects of SDO and RWA on nationalism and patriotism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(8), 1086–1099. 10.1177/0146167217704196

40.
Parker C.S . (2010). Symbolic versus blind patriotism: Distinction without differences? Political Research Quarterly, 63(1), 97–114. https://10.1177/1065912908327228

41.
Peitz L. Dhont K. Seyd B. (2018). The psychology of supranationalism: Its ideological correlates and implications for EU attitudes and post-brexit preferences. Political Psychology, 39(6), 1305–1322. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12542

42.
Pietraszewski D. Schwartz A. (2014). Evidence that accent is a dimension of social categorization, not a byproduct of perceptual salience, familiarity, or ease-of-processing. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.09.006

43.
Pratto F. Liu J. H. Levin S. Sidanius J. Shih M. Bachrach H. Hegarty P. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(3), 369–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031003005

44.
Rakić T. Steffens M. C. Mummendey A. (2011). Blinded by the accent! the minor role of looks in ethnic categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021522

45.
Reynolds K. J. Turner J. C. Alexander Haslam S. Ryan M. K. Bizumic B. Subasic E. (2007). Does personality explain in-group identification and discrimination? Evidence from the minimal group paradigm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(3), 517–539. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466606X153080

46.
Schmitt M. T. Wirth J. H. (2009). Evidence that gender differences in social dominance orientation result from gendered self-stereotyping and group-interested responses to patriarchy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(4), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01520.x

47.
Sibley C. G. Robertson A. Wilson M. S. (2006). Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects. Political Psychology, 27(5), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00531.x

48.
Sidanius J. Pratto F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.

49.
Spry C. Hornsey M . (2007). The influence of blind and constructive patriotism on attitudes toward multiculturalism and immigration. Australian Journal of Psychology, 59(3), 151–158. 10.1080/00049530701449489

50.
Swedish Language Act (SFS 2009:600). (2009). Svensk författningssamling [Swedish Code of Statutes]. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/spraklag-2009600_sfs-2009-600/

51.
Tajfel H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. Academic Press.

52.
Thelander M. (2011). Standardisation and standard language in Sweden. In Kristiansen T. Coupland N. (Eds.), Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe (pp. 127–133). Novus Press.

53.
Tong Y. Hong Y. Lee S. Chiu C. (1999). Language use as a carrier of social identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(2), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00039-X

54.
Vargas-Salfate S. Liu J.H. Gil de Zúñiga H. (2020). Right-Wing Authoritarianism and national identification: The role of democratic context. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 32(2), 318–331. 10.1093/ijpor/edz026

55.
Wagner U. Beckar J.C. Christ O. Pettigrew T.F. Schmidt P . (2012), A longitudinal test of the relation between German nationalism, patriotism, and outgroup derogation. European Sociological Review, 28(3), 319–332. 10.1093/esr/jcq066

56.
Wilson M. S. Liu J. H. (2003). Social dominance orientation and gender: The moderating role of gender identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322127175

57.
Wilson M. S. Sibley C. G. (2013). Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Additive and interactive effects on political conservatism. Political Psychology, 34(2), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00929.x

58.
Zakrisson I. (2005). Construction of a short version of the right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(5), 863–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.026

59.
Zakrisson I. (2008). Gender differences in social dominance orientation: Gender invariance may be situation invariance. Sex Roles, 59(3–4), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9445-z

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.04 MB

0.00 MB