“Do We Still Belong?”: The Multidimensional Nature of National Identity among Malaysian Youth

National identity is frequently discussed as a singular sense of belonging, yet its empirical structure may be multidimensional, particularly among youth in multicultural societies. This study examines how National Identity Development is empirically represented as a multidimensional higher-order construct among Malaysian youth. A quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted among 369 Malaysian youth aged 18-30 residing in the Klang Valley, using proportionate stratified random sampling. National Identity Development was assessed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) as a reflective-reflective higher-order construct comprising Membership Meaning (MMD), Positive Regard (PRD), Public Regard (PUD), Identity (IDD), and Centrality/Commitment (CPD). All five dimensions loaded significantly on the higher-order construct (MMD = .724, PRD = .872, PUD = .786, IDD = .739, CPD = .854; p < .001), while the higher-order construct demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency and convergent validity (Cronbach’s α = .855, CR = .897, AVE = .635). PRD recorded the highest observed higher-order loading, followed by CPD. However, the Stage 1 assessment identified measurement concerns for IDD (CR = .574; AVE = .321) and elevated HTMT values for PRD–IDD (.90) and PUD–CPD (.91). The study contributes a measurement-centred understanding of Malaysian youth national identity by demonstrating how five theoretically differentiated yet empirically interconnected dimensions collectively represent National Identity Development, while identifying specific areas requiring further measurement refinement and validation.

National Identity Development, National Belonging, Malaysian Youth, Higher-Order Construct

1. Becker, J.-M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 359–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.10.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Gharaei, N., Fleischmann, F., & Phalet, K. (2024). National identity development among minority youth: Longitudinal relations with national fit perceptions and school belonging. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 53, 2746–2761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-02036-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Granhenat, M., & Abdullah, A. N. (2017). Using National Identity Measure as an indicator of Malaysian national identity. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 2(2), 214–223. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol2iss2pp214-223 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Hair, J. F., & Alamer, A. (2022). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in second language and education research: Guidelines using an applied example. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-09-2014-0304 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Lilli, W., & Diehl, M. (1999). Measuring national identity (MZES Working Paper No. 10). Mannheim Centre for European Social Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292183006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Mastrotheodoros, S., Kornienko, O., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Motti-Stefanidi, F. (2021). Developmental interplay between ethnic, national, and personal identity in immigrant adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(6), 1126–1139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01434-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Becker, J.-M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Kornienko, O., McDermott, E. R., & Motti-Stefanidi, F. (2020). National identity development and friendship network dynamics among immigrant and non-immigrant youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(3), 706–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01181-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. van Vemde, L., Hornstra, L., & Thijs, J. (2021). Classroom predictors of national belonging: The role of interethnic contact and teachers’ and classmates’ diversity norms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50, 1709–1725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01430-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Verkuyten, M., Gale, J., Adelman, L., & Yogeeswaran, K. (2023). Maintaining a tolerant national identity: Divergent implications for the acceptance of minority groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 53(10), 1027–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12993 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Wood, B. E. (2022). Belonging to the nation: Negotiating narratives of national identity in Aotearoa New Zealand. Political Geography, 99, 102790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102790 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 80–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R. (2008). Toward a unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 280–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308319225 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650284 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Weaponizing Words in a Connected World: Digital Microaggressions, Weaponised Communication, and Technology-Governed Exposure
• Harnessing Social Media Content Creation for Youth Employment in Ogun-West Senatorial District, Nigeria
• Memes as Digital Activism Tools For Political Accountability in Kenya: A Study of Tiktok and X (Formerly Twitter) During the 2024 Finance Bill Protests
• Effect of Digital Communication on Intrapersonal Relationship among Undergraduate Students: A Study at Faculty of Education, Language and Communication, University Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS)