In short, this paper asks: How much do we need to be concerned about identity choices?
Does a person of Latino descent who primarily identifies as Latino, or as Mexican, feel more
alienated from law enforcement or the federal government than a person of Latino descent who
primarily identifies as American? Does that same person feel less of a sense of obligation to the
United States and to the American people? First I show that fears of widespread rejection of an
American self-identification are overblown. Then, using insights from research on group
mobilization, ethnic politics, and social identity theory, I show that the impact of identity choices
on trust and obligation is conditional on how people feel they or their group is treated. I show
that among Americans of all backgrounds one’s primary self-identification largely fails to
influence attitudes. Instead, perceptions of group level and individual discrimination are more
damaging. In some cases, the damaging effects of discrimination can be mitigated by identifying
with the aggrieved group. In other cases, the damaging effects of discrimination are actually
activated by such identification. Absent perceptions of discrimination, one’s primary self-
identification is often of little consequence. When such perceptions are present, a non-American
identification can be beneficial with regard to trust, and detrimental with regard to obligation.
These findings raise important questions about when – and whether – the adoption of an
American self-identification is desirable.
TRUST, OBLIGATION, AND IDENTITY
Trust in political institutions is generally defined as a belief that leaders will do (or are
doing) right by the community and its interests (Smith 2003) and the extent to which people
think the government’s performance is living up to their expectations (Hetherington 2005). It has
been shown that trust affects compliance with political and legal processes, particularly in cases
2
Convention