ArticlePDF Available

Authoritarians and “revolutionaries in reverse”: Why collective narcissism threatens democracy

April 2024
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 27(5)

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

Goldsmiths, University of London

Collective narcissism is a belief that the ingroup deserves but is denied special treatment and recognition. It is a projection of the narcissistic need to be recognized as better than others on the social level of the self. It is an aspect of ingroup identification, one of the ways group members favour their ingroup. National narcissism is associated with collective narcissism of advantaged national subgroups (e.g., Whites, men). National collective narcissism and collective narcissism of advantaged groups similarly predict discrimination of disadvantaged national subgroups (e.g., racial minorities, women) and legitimization of group-based inequality. Members of disadvantaged groups who endorse national narcissism internalize beliefs legitimizing inequality. Ultraconservative populists propagate national narcissism to undermine the political system that does not sufficiently serve the interests of advantaged groups. National narcissism predicts patriotism and nationalism. Once the three forms of national favouritism are differentiated, it becomes clear that patriotism does not come at the expense of nationalism, discrimination, societal polarization, or erosion of democracy. Instead, it may be a remedy against them.

Content uploaded by Agnieszka Golec de Zavala

Content may be subject to copyright.

https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241240689

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

2024, Vol. 27(5) 1027 –1049

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/13684302241240689

journals.sagepub.com/home/gpi

Group Processes &

Intergroup Relations

Group narcissism is the very root of the most

vicious forms of destructive aggression

against others, which is responsible for war

and for much of the suffering and injustice in

the world. ... We need only to look at the

history of nationalism in the 19th and 20th

centuries, and at the aggressive nationalism of

the present, to understand the significance of

group narcissism for society.

Fromm (1964, p. 51)

In the last decade, ultraconservative populist poli-

ticians consolidated political power evoking nos-

talgia for the great national past (Mols & Jetten,

2017) and the alleged need for national rebirth

Authoritarians and “revolutionaries

in reverse”: Why collective narcissism

threatens democracy

Agnieszka Golec de Zavala

Abstract

Collective narcissism is a belief that the ingroup deserves but is denied special treatment and recognition.

It is a projection of the narcissistic need to be recognized as better than others on the social level

of the self. It is an aspect of ingroup identification, one of the ways group members favour their

ingroup. National narcissism is associated with collective narcissism of advantaged national subgroups

(e.g., Whites, men). National collective narcissism and collective narcissism of advantaged groups

similarly predict discrimination of disadvantaged national subgroups (e.g., racial minorities, women)

and legitimization of group-based inequality. Members of disadvantaged groups who endorse national

narcissism internalize beliefs legitimizing inequality. Ultraconservative populists propagate national

narcissism to undermine the political system that does not sufficiently serve the interests of advantaged

groups. National narcissism predicts patriotism and nationalism. Once the three forms of national

favouritism are differentiated, it becomes clear that patriotism does not come at the expense of

nationalism, discrimination, societal polarization, or erosion of democracy. Instead, it may be a remedy

against them.

Keywords

antiestablishment orientation, collective narcissism, conspiracy theories, nationalism, need for chaos,

populism, right- and left-wing authoritarianism

Paper received 26 October 2023; revised version accepted 02 March 2024.

Goldsmiths, University of London, UK

Corresponding author:

Agnieszka Golec de Zavala, Department of Psychology,

Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London

SE14 6NW, UK.

Email: agnieszka.golec@gmail.com

1240689GPI0010.1177/13684302241240689Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsGolec de Zavala

research-article2024

Article

1028 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 27(5)

(“Make America great again” in the US, “Take

back control” in the UK). To restore national

superiority, they postulated to return to traditional

(hierarchical and often oppressive) organization

of societies. Populists advanced the claim that the

pursuit of liberal and progressive ideals of ration-

ality, social justice, and equality has undermined

national grandeur and its adequate external recep-

tion (Mudde, 2019; Müller, 2017). They con-

trasted the traditional, autochthonic (Dunn,

2015), pure-blooded (Betz, 2018 ) “people” with

the progressive, internationally oriented, “tall-

skim double-mocha latte” or “chardonnay sip-

ping,” “linguini-spined elites” that abandoned the

traditional ways to pursue dubious liberal values

(Eiermann et al., 2017). National narcissism—a

belief that the superiority of one’s own country

should be, but is not, recognized by others—has

been a robust predictor of support for such nar-

ratives (Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2021). It sup-

plied “resentful affectivity” that fuelled “the

forceful desire to return to the past” (Capelos &

Katsanidou, 2018, p. 1272). The involvement of

national collective narcissism in many processes

that have characterized the current wave of ultra-

conservative populism warrants further efforts to

better understand collective narcissism.

This article begins discussing initial research

on collective narcissism. It then illustrates how

national narcissism has been involved in the rise

of right-wing populism and processes that have

characterized societies governed by populism:

conspiracy theories and science denial, public

expressions of outgroup hate, marginalization of

historically disadvantaged groups and their col-

lective response, and support for undemocratic

and disruptive leaders. Next, the article discusses

the “why” of collective narcissism. It links

national narcissism to authoritarianism (right and

left) and the need for chaos grounded in superi-

ority needs and an acute (although not necessarily

realistic) sense of marginalization. The article

concludes by discussing the relevance of the con-

cept of national narcissism to nationalism

research and suggests how the recent findings

may inspire efforts to reduce the destructive con-

sequences of collective narcissism.

Collective Narcissism: Between

Narcissism and Ingroup

Identification

The concept of collective narcissism originates

from the works of Frankfurt School scholars and

early status theorists. The Frankfurt School schol-

ars understood “collective” or “group narcis-

sism” as a (compensatory) tendency to attribute

the ingroup with grandiose characteristics people

wanted to possess but felt they lacked (Adorno,

1997; Fromm, 1964, 1973). Fromm (1964, 1973)

expected group narcissism to be an inspiration

for aggressive nationalism, prejudice, and suspen-

sion of rationality in the effort to sustain the

ingroup’s inflated image. Status theorists pro-

posed that the need for recognition of the

ingroup’s superior status was independent of the

ingroup’s relative power, status, or achievements.

They also believed any excuse could be used to

demand recognition of the ingroup’s superiority

from others (Cohen, 1972/2002; Goode & Ben-

Yehuda, 1994; Gusfield, 1963).

Contemporary research on collective narcis-

sism relies on the conceptualization and measure-

ment of collective narcissism proposed by Golec

de Zavala (2007, 2011, 2012, 2018, 2023; Golec

de Zavala et al., 2009; Golec de Zavala & Lantos,

2020). In this work, collective narcissism is con-

ceptualized as an aspect of identification with the

ingroup (any ingroup), i.e., the degree to which

membership in this ingroup is psychologically

consequential (Leach et al., 2008). Specifically,

collective narcissism is conceptualized as a dis-

tinct form of positive ingroup evaluation (in

itself, an aspect of individual investment in the

ingroup; Leach et al., 2008) that expresses narcis-

sistic superiority need on the social level of the

self. Collective narcissism expresses a desire to be

recognized as better than others due to member-

ship in a superior and extraordinary ingroup. The

demand for external appreciation that the ingroup

is extraordinary and deserves special treatment is

a crucial aspect of collective narcissism. Collective

narcissists want their ingroup to be recognized as

better than others more than they care about the

ingroup actually excelling in anything (Golec de

Golec de Zavala 1029

Zavala, 2011, 2023). Table 1 contrasts collective

narcissism with other relevant concepts, reflect-

ing the complexity and multidimensionality of

ingroup identification (Kosterman & Feshbach,

1989; Leach et al., 2008).

Preoccupation with external reception of the

ingroup’s image is visible in collective narcissistic

hypersensitivity to intergroup threat, especially

threat to the ingroup’s image, and a tendency to

aggressively overreact to anything that is per-

ceived as a criticism or an insult to the ingroup

(Bagci et al., 2023; Golec de Zavala et al., 2013,

2016; Guerra et al., 2023, 2024; Hase et al., 2021).

The association of collective narcissism with per-

ceived intergroup threat is complex and self-

reinforcing. Evidence indicates that collective

narcissism generates an exaggerated sense of

intergroup threat. Collective narcissism is associ-

ated with an antagonistic mindset, a black-and-

white, zero-sum perception of intergroup

situations according to which the ingroup is

always unfairly treated, deprived in comparison to

others, threatened and targeted by hostilities of

others, and always needs to fight enemies (for a

recent review, see Golec de Zavala, 2023). The

beliefs about persistent external hostility and

threat to the ingroup justify the ingroup’s aggres-

sion as righteous and defensive (Dyduch-Hazar

et al., 2019; Golec de Zavala, 2011, 2023; Golec

de Zavala et al., 2009). However, intergroup

threat also increases collective narcissism, which

leads to increases in intergroup hostility (Guerra

et al., 2023, 2024). Finally, collective narcissism

magnifies the effect of intergroup threat on inter-

group hostility (Golec de Zavala et al., 2013,

2016; Hase et al., 2021).

Collective narcissism research extended the

threatened egotism theory (Bushman &

Baumeister, 1998) to the intergroup context; this

theory proposes that narcissists who face chal-

lenges to their inflated self-image are particularly

prone to use violence in response to self-image

threats. Research has shown that collective narcis-

sism specifically—not individual narcissism, self-

esteem, or nonnarcissistic aspects of ingroup

identification—amplifies retaliatory intergroup

aggression in response to ingroup’s image threats

(e.g., Golec de Zavala et al., 2013). Collective nar-

cissism research has also clarified inconsistent

findings of research inspired by the rejection

identification model (Branscombe et al., 1999).

This model posits that positive ingroup identifi-

cation in the context of ingroup marginalization

has a palliative role, protecting group members

from the distress of discrimination. Predictions

of this model do not apply at high levels of col-

lective narcissism. Instead, collective narcissism

is associated with maladaptive psychological and

physiological reactions to ingroup exclusion

(Golec de Zavala, 2022; Hase et al., 2021). While

threats to social identity, such as ingroup rejec-

tion and marginalization, increase collective nar-

cissism and nonnarcissistic positive ingroup

identification, only the latter is positively related

to ingroup members’ well-being (Bagci et al.,

2023). Collective narcissism, in contrast, is asso-

ciated with derogation of threatening outgroups

(Guerra et al., 2023) and undermined ingroup

well-being (Golec de Zavala, 2019, 2022;

Marchlewska et al., 2024).

Research on compensatory aspects of collec-

tive narcissism has clarified why the self-esteem

hypothesis (Abrams & Hogg, 1988) derived from

social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) has

not been consistently supported by evidence.

This hypothesis proposes that people with low

self-esteem should be prone to derogate out-

groups to elevate their self-esteem by positive

ingroup differentiation from a relevant outgroup,

which is achieved in this among other ways

(Abrams & Hogg, 1988). Research has clarified

that low self-esteem increases collective narcis-

sism, which predicts outgroup derogation. In

contrast, high self-esteem increases nonnarcissis-

tic ingroup satisfaction, which predicts decreased

outgroup derogation. The indirect link between

low self-esteem and outgroup derogation via col-

lective narcissism can be observed when the posi-

tive overlap between collective narcissism and

ingroup satisfaction is taken out of the equation

(Golec de Zavala et al., 2020). Studies may pro-

duce conflicting findings regarding the link

between self-esteem and outgroup derogation

depending on whether they account for the role

1030 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 27(5)

Table 1. Collective narcissism and related concepts.

Definition Focus

Concepts not specific but applicable to a national ingroup

Collective narcissism “Collective narcissism is a belief that one’s own

group (the ingroup) is exceptional and entitled

to special recognition and privileged treatment

but it is not sufficiently recognized by others.”

(Golec de Zavala et al., 2009, p. 1074)

Entitlement to recognition as

superior

Insecure ingroup identity “someone feels strong affective ties to the

in-group, perceives his or her fate to be

intertwined with the in-group, experiences a

high degree of depersonalization, and perceives

a strongly competitive intergroup context.”

(Jackson & Smith, 1999, p. 123)

Positive ingroup affect,

perceiving oneself as a group

member tied to others in

common fate in intergroup

competition

Secure ingroup identity “someone with equally strong affective ties to

the in-group does not perceive high levels of

common fate, depersonalization, or intergroup

competition or conflict.” (Jackson & Smith,

1999, p. 123)

Positive ingroup affect

Private collective self

esteem

“one’s personal judgements of how good one’s

social groups are” (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992,

p. 305)

Positive ingroup evaluation

Public collective self

esteem

“one’s judgement of how other people evaluate

one’s social groups” (Luhtanen & Crocker,

1992, p. 305)

Perception of how other’s

evaluate the ingroup

Membership collective

self esteem

“individuals’ judgements of how good or

worthy they are as members of their social

groups” (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992, p. 305)

Positive evaluation of oneself as

group member

Identity collective self

esteem

“the importance of one’s social group

memberships to one’s self concept” (Luhtanen

& Crocker, 1992, p. 305)

Subjective importance of the

ingroup to the self

Collective self

esteem contingent-

competition

“the extent to which the positive regard

a person draws from his or her group

membership is dependent on his or her

in-group’s standing in comparison to out-

groups. . . it taps into individuals’ tendency

to base their self-worth on their in-group’s

superiority over out-groups following

intergroup comparisons.” (Amiot & Hornsey,

2010, p. 64)

Self-esteem derived from the

ingroup being better than

outgroups

Ingroup glorification “Viewing the national in-group as superior to

other groups and having a feeling of respect for

the central symbols of the group” (Roccas et al.,

2006, p. 700)

Superiority and internal cohesion

Ingroup attachment “People who are highly identified in this sense

define themselves in terms of their group

membership and extend their self-concept

to include the group. They feel emotionally

attached to the group and want to contribute to

it” (Roccas et al., 2006, p. 700)

Emotional attachment and

contribution

(continued)

Golec de Zavala 1031

Definition Focus

Ingroup satisfaction “one’s positive feelings about the group and

one’s membership in it” (Leach et al., 2008, p.

146)

Pride and liking

Ingroup centrality “chronic salience as well as the subjective

importance that individuals give their group

membership” (Leach et al., 2008, p. 146)

Importance of the ingroup to

the self; identification strength,

importance

Identity fusion “a visceral feeling of ‘oneness’ with the group”

(Swann & Buhrmester, 2015, p. 52)

Subjective overlap between the

group and the self

Ingroup entitlement “stable and pervasive belief that one’s ingroup

deserves more and qualifies more than other

groups” (Endevelt et al., 2021, p. 352)

Entitlement and deservingness

Concepts specific to a national ingroup

Nationalism “The view that America is superior and should

be dominant” (Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989,

p. 261)

Asserting international

dominance

National chauvinism “national superiority and dominance” (de

Figueiredo & Elkins, 2003, p. 175)

Asserting international

dominance

Nativist nationalism “alludes to the notion that states should be

inhabited exclusively by members of the

native group (‘the nation’)” (Mudde & Rovira

Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 34)

Exclusion based on shared

ethnicity

Pseudo-patriotism “blind attachment to certain national cultural

values, uncritical conformity with the prevailing

group ways, and rejection of other nations as

outgroups” (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 107)

Uncritical conformity and

rejection of outgroups

Patriotism “Feelings of attachment to America”

(Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989, p. 261)

Attachment expressed as love,

devotion, and pride

Blind patriotism “A rigid and inflexible attachment to country,

characterized by unquestioning positive

evaluation, staunch allegiance, and intolerance

of criticism” (Schatz et al., 1999, p. 153)

Unquestioning positive

evaluation

Constructive patriotism “An attachment to country characterized by

‘critical loyalty,’ questioning and criticism of

current group practices that are driven by a

desire for positive change” (Schatz et al., 1999,

p. 153)

Attachment, care, and loyalty

Concepts specific to another ingroup

White nationalism “The belief . . . that White people are inherently

superior to people from other racial and ethnic

groups” (Reyna et al., 2022, p. 80)

“a sense of racial and national greatness and

entitlement that idealizes . . . a former America

dominated by Whites . . . condemning modern

America’s . . . decline and devaluation of

Whiteness” (Reyna et al., 2022, p. 81)

Entitlement and deservingness of

Whites as an ethnic group

Table 1. (Continued)

1032 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 27(5)

of positive ingroup evaluation and the extent to

which its measure taps into collective narcissism

versus ingroup satisfaction.

Since collective narcissists endorse two poten-

tially contradictory beliefs—that the ingroup is

exceptional and that it is not recognized by oth-

ers—they are likely to experience chronic dis-

comfort and be motivated to reduce it. In other

words, collective narcissism is a case of moti-

vated social cognition. This may explain collec-

tive narcissistic suspension of rationality.

Collective narcissism is pervasively associated

with susceptibility to unsubstantiated beliefs

because they provide specific and nonspecific

cognitive closure (Golec de Zavala, 2020, 2023).

For example, collective narcissism is robustly

associated with a tendency to endorse conspiracy

theories regardless of their content (for a recent

meta-analytical review, see Golec de Zavala et al.,

2022). Conspiracy theories that attribute out-

groups hostile intentions towards the ingroup

provide a specific explanation for the apparent

contradiction between the ingroup’s greatness

and others’ unwillingness to recognize it.

Collective narcissists attribute outgroups jeal-

ousy and hostility and see them as a threat

regardless of whether any real indication of their

hostility exists (e.g., Polish collective narcissism is

related to the stereotypical perception of Jews as

conspiring against Poland; Golec de Zavala &

Cichocka, 2012; Golec de Zavala & Keenan,

2023; Golec de Zavala et al., 2016; Kofta et al.,

2020). Such attributions allow collective narcis-

sists to posit that aggression and hostility of

their ingroup is defensive and, thus, justified and

indeed righteous. However, collective narcissism

is also associated with a more general susceptibil-

ity to endorse simplistic explanations of events

that provide quick cognitive closure. This may

explain why national narcissism is so promi-

nently involved in support for populist rhetoric.

Collective Narcissism of Populist

Politics

Research conducted during the American presiden-

tial election in 2016 demonstrated that voters’

national narcissism predicted an increase in con-

spiratorial thinking during the presidential cam-

paign (Golec de Zavala & Federico, 2018) and

voting for Donald Trump (Federico & Golec de

Zavala, 2018). Subsequent studies confirmed the

link between national narcissism and support for

populist leaders in other countries (Lantos &

Forgas, 2021; Marchlewska et al., 2018). Based on

the findings of collective narcissism research out-

lined above, we predicted that Donald Trump’s

presidency would be characterized by erosion of

democracy, societal polarization, public expressions

of prejudice and intergroup hate, marginalization

of disadvantaged groups justified by an exclusive

and narrow understanding of what it means to be a

“true American,” and increased importance of

delusional beliefs, malicious gossip, and conspirato-

rial ideation in public discourse (Federico & Golec

de Zavala, 2018). The findings discussed below

speak to accuracy of those predictions.

Collective Narcissism and Triumph of

Irrationality: Conspiracy Beliefs and

Science Denial

As we predicted, one pronounced feature of the

current wave of populism has been the eruption

of irrationality: endorsement of fake news, con-

spiracy theories, and distrust in science, which

played an infamous role in the populist reactions to

the COVID-19 pandemic. President Trump and

other populist leaders (e.g., the Tory government

in the UK, Orban in Hungary, the ultraconserva-

tive government in Poland) demonstrated a

remarkably similar incompetent and damaging

approach. First, they denied and minimized the cri-

sis, undermined scientific experts, and used misin-

formation, war-time rhetoric, and conspiracies to

communicate about the pandemic. This was then

followed by the aforementioned leaders forcing

the understanding of the public health crisis into

the framework of opposition against secret ene-

mies, vaguely presented as “elites,” scientists,

experts, and educated specialists as well as liberal

politicians and people who trust them. These lead-

ers made misguided decisions that contributed to

excess mortality in populist-governed countries

Golec de Zavala 1033

(Bayerlein et al., 2021; Lasco, 2020; Lasco &

Curato, 2019).

National narcissism was associated with

endorsing and spreading of contradictory con-

spiracy theories about COVID-19. National nar-

cissists simultaneously believed that the pandemic

was a hoax and a virus secretly produced and

spread by China (Sternisko et al., 2023).

Endorsement of conspiracy theories was a robust

predictor of negative responses to pandemic reg-

ulations: opposition to vaccination, selfish hord-

ing, and lower willingness to follow regulations to

contain the disease (Bierwiaczonek et al., 2022).

Indeed, national narcissism predicted lack of soli-

darity with conationals during the pandemic

(Federico et al., 2021) and refusal to vaccinate,

often because of a tendency to endorse conspir-

acy beliefs about the vaccines (Górska et al., 2022;

Marchlewska, Hamer, et al., 2022). Research has

also shown that national narcissism is a robust

predictor of science scepticism and distrust in

education and experts (Golec de Zavala, 2023).

This association also explains why collective nar-

cissism predicted refusal to vaccinate and engage

in preventive behaviours during the pandemic.

National narcissism also predicted support for

misguided policies that harmed individual citizens

while attempting to project a positive ingroup

image to others. For example, American collective

narcissism was related to support for reduced

COVID-19 testing (an established measure to

control the pandemic) to decrease the reported

number of new infections; the intention being to

hide how quickly the disease spread in the United

States. In Britain, national narcissists supported

the Tory’s (the United Kingdom’s conservative

party) decision to ignore the invitation to partici-

pate in the “ventilator scheme” (“the EU solidar-

ity in action”). This decision was made to leverage

the single market buying power and to secure

faster and cheaper orders of ventilators and pro-

tective equipment for European citizens early in

the COVID-19 pandemic. Refusing to participate

in the scheme ultimately hurt those with more

severe COVID-19 presentations and the NHS

staff who were dependent on the availability of

ventilators and protective equipment. British

collective narcissists agreed that participation in

the EU scheme would damage the UK’s reputa-

tion (Gronfeldt et al., 2023). The pursuit of exter-

nal recognition of the ingroup at the price of

harming others—members of the ingroup or the

outgroup—is a prominent feature of collective

narcissism. It has been salient in another pro-

nounced aspect of ultraconservative populism:

increased societal polarization, prejudice, and

public expressions of outgroup hate.

Collective Narcissism and Societal

Polarization

As we predicted, during Trump’s presidency, the

number of hate crimes (crimes motivated by prej-

udice) increased, and domestic (instead of exter-

nal) terrorism became a main threat to national

security in the United States (U.S. Department of

Homeland Security, 2020). There were more hate

crimes committed in the counties that held

Trump’s rallies in comparison to the counties that

did not (Edwards & Rushin, 2018; Feinberg et al.,

2022). Such data illustrate that the polarization of

societies governed by populist leaders is driven by

increasing marginalization of social groups tar-

geted by prejudice. Increasing group-based ine-

quality and marginalization are met by opposition

from the disadvantaged groups and their allies.

In all researched countries, national narcissism

has been robustly associated with prejudice

towards disadvantaged groups (such as women,

minorities, and displaced people) and decisive

(sometimes violent) opposition to movements

towards their emancipation. Among members of

disadvantaged groups, national narcissism has

been associated with a tendency to internalize

prejudice. In contrast, collective narcissism with

reference to disadvantaged groups (e.g., female,

Latinx, Black, or gay) has been associated with a

tendency to fight for the ingroup’s emancipation

(for a review, see Golec de Zavala & Keenan,

2023). Those findings are presented in more

detail below.

Xenophobia and prejudice. Under populist govern-

ance, national narcissism has predicted rejection

1034 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 27(5)

of newcomers: immigrants and refugees. British

collective narcissism stood behind the Brexit vote

because it was linked to xenophobia and rejection

of immigrants (Golec de Zavala et al., 2017).

American collective narcissism has been linked to

prejudice (Golec de Zavala, Ziegler, et al., 2024)

and aggression towards Mexican immigrants

(Golec de Zavala et al., 2020). In France, it has

been linked to prejudice and discrimination of

immigrants (Bertin et al., 2021), while in Poland,

it predicted rejection of refugees from the Middle

East and Africa (Dyduch-Hazar et al., 2019), prej-

udice towards Ukrainian immigrants (Golec de

Zavala et al., 2020), and siding with Russia after

the Russian invasion in Ukraine in February 2022

(Golec de Zavala, 2023); it also predicted rejec-

tion of Ukrainian refugees in Poland after the

Russian invasion (Nowak et al., 2023).

National narcissism has predicted racism and

prejudice toward ethnic minorities. [Please note

edit] Polish collective narcissism has been linked

to anti-Semitism and endorsement of conspirato-

rial stereotyping of Jews (Golec de Zavala, 2020,

2023; Kofta et al., 2020). National narcissism in

Britain and the United States has been linked to

anti-Black racism (Bagci et al., 2023), support for

White supremacist movements, a negative atti-

tude towards the Black Lives Matter movement

for racial equality (Golec de Zavala & Keenan,

2023; Marinthe et al., 2022), and denial of racism

among Whites (Cichocka et al., 2022; Golec de

Zavala et al., 2009; West et al., 2022). National

narcissism has predicted prejudice towards reli-

gious minorities. German and Dutch collective

narcissism has been linked to prejudice towards

Muslims, who constitute the largest religious

minority in those countries (Verkuyten et al.,

2022). Muslim collective narcissism in Indonesia,

where Islam is a dominant religion, was associ-

ated with prejudice and hatred towards religious

outgroups, specifically, non-Muslim Chinese and

Christian Indonesians (Putra et al., 2022).

National narcissism has predicted prejudice

towards sexual minorities. Polish collective narcis-

sism has been linked to explicit (Golec de Zavala

et al., 2021; Mole et al., 2021) and implicit (Lantos

et al., 2023) homophobia. This association was

driven by endorsement of traditional beliefs about

gender roles and the belief that people whose

sexuality is not conventional compromise the pos-

itive image of the Polish nation (Mole et al., 2021).

National narcissism is also associated with a ten-

dency to essentialize the differences between het-

erosexuals and sexual minorities, but also a

tendency to see nonnormative sexuality as a con-

troversial individual choice (Lantos et al., 2023).

Exclusion of women. Infringement of women’s

rights has been another pronounced feature of

ultraconservative populism. “Gender ideology”

was declared as dangerous by the Catholic Church

elevated to the level of national authority in pop-

ulist Poland. In 2020, the Polish government

introduced a highly controversial, near-total abor-

tion ban, the most restrictive antiabortion law in

Europe, and used the state power to crash street

protests against it. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán

banned gender studies from universities. Hostile

sexism was a strong predictor of voting for the

conservatives in the 2019 election in Britain (De

Geus et al., 2022). In 2022, the American Supreme

Court overruled the Roe v. Wade decision that had

guaranteed constitutional protection of women’s

rights to reproductive health since 1974. Its over-

ruling allowed individual states to introduce laws

that limit those rights.

National narcissism is associated with sexism,

as well as prejudice towards and discrimination

against women. Polish collective narcissism pre-

dicted support for the abortion ban in Poland

(Szczepańska et al., 2022), and a negative attitude,

among men and women, towards women’s civil

protests against it (Golec de Zavala & Keenan,

2023, 2024). Polish collective narcissism predicted

hostile and benevolent sexism among men and

women (Golec de Zavala & Bierwiaczonek, 2021).

Hostile sexism comprises derogatory and antago-

nistic attitudes towards women rooted in inter-

group-level competition of men with women.

Benevolent sexism comprises paternalistic preju-

dice based on the belief that women are passive

and incompetent and should be protected.

Although superficially positive, benevolent sexism

is associated with hostile sexism, legitimization of

Golec de Zavala 1035

gender inequality, and reduction of desire for

emancipation among women (Glick & Fiske,

2001). National narcissism is associated with

endorsement of benevolent sexism more strongly

among women than among men (Golec de Zavala

& Bierwiaczonek, 2021). Thus, women who

endorse national narcissism internalize sexism.

This is because, as discussed in detail below,

national narcissism is associated with the pursuit

of the interests and goals of advantaged groups

within the nation, in this case, men (Golec de

Zavala & Keenan, 2023). The current wave of

ultraconservative populism that has national nar-

cissism at its heart legitimizes discrimination of

women preaching the need to return to tradi-

tional values, traditional hierarchical organization

of societies, and traditional gender roles that dis-

criminate women. Moreover, national narcissism

promotes the projection of male characteristics

on the whole nation. In consequence, national

narcissists perceive and treat women as less repre-

sentative and, thus, less worthy conationals.

Collective narcissism and inequality: Relevance to social

justice and terrorism research. Research in populist-

governed countries indicates that national narcis-

sism has facilitated acceptance of inequality

among advantaged and disadvantaged groups,

and has been associated with stronger endorse-

ment of beliefs legitimizing inequality in disad-

vantaged groups. Women national narcissists

who internalized benevolent sexism more than

men are not the only disadvantaged group that

endorsed prejudice that targeted them. National

narcissism also facilitated endorsement of sym-

bolic racism, especially among Black Americans

in comparison to American Whites (Golec de

Zavala, 2023).

Such findings align with system justification

theory (Jost, 2019; Jost & Banaji, 1994), which

proposes that members of disadvantaged groups

may be motivated to endorse the social system

that disadvantages them even more strongly than

members of advantaged groups. Collective nar-

cissism research specifies that those disadvan-

taged groups’ members are likely to endorse

national narcissism. Their tardiness to challenge

the system that disadvantages them does not have

to be motivated by the need to justify the system

(for discussion regarding this motive, see also

Brandt, 2013; Reynolds et al., 2013; Rubin et al.,

2023). Instead, it may be motivated by the pursuit

of the narcissistic need at the superordinate level

of self-categorization. In other words, it may be

motivated by the group members’ need to be rec-

ognized as better than others because they are

members of a national ingroup, rather than a dis-

advantaged subordinate group within this nation.

Since their self-image is invested in the assumed

superiority of the nation, they find it hard to dis-

sociate from the nation even when their subordi-

nate ingroup within it is marginalized and

disadvantaged. There is nothing palliative about

this process. National narcissism and collective

narcissism in advantaged and disadvantaged

groups are associated with undermined well-

being and negative emotionality (Bagci et al.,

2023; Golec de Zavala, 2019).

Results linking national narcissism to internal-

ized prejudice suggest that promoting the

“broader we” identification may be damaging to

the pursuit of equality and social justice, especially

when it takes a form of propagating national nar-

cissism. This aligns with literature suggesting that

reducing prejudice by efforts fostering recategori-

zation and identification with a common ingroup

(e.g., a nation) impairs the chances for social

change towards greater equality (Dovidio et al.,

2009, 2016; Saguy et al., 2009; Ufkes et al., 2016).

Among others, this is because national narcissism

is associated with the pursuit of the interests of

historically advantaged groups as suggested by

research demonstrating that predictions of

national narcissism and narcissism in advantaged

groups (e.g., Whites, males, religious majorities)

are remarkably similar when it comes to prejudice

towards disadvantaged groups. White collective

narcissism predicts racism (Bagci et al., 2023;

Golec de Zavala et al., 2009), denial of racism

(Cichocka et al., 2022; Golec de Zavala et al., 2009;

West et al., 2022), and rejection of social move-

ments towards racial equality (Marinthe et al.,

2022; for a review, see Golec de Zavala & Keenan,

2023). Male collective narcissism predicts sexism

1036 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 27(5)

(Golec de Zavala & Bierwiaczonek, 2021), exclu-

sion of women (Golec de Zavala, 2022), and dis-

approval of social movements for gender equality

(Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2021; Górska et al.,

2020). Indeed, ultraconservative populism uses

rhetoric infused with national narcissism to mobi-

lize whole societies to support the interests of

advantaged groups (see also Golec de Zavala

et al., 2021; Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2021;

Mole et al., 2021).

Such a conclusion is also supported by research

indicating that American and White collective nar-

cissism overlap more strongly than American and

Black or Latino collective narcissism (Keenan &

Golec de Zavala, 2023), and that Polish and gender

collective narcissism overlap more strongly among

men than among women (Golec de Zavala &

Keenan, 2021). Such results align with previous

findings that national identification is stronger

among men than women (Van Berkel et al., 2017),

and among Whites than ethnic minorities (Sidanius

et al., 1997; Sidanius & Petrocik, 2001). Such find-

ings suggest that members of advantaged groups

have a greater sense of ownership of the nation

than members of disadvantaged groups (Molina

et al., 2015). This conclusion also aligns with

research on ethnocentric projection indicating that

advantaged groups claim national prototypicality

more than disadvantaged groups do (Brewer et al.,

2013; Devos & Banaji, 2005; Devos et al., 2010);

and research on ingroup projection indicating that

members of advantaged groups, more than mem-

bers of disadvantaged groups, project the charac-

teristics, values, and interests of their advantaged

ingroups onto the whole nation (Wenzel et al.,

2016). However, collective narcissism research

qualifies the previous results suggesting that the

greater overlap and the ingroup projection happen

especially at high levels of collective narcissism.

People who do not endorse national narcissism

and members of advantaged groups who do not

endorse those groups’ collective narcissism may be

more likely to support members of disadvantaged

groups in their pursuit of equality and wider repre-

sentation in the national community.

Prevalence of societal polarization in popu-

list-governed societies has also been elucidated

by research clarifying that while collective nar-

cissists in advantaged groups endorse beliefs

that justify and legitimize inequality and disap-

prove of social movements towards emancipa-

tion of disadvantaged groups (also supporting

state violence against them), collective narcis-

sists in disadvantaged groups are more likely to

pursue equality and engage in collective action

for emancipation of their disadvantaged

ingroups (Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2021,

2023; Keenan & Golec de Zavala, 2023;

Marinthe et al., 2022). For example, among

Blacks in the UK, racial collective narcissism is

associated with challenging anti-Black racism

(Golec de Zavala et al., 2009). Among Black

and Latinx participants in the US, racial collec-

tive narcissism is linked to support for the Black

Lives Matter movement, egalitarian values, and

intentions to engage in collective action for

racial equality (Keenan & Golec de Zavala,

2023). Among the LGBTQIA+ community in

Turkey, collective narcissism predicts collective

action challenging discrimination against sexual

minorities (Bagci et al., 2022). Gender collective

narcissism among women in Poland is associ-

ated with anger and distress at women’s exclu-

sion by men (Golec de Zavala, 2022), and

engagement in collective action for gender

equality (Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2021,

2023).

As collective narcissism motivates an antago-

nistic mindset promoting and justifying inter-

group aggression, collective narcissists in

advantaged and disadvantaged groups are likely

to clash. While collective narcissism in advan-

taged groups motivates the reactionary backlash

to disadvantaged groups’ pursuit of recognition,

in disadvantaged groups, it is likely to motivate

radicalization towards political violence and ter-

rorism in response to reactionary backlash.

Reactionary backlash elicits pessimism regarding

the possibility of systemic change among mem-

bers of disadvantaged groups (Tabri & Conway,

2011; Tausch & Becker, 2013), prevents them

from seeing the possibility of reconciliation or

allyship with advantaged groups (Hässler et al.,

2022; Shnabel & Ullrich, 2013; Urbiola et al.,

Golec de Zavala 1037

2022), and pushes them towards more extreme

and disruptive collective action (Louis et al., 2020;

Simon, 2020). Indeed, studies have linked collec-

tive narcissism in disadvantaged groups to ideo-

logical extremism (Jaśko et al., 2020). They also

demonstrated that collective narcissism predicts

support for terrorist violence (including suicide

terrorism, a violent attack in which the attacker

willingly dies as a result of the method of attack

they use) in tight (valuing strict adherence to

group norms and intolerance of group norm

deviants; Yustisia et al., 2020) and radicalized

(Jaśko et al., 2020) networks linking members of

disadvantaged groups.

Future research should consider how mem-

bers of disadvantaged groups manage the con-

flict between attitudes inspired by national

narcissism and collective narcissism with refer-

ence to the disadvantaged ingroup. As people

who endorse collective narcissism with reference

to one social group are more likely to endorse

collective narcissism with reference to another

social group (Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2021,

2023; Mole et al., 2021), members of disadvan-

taged groups high on collective narcissism are

likely to experience such a conflict. While endors-

ing national narcissism, they attempt to pursue

superiority needs by external recognition of the

ingroup in which, by definition of their disadvan-

taged status, they are second-class members.

They may feel compelled to overcompensate for

their lower status and discriminate against mem-

bers of their own disadvantaged ingroup, such as

women representing the Polish Life and Family

Foundation, a proponent of the “Stop abortion”

bill, the most restrictive abortion law penalizing

any case of abortion. However, they may also

reject national narcissism to pursue goals of their

disadvantaged ingroup. This may explain why

collective narcissists in disadvantaged groups

pursue nonnarcissistic, egalitarian ideals and are

lower on national narcissism than collective nar-

cissists in advantaged groups (Golec de Zavala &

Keenan, 2023). The social creativity framework

(e.g., van Bezouw et al., 2021) may prove useful to

inspire future research investigating when those

and other strategies to managing the expression

of narcissistic needs at superordinate and subor-

dinate levels of social categorization are used.

Collective Narcissism,

Authoritarianism, and

Revolutionaries in Reverse

The current wave of populism is often referred to

as “authoritarian populism” (Norris & Inglehart,

2019). Thus, it is worthwhile to consider the

association between national narcissism and

authoritarianism. The latter concept has a long

tradition in political science. Originally pro-

posed as “authoritarian personality” by Adorno

et al. (1950), it is most widely studied as “right-

wing authoritarianism,” a cluster of three atti-

tudes: loyalty to authorities defined by coercive

power, conventionalism, and aggression towards

those who threaten the social order and do not

adhere to norms (Altemeyer, 1981, 1988).

Authoritarianism is interpreted as a desire for pre-

dictable social order (Feldman, 2003) and a com-

ponent of political conservatism, an ideological

orientation grounded in the perception of the

world as a dangerous and unpredictable place

(Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt & Sibley, 2010). While

right-wing authoritarianism expresses authoritar-

ian submission, social dominance orientation—

preference for the hierarchical organization of

societies (Pratto et al., 1994)—has been concep-

tualized as a complementing dominant aspect of

right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1998).

Social dominance orientation is also interpreted

as a second component of the conservative polit-

ical outlook associated with zero-sum competi-

tiveness (Duckitt & Sibley, 2010).

National narcissism is positively associated

with right-wing authoritarianism and social domi-

nance orientation. It makes similar but independ-

ent predictions regarding intergroup hostility,

prejudice, support for undemocratic leaders, and

political conservatism (for a review, see Golec de

Zavala, 2023). However, national narcissism is

not exclusively a feature of conservative and

right-wing politics. National narcissism is concur-

rently associated with right- and left-wing authori-

tarianism (Golec de Zavala, 2023; Golec de Zavala

1038 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 27(5)

& Federico, 2024). Altemeyer (1996) proposed

that left-wing authoritarians are “revolutionaries

who (1) submit to movement leaders who must be

obeyed, (2) have enemies who must be ruined,

and (3) have rules and ‘party discipline’ that must

be followed” (Altemeyer, 1996, pp. 219–220).

Empirical work on left-wing authoritarianism

defines it as a syndrome of three attitudes: antihi-

erarchical aggression, anticonventionalism, and

top-down censorship (Costello et al., 2022).

Antihierarchical aggression reflects the willing-

ness to use violence to overthrow the established

social order and destroy existing group-based

hierarchies. Anticonventionalism pertains to rigid

rejection of traditional norms and conventions.

Top-down censorship taps acceptance of control-

ling public expression of ideas that contradict lib-

eral and progressive worldviews. It reflects rigid

adherence to liberal and progressive values and

the undemocratic and illiberal desire to coercively

impose those values on others to achieve ideologi-

cally homogenous ingroup coherence.

While right-wing authoritarianism is associ-

ated with support for pro-state violence (Webber

et al., 2020), left-wing authoritarianism, especially

antihierarchical aggression, is associated with

acceptance of antistate violence (Costello et al.,

2022). Since national narcissism is associated with

both right- and left-wing authoritarianism, it

stands to reason that the particular ideology that

justifies the use of violence is not a matter of

importance for collective narcissists. National

narcissism predicts support for violence whether

it is used to uphold the status quo or to flip it, or

to overthrow the existing hierarchies and replace

them with new ones. Collective narcissists admire

destructive power. They are likely to switch party

or ideological allegiances to follow the leaders

that provide the most convincing justification for

violence, regardless of whether it is used to main-

tain or to overthrow the established system. Two

lines of research support this conclusion: (a)

studies showing that national narcissism is related

to support for undemocratic and ruthless leaders,

and (b) studies demonstrating that national nar-

cissism is associated with antiestablishment ori-

entation and need for chaos.

National narcissism is related to support for

undemocratic leaders likely to disrupt rather than

maintain the existing social order (Keenan &

Golec de Zavala, 2021; Marchlewska, Cichocka,

et al., 2022). For example, in 2020, American col-

lective narcissists agreed that Donald Trump

should stay in power despite the fact that he lost

the democratic election. They supported Trump

using illegal and undemocratic means of securing

his position as president (Federico, Farhart, et al.,

2022; Keenan & Golec de Zavala, 2021).

American collective narcissists also supported the

Capitol Hill raid on January 6, 2021, the riot that

broke after Donald Trump framed his loss of the

presidential election to Joe Biden as a fraud.

Collective narcissists believed the rioters were

“true Americans” motivated by a “love of free-

dom and justice” (Keenan & Golec de Zavala,

2021). Along the same lines, national narcissism

in 40 countries was associated with support for

economic ties with Vladimir Putin’s Russia before

the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24,

2022, but after the Russian annexation of Crimea

in 2014. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine,

national narcissism in Poland (Golec de Zavala,

2023) and France (Brown & Marinthe, 2022) was

associated with siding with Russia. This suggests

that national narcissists have a predilection

towards ruthless rulers willing to disrupt demo-

cratic systems. In a non-Western political context,

national narcissism in Lebanon was associated

with support for collective violence towards

established political leaders representing ideologi-

cal opposition (Abou-Ismail et al., 2023).

Ruthless leaders cause damage. Research sug-

gests that this also appeals to national narcissists.

National narcissism is associated with variables

that tap into a desire to destroy the existing social

order by violent means (Golec de Zavala, 2023;

Golec de Zavala & Federico, 2024). It is associ-

ated with an antiestablishment orientation that

captures a negative attitude toward the estab-

lished political order irrespective of partisanship

or ideology. Antiestablishment orientation com-

prises Manichean contrasting of the “good” peo-

ple with the “evil” elites, and conspiratorial

assumptions that powerful groups work towards

Golec de Zavala 1039

malevolent and unlawful goals (Uscinski et al.,

2021). National narcissism is also associated with

the need for chaos, a motivation to disrupt the

existing social order and established hierarchies

to advance up the social hierarchy (Golec de

Zavala, 2023; Golec de Zavala & Federico, 2024).

This concept taps a mindset that emerges among

people with high dominance needs and an acute

sense of marginalization. It is “a desire for a new

beginning through the destruction of order and

established structures . . . that emerges from the

interplay between dominance-oriented traits and

marginalized states” (Petersen et al., 2023, p.

1489). People high in need for chaos “are not

idealists seeking to tear down the established

order so that they can build a better society for

everyone.” Instead, they want to “unleash chaos

and mobilize individuals against the established

order that fails to accord them the respect that

they feel they personally deserve” (Petersen

et al., 2023, p. 1489). Collective narcissism

research suggests that this motivation may also

be expressed through membership in a group in

whose name the established status quo is chal-

lenged (for this interpretation of collective nar-

cissism, see also Golec de Zavala, 2023; Golec de

Zavala & Keenan, 2021).

In sum, national narcissism combines author-

itarian servitude and admiration for power with

disruptive antagonism. National narcissism is

simultaneously associated with political conserv-

atism and antiestablishment orientation, and

the need for chaos orthogonal to the liberal–

conservative dimension. National narcissists are

equally ready to follow and overthrow estab-

lished authoritarian leaders. They are the volatile

supporters of ruthless leaders, subservient to

those leaders who are currently in power, but

eager to switch loyalties once other stronger and

more brutal leader emerges. What matters is not

the social order the leaders envision, but how

much their visions justify destruction and

violence. Although subjectively rebellious and

antiestablishment, collective narcissists are revo-

lutionaries in reverse. They want to advance,

not destroy, hierarchies. They want to advance

their ingroup’s status by pushing for more

group-based inequality or “see the world burn”

if it does not recognize superiority of their

ingroup. This narcissistic dynamic may explain

why so often the turmoil of revolutions is fol-

lowed by the emergence of dictatorships even

more oppressive than those overthrown by the

revolutions (Colgan & Weeks, 2015).

What About Love for the

Country? Relevance to Research

on Nationalism

Perhaps the biggest input of collective narcissism

research is the finding that patriotism has a nega-

tive, not positive as it has been assumed (e.g.,

Blank & Schmidt, 2003; Kosterman & Feshbach,

1989), association with nationalism. In political

sciences and philosophy, the idea of liberal

nationalism expresses the premise that cultivating

shared national identity enables national cohesion

despite internal diversity (Miller & Ali, 2014).

However, political psychology acknowledges that

the emphasis on national cohesion is often linked

to the marginalization of minorities within the

nation and a desire for international dominance.

It poses the question of who righteously belongs

to the nation. Nativist nationalism, resurrected by

the populist narrations, advances the idea that

membership to the nation is narrowly determined

by ancestry and blood ties (Mudde & Rovira

Kaltwasser, 2017). Nativist nationalism relies on

what Anthony Smith (1991, p. 12) called “ethnic

national identity,” which is more exclusive in

comparison to “civic national identity,” which

relies on national identification and responsibility

towards the national community.

Authors tend to agree that positive national

identification is multidimensional. The dimen-

sions that have received the most attention from

researchers are patriotism and nationalism (Blank

& Schmidt, 2003; Huddy & Khatib, 2007).

Nationalism (sometimes also labelled “national

chauvinism”) is defined as “an orientation

toward national dominance” that combines

national superiority and outgroup derogation. It

is differentiated from patriotism, “a feeling of

national attachment” that pertains to national

1040 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 27(5)

favouritism (Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989, p.

271; see also de Figueiredo & Elkins, 2003).

Patriotism is most commonly defined as love for

the nation, and the belief that the nation and the

membership in it are valuable and worth being

proud of (de Figueiredo & Elkins, 2003; Huddy

& del Ponte, 2019; Kosterman & Feshbach,

1989; Viroli, 1995).

Authors often assume that nationalism and

national chauvinism combine national attachment

with the advancement of national purity and

superiority (de Figueiredo & Elkins, 2003; Huddy

& del Ponte, 2019; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989;

Sidanius, et al., 1997). The dominant intuition has

it that patriotism generates nationalism, or at least

patriotism and nationalism are positively associ-

ated, national ingroup love bears a danger of out-

group hate (Brewer, 1999). This is despite

empirical findings showing that it is nationalism,

not patriotism, that is associated with hostility

toward other nations, hostility toward minorities

within one’s nation, and group-based antiegalitari-

anism (Blank & Schmidt, 2003; Carter & Perez,

2015; de Figueiredo & Elkins, 2003; Federico

et al., 2021; Golec de Zavala et al., 2020; Huddy &

del Ponte, 2019; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989;

Sidanius et al., 1997). Such findings make nation-

alism incompatible with patriotism.

Collective narcissism research addresses this

conundrum clarifying that national narcissism,

patriotism, and nationalism are distinct con-

structs, consistent with the argument that the

multidimensionality of national attitudes may

go beyond the distinction between patriotism

and nationalism (Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989).

National narcissism is positively associated with

patriotism and nationalism. With patriotism, it

shares the belief in the inherent high worth of

the nation. It differs from patriotism because it

demands that the nation must be recognized as

better by others. With nationalism, national nar-

cissism shares the belief in national superiority.

Nationalism and national narcissism differ in

reference to how much this belief is based on

international dominance. National narcissism is

a desire to assert appropriate recognition that

the nation is better than others for whatever

reason, while nationalism is a desire to domi-

nate, rule, and control other nations (Federico,

Golec de Zavala, & Wen, 2022; Golec de Zavala,

2023).

Importantly, when the positive overlap

between patriotism, national narcissism, and

nationalism is controlled for, the negative associ-

ation between patriotism and nationalism can be

observed (Federico, Golec de Zavala, & Wen,

2022). Thus, collective narcissism research clari-

fies that patriotism has a negative—not positive,

as it has been assumed—association with nation-

alism. Differentiating national narcissism uncov-

ers the possibility of national ingroup love that

constrains nationalism and does not have to

come at the price of outgroup hostility and

intolerance.

This proposition aligns with a vast body of

research showing that genuine, nonnarcissistic

national ingroup satisfaction is negatively asso-

ciated with variables reflecting intergroup hos-

tility and predilection towards destruction once

its overlap with national narcissism is removed.

By the same token, the relationship between

national narcissism and intergroup hostility and

preference for societal disruption becomes

stronger when national ingroup satisfaction is

removed from national narcissism (Golec de

Zavala, 2011, 2018; Golec de Zavala et al., 2019,

2020; Golec de Zavala, Ziegler, et al., 2024).

This pattern has been demonstrated with respect

to hostility toward national outgroups, minori-

ties, and marginalized groups (Golec de Zavala

et al., 2020; for sexism, cf. Golec de Zavala &

Bierwiaczonek, 2021; for racism, Golec de

Zavala, Ziegler, et al., 2024). Together with pre-

vious research (Brewer, 1999; de Figueiredo &

Elkins, 2003; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989), the

finding of the negative relationship between

patriotism and nationalism suggests that a posi-

tive orientation towards the national group

needn’t spill into national arrogance or aspira-

tions to dominance over time. Rather, nonnar-

cissistic patriotism may reduce one’s attraction

to nationalism, international dominance, and

internal hostility (Federico, Golec de Zavala, &

Wen, 2022; Golec de Zavala & Lantos, 2020).

Golec de Zavala 1041

Unlike national narcissists, patriots do not want

societal disruption and prefer a gradual societal

transformation rather than the violent over-

throw of social hierarchies. Unlike national nar-

cissists, patriots do not attribute others hostile

intentions towards their nation, do not see inter-

group relations as zero-sum competitions, and

prefer to collaborate than to compete with oth-

ers; further, patriots trust reason, science, and

their conationals. They find belonging to a com-

munity intrinsically satisfying; they feel loyal

towards their conationals and do not support

political decisions that would harm them (for a

review, see Golec de Zavala, 2023).

Such findings also suggest that, by virtue of its

overlap with patriotism, national narcissism is

linked to the benefits of positive prosociality.

Capitalizing on this link may reduce the negative

consequences of collective narcissism (Golec de

Zavala, 2011; Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2021;

Golec de Zavala & Lantos, 2020). This is because

experiencing positive prosocial emotions facili-

tates down-regulation of negative emotions,

boosts emotional resilience, and initiates an

upward spiral of positive emotionality with dura-

ble consequences for physiological and neural

activity (Garland & Fredrickson, 2019; Kok et al.,

2013). Indeed, research has demonstrated that

interventions training the ability to consciously

experience positive prosocial emotions (e.g.,

compassion, gratitude, Golec de Zavala, Ziegler

et al., 2024) reduce the otherwise robust associa-

tion between national narcissism and prejudice

(Golec de Zavala, Keenan et al., 2024). The asso-

ciation between Polish collective narcissism and

anti-Semitism was reduced by half after partici-

pants took part in a 10-minute, audio-guided

mindful-gratitude practice (Golec de Zavala,

Keenan et al., 2024). The link between Polish col-

lective narcissism and anti-Semitism, sexism,

homophobia, and prejudice towards immigrants

was reduced among participants in a 6-week

mindful-gratitude training. The training increased

participants’ dispositional mindfulness, positive

affect, gratitude, and reduced their level of daily

stress. While the levels of national narcissism

stayed the same during the training, it worked to

reduce the association of national narcissism

with all measured forms of prejudice (Golec de

Zavala, Keenan, et al., 2024). Such findings indi-

cate that emphasizing its overlap with positive

prosociality may help reduce collective narcissis-

tic negative emotionality and the destructive con-

sequences of collective narcissism. The initial

results warrant further research using interven-

tions to address the negative emotionality under-

lying collective narcissism.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest

with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-

cation of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following finan-

cial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-

cation of this article: This work was supported by the

Polish National Science Centre advanced research

grant Maestro (2017/26/A/HS6/00647) awarded to

Agnieszka Golec de Zavala.

ORCID iD

Agnieszka Golec de Zavala https://orcid.

org/0000-0002-7631-9486

References

Abou-Ismail, R., Gronfeldt, B., Konur, T., Cichocka,

A., Phillips, J., & Sengupta, N. K. (2023). Double

trouble: How sectarian and national narcissism

relate differently to collective violence beliefs

in Lebanon. Aggressive Behavior, 49(6), 669–678.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.22104

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the

motivational status of self-esteem in social iden-

tity and intergroup discrimination. European Jour-

nal of Social Psychology, 18(4), 317–334. https://doi.

org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180403

Adorno, T. W. (1997). Gesammelte Schriften in zwan-

zig Bänden [Collected writings in 20 volumes] (Vols.

8–9). Suhrkamp/Insel.

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J.,

& Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personal-

ity. Harper & Row.

1042 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 27(5)

Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. The

University of Manitoba Press.

Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding

right-wing authoritarianism. Jossey-Bass.

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Harvard

University Press.

Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian per-

sonality.” Advances in Experimental Social Psy-

chology, 30, 47–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/

S0065-2601(08)60382-2

Amiot, C. E., & Hornsey, M. J. (2010). Collective

self-esteem contingency and its role in predict-

ing intergroup bias. Self and Identity, 9(1), 62–86.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860802605895

Bagci, S. C., Acar, B., Eryuksel, E., & Ustun, E. G.

(2022). Collective narcissism and ingroup sat-

isfaction in relation to collective action tenden-

cies: The case of LGBTI individuals in Turkey.

TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied

Psychology, 29, 23–38. http://doi.org/10.4473/

TPM29.1.3

Bagci, S. C., Stathi, S., & Golec de Zavala, A. (2023).

Social identity threat across group status: Links

to psychological well-being and intergroup bias

through collective narcissism and ingroup satis-

faction. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psy-

chology, 29(2), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/

cdp0000509

Bayerlein, M., Boese, V., Gates, S., Kamin, K., &

Murshed, S. (2021). Populism and COVID-

19: How populist governments (mis)handle

the pandemic. Journal of Political Institutions and

Political Economy, 2(3), 389–428. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1561/113.00000043.

Bertin, P., Nera, K., Hamer, K., Uhl-Haedicke, I.,

& Delouvée, S. (2021). Stand out of my sun-

light: The mediating role of climate change

conspiracy beliefs in the relationship between

national collective narcissism and accept-

ance of climate science. Group Processes & Inter-

group Relations, 24(5), 738–758. https://doi.

org/10.1177/1368430221992114

Betz, H. G. (2018). The radical right and populism. In

J. Rydgren (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the radical

right (pp. 86–104). Oxford University Press.

Bierwiaczonek, K., Gundersen, A. B., & Kunst, J.

R. (2022). The role of conspiracy beliefs for

COVID-19 health responses: A meta-analysis.

Current Opinion in Psychology, 46, Article 101346.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101346

Blank, T., & Schmidt, P. (2003). National identity

in a united Germany: Nationalism or patriot-

ism? An empirical test with representative data.

Political Psychology, 24, 289–312. https://doi.

org/10.1111/0162-895X.00329

Brandt, M. J. (2013). Do the disadvantaged legiti-

mize the social system? A large-scale test of the

status–legitimacy hypothesis. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 104(5), 765–785. https://doi.

org/10.1037/a0031751

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje,

B. (1999). The context and content of social iden-

tity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje

(Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content

(pp. 35–58). Blackwell Science.

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of preju-

dice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Jour-

nal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. https://doi.

org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126

Brewer, M. B., Gonsalkorale, K., & van Dommelen,

A. (2013). Social identity complexity: Compar-

ing majority and minority ethnic group mem-

bers in a multicultural society. Group Processes &

Intergroup Relations, 16(5), 529–544. https://doi.

org/10.1177/1368430212468622

Brown, G., & Marinthe, G. (2022). We’re all the same:

Collective narcissists’s [sic] cross-national support for Putin

and Russian military attacks. PsyArXiv. https://doi.

org/10.31234/osf.io/gqsrz

Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threat-

ened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct

and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-

hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 75(1), 219–229. https://doi.

org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219

Capelos, T., & Katsanidou, A. (2018). Reactionary pol-

itics: Explaining the psychological roots of anti

preferences in European integration and immi-

gration debates. Political Psychology, 39(6), 1271–

1288. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12540

Carter, N. M., & Perez, E. O. (2015). Race and nation:

How racial hierarchy shapes national attach-

ments. Political Psychology, 37(4), 497–513. https://

doi.org/10.1111/pops.12270

Cichocka, A., Bocian, K., Winiewski, M., & Azevedo, F.

(2022). “Not racist, but. . .”: Beliefs about immi-

gration restrictions, collective narcissism, and

justification of ethnic extremism. Political Psychol-

ogy, 43(6), 1217–1234. https://doi.org/10.1111/

pops.12813

Golec de Zavala 1043

Cohen, S. (2002). Folk devils and moral panics. The creation

of the mods and rockers (3rd ed.). Routledge. (Origi-

nal work published 1972)

Colgan, J., & Weeks, J. (2015). Revolution, personal-

ist dictatorships, and international conflict. Inter-

national Organization, 69(1), 163–194. https://doi.

org/10.1017/S0020818314000307

Costello, T. H., Bowes, S. M., Stevens, S. T., Wald-

man, I. D., Tasimi, A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2022).

Clarifying the structure and nature of left-

wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 122(1), 135–170. https://doi.

org/10.1037/pspp0000341

de Figueiredo, R. J. P., Jr., & Elkins, Z. (2003). Are

patriots bigots? An inquiry into the vices of in-

group pride. American Journal of Political Science,

47(1), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-

5907.00012

De Geus, R., Ralph-Morrow, E., & Shorrocks, R.

(2022). Understanding ambivalent sexism and

its relationship with electoral choice in Britain.

British Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 1564–1583.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123421000612

Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American =

White? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

88(3), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.88.3.447

Devos, T., Gavin, K., & Quintana, F. J. (2010). Say

“adios” to the American dream? The interplay

between ethnic and national identity among

Latino and Caucasian Americans. Cultural Diversity

& Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(1), 37–49. https://

doi.org/10.1037/a0015868

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009).

Commonality and the complexity of “we”:

Social attitudes and social change. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 3–20. https://doi.

org/10.1177/1088868308326751

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Ufkes, E. G., Saguy, T.,

& Pearson, A. R. (2016). Included but invisible?

Subtle bias, common identity, and the darker side

of “we.” Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 6–46.

https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12017

Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motiva-

tional theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P.

Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol-

ogy (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). Elsevier. https://doi.

org/10.1016/S0065-2601(01)80004-6

Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology,

prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motiva-

tional model. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1861–

1894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010

.00672.x

Dunn, K. (2015). Preference for radical right-wing

populist parties among exclusive-nationalists

and authoritarians. Party Politics, 21(3), 367–380.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068812472587

Dyduch-Hazar, K., Mrozinski, B., & Golec de Zavala,

A. (2019). Collective narcissism and in-group

satisfaction predict opposite attitudes toward ref-

ugees via attribution of hostility. Frontiers in Psy-

chology, 10, Article 1901. https://doi.org/10.3389/

fpsyg.2019.01901

Edwards, G. S., & Rushin, S. (2018). The effect of President

Trump’s election on hate crimes. SSRN. https://doi.

org/10.2139/ssrn.3102652

Eiermann, M., Mounk, Y., & Gultchin, L. (2017).

European populism: Trends, threats, and future prospects.

Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. https://

www.institute.global/insights/geopolitics-and-

security/european-populism-trends-threats-and-

future-prospects

Endevelt, K., Schori-Eyal, N., & Halperin, E. (2021).

Everyone should get the same, but we should

get more: Group entitlement and intergroup

moral double standard. Group Processes & Inter-

group Relations, 24(3), 350–370. https://doi.

org/10.1177/1368430219896618

Federico, C. M., Farhart, C., Vitriol, J. A., & Golec

de Zavala, A. (2022). Collective narcissism and

perceptions of the (il)legitimacy of the 2020 US

election. The Forum, 20(1), 37–62. https://doi.

org/10.1515/for-2022-2046.

Federico, C. M., & Golec de Zavala, A. (2018). Collec-

tive narcissism and the 2016 US presidential vote.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(1), 110–121. https://

doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx048

Federico, C. M., Golec de Zavala, A., & Baran, T.

(2021). Collective narcissism, ingroup satisfac-

tion, and solidarity in the face of COVID-19.

Social Psychology and Personality Science, 12(6),

1071–1081. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506

20963655

Federico, C. M., Golec de Zavala, A., & Wen, B.

(2022). Collective narcissism as basis for nation-

alism. Political Psychology, 44(1), 177–196. https://

doi.org/10.1111/pops.12833

Feinberg, A., Branton, R., & Martinez-Ebers, V.

(2022). The Trump effect: How 2016 campaign

rallies explain spikes in hate. PS: Political Science &

Politics, 55(2), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1017/

S1049096521001621

1044 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 27(5)

Feldman, S. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A

theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 24(1),

41–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00316

Fromm, E. (1964). The heart of man, its genius for good and

evil. Harper & Row.

Fromm, E. (1973). The anatomy of human destructiveness.

Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Garland, E. L., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2019). Positive

psychological states in the arc from mindful-

ness to self-transcendence: Extensions of the

mindfulness-to-meaning theory and applications

to addiction and chronic pain treatment. Current

Opinion in Psychology, 28, 184–191. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.01.004

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In

M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 115–188). Academic Press.

Golec de Zavala, A. (2007). Collective narcissism and its

social consequences [Paper presentation]. Annual

Meeting of the International Society of Political

Psychology, Portland, OR, July 4-7.

Golec de Zavala, A. (2011). Collective narcissism and

intergroup hostility: The dark side of “in-group

love.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass,

5(6), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-

9004.2011.00351.x

Golec de Zavala, A. (2012). Collective narcissism. In

D. J. Christie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of peace psychology

(pp. 151–155). Wiley-Blackwell.

Golec de Zavala, A. (2018). Collective narcissism:

Antecedents and consequences of exaggeration

of the in-group image. In A. D. Hermann, A. B.

Brunell, & J. D. Foster (Eds.), Handbook of trait

narcissism: Key advances, research methods, and controver-

sies (pp. 79–88). Springer International Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92171-6_8

Golec de Zavala, A. (2019). Collective narcissism and

in-group satisfaction are associated with different

emotional profiles and psychological wellbeing.

Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 203. https://doi.

org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00203

Golec de Zavala, A. (2020). Why is populism so

robustly associated with conspiratorial thinking?

Collective narcissism and the meaning mainte-

nance model. In J. Sinnott & J. Rabin (Eds.), The

psychology of political behavior in a time of change: Identity

in a changing world (pp. 277–290). Springer Interna-

tional Publishing.

Golec de Zavala, A. (2022). Conditional parochial

vicarious ostracism: Gender collective narcis-

sism predicts distress at the exclusion of the gen-

der ingroup in women and men. Sex Roles, 87,

267–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-

01315-z

Golec de Zavala, A. (2023). The psychology of collective nar-

cissism: Insights from social identity theory. Routledge.

Golec de Zavala, A., & Bierwiaczonek, K. (2021). Male,

national, and religious collective narcissism pre-

dict sexism. Sex Roles, 84(11), 680–700. https://

doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01193-3

Golec de Zavala, A., Bierwiaczonek, K., & Ciesielski,

P. (2022). An interpretation of meta-analytical

evidence for the link between collective narcis-

sism and conspiracy theories. Current Opinion

in Psychology, 47, Article 101360. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101360

Golec de Zavala, A., & Cichocka, A. (2012). Collective

narcissism and anti-Semitism in Poland. Group

Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(2), 213–229.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211420891

Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R., &

Jayawickreme, N. (2009). Collective narcissism

and its social consequences. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1074–1096. https://

doi.org/10.1037/a0016904

Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., & Iskra-Golec, I.

(2013). Collective narcissism moderates the effect

of in-group image threat on intergroup hostility.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(6),

1019–1039. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032215

Golec de Zavala, A., Dyduch-Hazar, K., & Lantos,

D. (2019). Collective narcissism: Political con-

sequences of investment of self-worth into an

ingroup’s image. Advances in Political Psychol-

ogy, 40(S1), 37–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/

pops.12569

Golec de Zavala, A., & Federico, C. (2018). Collective

narcissism and the growth of conspiratorial think-

ing over the course of the 2016 United States

presidential election: A longitudinal analysis.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(7), 1011–

1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2496

Golec de Zavala, A., & Federico, C. (2024). Revolutionaries

in reverse. Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths,

University of London [Manuscript in preparation].

Golec de Zavala, A., Federico, C. M., Sedikides, C.,

Guerra, R., Lantos, D., Mroziński, B., Cypryańska,

M., & Baran, T. (2020). Low self-esteem predicts

out-group derogation via collective narcissism,

but this relationship is obscured by in-group

Golec de Zavala 1045

satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 119(3), 741–764. https://doi.org/10.1037/

pspp0000260

Golec de Zavala, A., Guerra, R., & Simao, C. (2017).

The relationship between the Brexit vote and

individual predictors of prejudice: Collective

narcissism, right wing authoritarianism and

social dominance orientation. Frontiers in Psychol-

ogy, 8, Article 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/

fpsyg.2017.02023

Golec de Zavala, A., & Keenan, O. (2021). Collec-

tive narcissism as a framework for understanding

populism. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 5(2),

54–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.69

Golec de Zavala, A., & Keenan, O. (2023). Collec-

tive narcissism in advantaged and disadvantaged

groups. In A. Kende & B. Lášticová (Eds.), The

psychology of politically unstable societies (pp. 119–136).

Routledge.

Golec de Zavala, A., & Keenan, O. (2024). Gender

and national collective narcissism: Gender asym-

metries and obstacles to gender equality. Sex

Roles. Advance online publication. https://doi.

org/10.31234/osf.io/spmqf

Golec de Zavala, A., Keenan, O., Ziegler, M., Mazurk-

iewicz, M., Nalberczak-Skóra, M., Ciesiel-

ski, P., Wahl, J. E., & Sedikides, C. (2024).

Mindful-gratitude practice reduces prejudice

at high levels of collective narcissism. Psy-

chological Science, 35(2), 137–149. https://doi.

org/10.1177/09567976231220902

Golec de Zavala, A., & Lantos, D. (2020). Collec-

tive narcissism and its social consequences:

The bad and the ugly. Current Directions in Psy-

chological Science, 29(3), 273–278. https://doi.

org/10.1177/0963721420917703

Golec de Zavala, A., Lantos, D., & Keenan, O. (2021).

Populist backlash: Collective narcissism, homo-

phobia and sexism. In J. Forgas, W. Crano, & K.

Fiedler (Eds.), The psychology of populism (pp. 105–

122). Taylor & Francis.

Golec de Zavala, A., Peker, M., Guerra, R., & Baran,

T. (2016). Collective narcissism predicts hyper-

sensitivity to in-group insult and direct and

indirect retaliatory intergroup hostility. European

Journal of Personality, 30(6), 532–551. https://doi.

org/10.1002/per.2067

Golec de Zavala, A., Ziegler, M., Keenan, O., Ciesiel-

ski, P., Mazurkiewicz, M., & Wahl, J. (2024).

App-based mindfulness training supported eudai-

monic wellbeing during the COVID19 pandemic.

Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 16(1), 42–

59. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12468

Goode, E., & Ben-Yehuda, N. (1994). Moral panics:

The social construction of deviance. Wiley-Blackwell.

Górska, P., Marchlewska, M., Szczepańska, D.,

Molenda, Z., Michalski, P., & Furman, A. (2022).

A vicious circle? Longitudinal relationships

between different modes of in-group identity and

COVID-19 conspiracy thinking. The Journal of

Social Psychology, 163(6), 877–894. https://doi.org

/10.1080/00224545.2022.2111250

Górska, P., Stefaniak, A., Malinowska, K., Lipowska,

K., Marchlewska, M., Budziszewska, M., & Maci-

antowicz, O. (2020). Too great to act in solidar-

ity: The negative relationship between collective

narcissism and solidarity-based collective action.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 561–578.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2638

Gronfeldt, B., Cislak, A., Sternisko, A., Eker, I.,

& Cichocka, A. (2023). A small price to pay:

National narcissism predicts readiness to

sacrifice in-group members to defend the

in-group’s image. Personality and Social Psy-

chology Bulletin, 49(4), 612–626. https://doi.

org/10.1177/01461672221074790

Guerra, R., Bierwiaczonek, K., Ferreira, M., Golec de

Zavala, A., Abakoumkin, G., Wildschut, T., &

Sedikides, C. (2023). An intergroup approach to

collective narcissism: Intergroup threats and hos-

tility in four European Union countries. Group

Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(2), 415–433.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220972178

Guerra, R., Golec de Zavala, A., Ciesielski, P., Bier-

wiaczonek, K., Abakoumkin, G., Wildschut, T.,

& Sedikides, C. (2024). A case of mistaken iden-

tity: Ingroup misrecognition triggers collective narcissism.

ISCTE, Portugal & Department of Psychology,

Goldsmiths, University of London [Manuscript

submitted for publication].

Gusfield, J. R. (1963). Symbolic crusade: Status politics and

the American temperance movement. University of Illi-

nois Press.

Hase, A., Behnke, M., Mazurkiewicz, M., Wieteska, K.

K., & Golec de Zavala, A. (2021). Distress and

retaliatory aggression in response to witness-

ing intergroup exclusion are greater on higher

levels of collective narcissism. Psychophysiology,

58(9), Article e13879. https://doi.org/10.1111/

psyp.13879

1046 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 27(5)

Hässler, T., Ullrich, J., Sebben, S., Shnabel, N., Ber-

nardino, M., Valdenegro, D., van Laar, C.,

González, R., Visintin, E. P., Tropp, L. R., Ditl-

mann, R. K., Abrams, D., Aydin, A. L., Pereira,

A., Selvanathan, H. P., von Zimmermann, J.,

Lantos, N. A., Sainz, M., Glenz, A., . . .Pistella,

J. (2022). Need satisfaction in intergroup contact:

A multinational study of pathways toward social

change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 122(4), 634–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/

pspi0000365

Huddy, L., & del Ponte, A. (2019). National iden-

tity, pride, and chauvinism—Their origins and

consequences for globalization attitudes. In G.

Gustavsson & D. Miller (Eds.), Liberal nationalism

and its critics: Normative and empirical questions (pp.

38–58). Oxford University Press.

Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism,

national identity, and political involvement. Amer-

ican Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 63–77. https://

doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00237.x

Jackson, J. W., & Smith, E. R. (1999). Conceptualizing

social identity: A new framework and evidence

for the impact of different dimensions. Personal-

ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(1), 120–135.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025001010

Jaśko, K., Webber, D., Kruglanski, A. W., Gelfand,

M., Taufiqurrohman, M., Hettiarachchi, M., &

Gunaratna, R. (2020). Social context moderates

the effects of quest for significance on violent

extremism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 118(6), 1165–1187. https://doi.org/10.1037/

pspi0000198

Jost, J. T. (2019). A quarter century of system justifi-

cation theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and

societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychol-

ogy, 58(2), 263–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/

bjso.12297

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of ste-

reotyping in system-justification and the pro-

duction of false consciousness. British Journal

of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.

org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

Keenan, O., & Golec de Zavala, A. (2021). Collective

narcissism and weakening of American democ-

racy. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 21(1),

237–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12274

Keenan, O., & Golec de Zavala, A. (2023). Collective

narcissism and White supremacy and Black resistance.

Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, Univer-

sity of London [Manuscript submitted for publi-

cation].

Kofta, M., Soral, W., & Bilewicz, M. (2020). What

breeds conspiracy antisemitism? The role of

political uncontrollability and uncertainty in the

belief in Jewish conspiracy. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 118(5), 900–918. https://doi.

org/10.1037/pspa0000183

Kok, B. E., Waugh, C. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2013).

Meditation and health: The search for mecha-

nisms of action. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass, 7(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/

spc3.12006

Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a

measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes.

Political Psychology, 10(2), 257–274. https://doi.

org/10.2307/3791647

Lantos, D., & Forgas, J. P. (2021). The role of col-

lective narcissism in populist attitudes and the

collapse of democracy in Hungary. Journal of Theo-

retical Social Psychology, 5(2), 65–78. https://doi.

org/10.1002/jts5.80

Lantos, D., Mole, R., & Golec de Zavala, A. (2023). Polish

collective narcissism, essentialism and homophobia. Depart-

ment of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of

London [Manuscript submitted for publication].

Lasco, G. (2020). Medical populism and the COVID-

19 pandemic. Global Public Health, 15(10), 1417–

1429. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1

807581

Lasco, G., & Curato, N. (2019). Medical populism.

Social Science & Medicine, 221, 1–8. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.12.006

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 (multicompo-

nent) 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

Louis, W., Thomas, E., McGarty, C., Lizzio-Wilson,

M., Amiot, C., & Moghaddam, F. (2020). The

volatility of collective action: Theoretical analy-

sis and empirical data. Political Psychology, 41(S1),

35–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12671

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collec-

tive self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of

one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psy-

chology Bulletin, 18(3), 302–318. https://doi.

org/10.1177/0146167292183006

Golec de Zavala 1047

Marchlewska, M., Cichocka, A., Furman, A., & Cislak,

A. (2022). Who respects the will of the people?

Support for democracy is linked to high secure

national identity but low national narcissism.

British Journal of Social Psychology, 61(2), 599–621.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12499

Marchlewska, M., Cichocka, A., Panayiotou, O.,

Castellanos, K., & Batayneh, J. (2018). Pop-

ulism as identity politics: Perceived in-group

disadvantage, collective narcissism, and sup-

port for populism. Social Psychological and Per-

sonality Science, 9(2), 151–162. https://doi.

org/10.1177/1948550617732393

Marchlewska, M., Górska, P., Green, R., Szczepańska,

D., Rogoza, M., Molenda, Z., & Michalski, P.

(2024). From individual anxiety to collective

narcissism? Adult attachment styles and differ-

ent types of national commitment. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(4), 495–515. https://

doi.org/10.1177/01461672221139072

Marchlewska, M., Hamer, K., Baran, M., Górska,

P., & Kaniasty, K. (2022). COVID-19: Why do

people refuse vaccination? The role of social

identities and conspiracy beliefs: Evidence from

nationwide samples of Polish adults. Vaccines,

10(2), Article 268. https://doi.org/10.3390/vac-

cines10020268

Marinthe, G., Cichocka, A., Cislak, A., Alexander-

Grose, N., & Azevedo, F. (2022). Understanding

identity processes in support for reactionary and

progressive social movements among advantaged

and disadvantaged groups: The role of collective

narcissism and secure ingroup identity. Euro-

pean Journal of Social Psychology, 52(7), 1047–1063.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2885

Miller, D., & Ali, S. (2014). Testing the national iden-

tity argument. European Political Science Review, 6(2),

237–259. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913

000088

Mole, R. C. M., Golec de Zavala, A., & Ardag, M. M.

(2021). Homophobia and national collective nar-

cissism in populist Poland. European Journal of Soci-

ology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 62(1), 37–70.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975621000072

Molina, L. E., Phillips, N. L., & Sidanius, J. (2015).

National and ethnic identity in the face of

discrimination: Ethnic minority and major-

ity perspectives. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic

Minority Psychology, 21(2), 225–236. https://doi.

org/10.1037/a0037880

Mols, F., & Jetten, J. (2017). The wealth paradox: Economic

prosperity and the hardening of attitudes. Cambridge

University Press.

Mudde, C. (2019). The far right today. Wiley.

Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism:

A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

Müller, J. W. (2017). What is populism? Penguin Books.

Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash:

Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge

University Press.

Nowak, B., Brzóska, P., Piotrowski, J., Żemojtel-

Piotrowska, M., & Jonason, P. (2023). They will

(not) deceive us! The role of agentic and commu-

nal national narcissism in shaping the attitudes to

Ukrainian refugees in Poland. Personality and Indi-

vidual Differences, 208, Article 112184. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112184

Petersen, M., Osmundsen, M., & Arceneaux, K.

(2023). The “need for chaos” and motivations

to share hostile political rumors. American Politi-

cal Science Review, 117(4), 1486–1505. https://doi.

org/10.1017/S0003055422001447

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B.

F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A per-

sonality variable predicting social and political

attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.67.4.741

Putra, I. E., Mashuri, A., & Nurhamida, Y. (2022).

Identifying hate speech in societal context:

When psychological factors are more important

than contents. Analyses of Social Issues and Public

Policy, 22(3), 906–927. https://doi.org/10.1111/

asap.12320

Reyna, C., Bellovary, A., & Harris, K. (2022). The

psychology of White nationalism: Ambivalence

towards a changing America. Social Issues and Policy

Review, 16(1), 79–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/

sipr.12081

Reynolds, K. J., Jones, B. M., O’Brien, K., & Subasic, E.

(2013). Theories of socio-political change and the

dynamics of sub-group versus superordinate inter-

ests. European Psychologist, 18(4), 235–244. https://

doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000159

Roccas, S., Klar, Y., & Liviatan, I. (2006). The paradox

of group-based guilt: Modes of national identifi-

cation, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the

in-group’s moral violations. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 91(4), 698–711. https://doi.

org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.698

1048 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 27(5)

Rubin, M., Owuamalam, C. K., Spears, R., & Caricati,

L. (2023). A social identity model of system atti-

tudes (SIMSA): Multiple explanations of system

justification by the disadvantaged that do not

depend on a separate system justification motive.

European Review of Social Psychology, 34(2), 203–243.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022

Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F.

(2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup con-

tact can produce false expectations for equal-

ity. Psychological Science, 20(1), 114–121. https://

doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x

Schatz, R. T., Staub, E., & Lavine, H. (1999). On the

varieties of national attachment: Blind versus con-

structive patriotism. Political Psychology, 20(1), 151–

174. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00140

Shnabel, N., & Ullrich, J. (2013). Increasing intergroup

cooperation toward social change by restoring

advantaged and disadvantaged groups’ positive

identities. Journal of Social and Political Psychology,

1(1), 216–238. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.

v1i1.187

Sidanius, J., Feshbach, S., Levin, S., & Pratto, F. (1997).

The interface between ethnic and national attach-

ment: Ethnic pluralism or ethnic dominance? The

Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(1), 102–133. https://

www.jstor.org/stable/2749514

Sidanius, J., & Petrocik, J. R. (2001). Communal and

national identity in a multiethnic state. In R. D.

Ashmore, L. Jussim, & D. Wilder (Eds.), Social

identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction (pp.

101–127). Oxford University Press.

Simon, B. (2020). A new perspective on intergroup con-

flict: The social psychology of politicized struggles

for recognition. Theory & Psychology, 30(2), 147–163.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319887227

Smith, A. D. (1991). National identity (Vol. 11). Univer-

sity of Nevada Press.

Sternisko, A., Cichocka, A., Cislak, A., & van Bavel,

J. J. (2023). National narcissism predicts the

belief in and the dissemination of conspiracy

theories during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evi-

dence from 56 countries. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 49(1), 48–65. https://doi.

org/10.1177/01461672211054947

Swann, W. B., & Buhrmester, M. D. (2015).

Identity fusion. Current Directions in Psy-

chological Science, 24(1), 52–57. https://doi.

org/10.1177/0963721414551363

Szczepańska, D., Marchlewska, M., Karakula, A.,

Molenda, Z., Górska, P., & Rogoza, M. (2022).

Dedicated to nation but against women? National

narcissism predicts support for anti-abortion laws

in Poland. Sex Roles, 87, 99–115. https://doi.

org/10.1007/s11199-022-01303-3

Tabri, N., & Conway, M. (2011). Negative expectan-

cies for the group’s outcomes undermine norma-

tive collective action: Conflict between Christian

and Muslim groups in Lebanon. British Journal

of Social Psychology, 50(4), 649–669. https://doi.

org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02071.x

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative the-

ory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S.

Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup rela-

tions (pp. 33–37). Brooks/Cole.

Tausch, N., & Becker, J. C. (2013). Emotional reac-

tions to success and failure of collective action as

predictors of future action intentions: A longitu-

dinal investigation in the context of student pro-

tests in Germany. British Journal of Social Psychology,

52(3), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-

8309.2012.02109.x

Ufkes, E. G., Calcagno, J., Glasford, D. E., & Dovidio,

J. F. (2016). Understanding how common

ingroup identity undermines collective action

among disadvantaged-group members. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 26–35. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.11.006

Urbiola, A., McGarty, C., & Costa-Lopes, R. (2022). The

AMIGAS model: Reconciling prejudice reduc-

tion and collective action approaches through a

multicultural commitment in intergroup relations.

Review of General Psychology, 26(1), 68–85. https://

doi.org/10.1177/10892680211056321

Uscinski, J. E., Enders, A. M., Seelig, M. I., Klofstad,

C. A., Funchion, J. R., Everett, C., Wuchty, S.,

Premaratne, K., & Murthi, M. N. (2021). Ameri-

can politics in two dimensions: Partisan and

ideological identities versus anti-establishment

orientations. American Journal of Political Sci-

ence, 65(4), 877–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/

ajps.12616

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2020).

Homeland threat assessment: October 2020. https://

www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publica-

tions/2020_10_06_homeland-threat-assessment.

pdf

Van Berkel, L., Molina, L. E., & Mukherjee, S.

(2017). Gender asymmetry in the construc-

tion of American national identity. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 41(3), 352–367. https://doi.

org/10.1177/0361684317707710

Golec de Zavala 1049

van Bezouw, M. J., van der Toorn, J., & Becker, J. C.

(2021). Social creativity: Reviving a social iden-

tity approach to social stability. European Journal

of Social Psychology, 51(2), 409–422. https://doi.

org/10.1002/ejsp.2732

Verkuyten, M., Kollar, R., Gale, J., & Yogeeswaran, K.

(2022). Right-wing political orientation, national

identification and the acceptance of immigrants

and minorities. Personality and Individual Differences,

184, Article 111217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

paid.2021.111217

Viroli, M. (1995). For love of country: An essay on patriotism

and nationalism. Clarendon.

Webber, D., Kruglanski, A., Molinario, E., & Jaśko, K.

(2020). Ideologies that justify political violence.

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 107–111.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.01.004

Wenzel, M., Waldzus, S., & Steffens, M. (2016).

Ingroup projection as a challenge of diversity:

Consensus about and complexity of superordi-

nate categories. In C. Sibley & F. Barlow (Eds.),

The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice

(pp. 65–89). Cambridge University Press. https://

doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.004

West, K., Greenland, K., van Laar, C., & Barnoth,

D. (2022). It’s only discrimination when they do

it to us: When White men use ingroup-serving

double standards in definitional boundaries of

discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychol-

ogy, 52(4), 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1002/

ejsp.2849

Yustisia, W., Putra, I. E., Kavanagh, C., Whitehouse,

H., & Rufaedah, A. (2020). The role of reli-

gious fundamentalism and tightness–looseness

in promoting collective narcissism and extreme

group behavior. Psychology of Religion and Spiritu-

ality, 12(2), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/

rel0000269

Born This Way? National Collective Narcissism, Implicit Homophobia, and Homosexual Essentialism in Populist Poland

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2024
ARCH SEX BEHAV

Prejudice toward the LGBT community has become prevalent in Poland under the ultraconservative populist government. The results of three studies conducted between 2018 and 2019 (N1 = 879, N2 = 324, and N3 = 374) indicate that Polish collective narcissism—the belief that the exaggerated greatness of the nation is not recognized by others—is associated with implicit homophobia assessed as the intuitive disapproval of gay men and automatic evaluative preference of heterosexuality over homosexuality. Those associations were to a large extent explained by the relationships between collective narcissism and (1) the belief that groups defined by sexual orientations are essentially distinct; (2) the belief that homosexuality is a personal choice, not genetically determined or culturally universal. The experimental results of Study 3 indicated that inducing the belief that non-normative sexuality is genetically determined and culturally universal reduced automatic preference for heterosexuality over homosexuality (but not intuitive disapproval of gay men) across levels of collective narcissism (contrary to predictions). The obtained results complete the picture of the association of narcissistic beliefs about the nation and homophobia emerging from previous studies. National narcissism is linked not only to explicit but also to latent, implicit homophobia likely to be triggered by increased presence of national narcissism in public discourse. Moreover, national narcissism is linked to implicit homophobia, especially via the agentic belief that sexual orientation is a matter of choice. Changing this belief reduces implicit homophobia also among national narcissists.

Destructive belief systems and violent behavior within and between groups and identities

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

This special issue celebrates 25 years of the Sage journal Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. In this article, we use examples of the current sociopolitical climate to highlight the importance of the scientific inquiry into group processes and intergroup relations. Ingrained identities that arise from groups are responsible for causing wars, protests, community clashes with law enforcement, violence, climate change, major public health crises, and societal change. However, just as blame goes to groups, collectives can be harnessed for solutions. This special issue contains 13 articles that showcase the diversity of research in Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, all of which contribute to theory advancement and the application of science to real world issues.

Group responses to deviance: Disentangling the motivational roles of collective enhancement and self-uncertainty reduction

Article

May 2024

In this paper, we describe two basic motives for social identification: a drive for collective enhancement and a drive for epistemic fulfillment (uncertainty reduction). We posit that these two motives are critical for understanding one of the fundamental underlying mechanisms of social identity theory (SIT): positive distinctiveness, which is a desire to feel different from and better than relevant outgroups. Whereas “positive” was clearly outlined in the original social identity theory of intergroup relations, “distinctiveness” became a focal point of self-categorization theory. Most existing literature treats positive distinctiveness as a single construct; however, we argue that the “positive” and “distinctive” elements should be treated as separate but critically intertwined concepts. We suggest that “positive” is a direct feature of a desire for collective enhancement, and “distinctiveness” from a relevant outgroup is necessary for self-categorization that provides information to reduce self-uncertainty. Using the subjective group dynamics framework, which has historically emphasized the enhancement motive, we mathematically show that the motives act sequentially and differently to affect responses to deviance and change from it.

Policing at the crossroads: An intergroup communication accommodation perspective

Article

May 2024

This article discusses a timely and recent domain of intergroup relations scholarship that focuses on communication between police and the public—a domain we have previously described as intergroup par excellence. We begin with a brief overview of research on this topic, and then introduce four interrelated areas of research that illustrate the diversity and relevance of this approach: policing and stereotyping, communication accommodation (and nonaccommodation) by police officials, intergroup contact and communication interventions that seek to improve relations between the police and the public, and the role of intergroup communication in translating scientific evidence into police policy and practice. Finally, we provide a critical research agenda that includes an integrated model of intergroup communication and policing.

Gender and National Collective Narcissism: Gender Asymmetries and Obstacles to Gender Equality

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2024
SEX ROLES

To elucidate how ingroup identification is implicated in attitudes towards gender equality, it is important to consider that (1) people simultaneously identify with more (a nation) vs. less abstract groups (gender), and (2) gender collective narcissism is the specific aspect of ingroup identification likely to inspire opposite attitudes towards gender equality among men (negative) and women (positive), but (3) national narcissism is likely to align with men’s interests and inspire negative attitudes towards gender equality among men and women. In Study 1, we demonstrate that gender collective narcissism is the same variable among men and women. In Study 2, we show that among women (but not among men) in Poland, gender collective narcissism predicts intentions to engage in normative and non-normative collective action for gender equality. In Study 3, we show that gender collective narcissists among women endorse an egalitarian outlook, whereas gender collective narcissists among men reject it. In contrast, national narcissism predicts refusal to engage in collective action for gender equality and endorsement of an anti-egalitarian outlook among women and among men. Thus, national narcissism and gender collective narcissism among men impair pursuit of gender equality. Gender collective narcissism among women facilitates engagement in collective action for gender equality. Low gender collective narcissism among men and low national narcissism may also facilitate support for gender equality.

Mindful-Gratitude Practice Reduces Prejudice at High Levels of Collective Narcissism

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2024

This research tested the hypothesis that mindful-gratitude practice attenuates the robust association between collective narcissism and prejudice. In Study 1 (a between-subjects study using a nationally representative sample of 569 Polish adults; 313 female), 10 min of mindful-gratitude practice—compared to mindful-attention practice and control—did not decrease prejudice (anti-Semitism), but weakened the positive link between collective narcissism and prejudice. In Study 2 (a preregistered, randomized, controlled-trial study using a convenience sample of 219 Polish adults; 168 female), a 6-week mobile app supported training in daily mindful-gratitude practice decreased prejudice (anti-Semitism, sexism, homophobia, anti-immigrant sentiment) and its link with collective narcissism compared to a wait-list control. The hypothesis-consistent results emphasize the social relevance of mindful-gratitude practice, a time- and cost-effective intervention.

The Psychology of Collective Narcissism: Insights from Social Identity Theory

Book

Full-text available

Oct 2023

Agnieszka Golec de Zavala

Collective Narcissism and the Clash of Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups

Chapter

Full-text available

Aug 2023

Double trouble: How sectarian and national narcissism relate differently to collective violence beliefs in Lebanon

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2023
AGGRESSIVE BEHAV

Collective narcissism is a belief in ingroup greatness which is contingent on external validation. A lack of research on collective narcissism amongst non-Western contexts and minority groups remains a challenge for the field. However, here we test two types of collective narcissism (sectarian and national) as differential predictors of two dimensions of collective violence beliefs (against outgroup members and leaders) in a large, diverse, community sample from Lebanon (N = 778). We found that sectarian narcissism (narcissism related to smaller political and religious ingroup identity) predicted support for collective violence against members of different sects, while national narcissism predicted opposition to such collective violence. Neither form of collective narcissism had any significant relationship with collective violence against outgroup leaders. We controlled for both sectarian and national identification and found no significant effects in predicting either one of the two dimensions of collective violence beliefs. In this non-Western context, in which a coherent national identity is undermined by sectarianism, national narcissism seems to be a progressive motivator for unity and social change, while sectarian narcissism is rather associated with extreme attitudes, such as support for collective violence.

App-based mindfulness training supported eudaimonic wellbeing during the COVID19 pandemic

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2023

A randomized-controlled-trial study (N = 219) tested two pre-registered hypotheses that mobile-phone app-based mindfulness training improves wellbeing and increases self-transcendent emotions: gratitude, self-compassion, and awe. Latent change score modeling with a robust maximum likelihood estimator was used to test how those changes are associated in the training versus the waiting-list group. The training increased wellbeing and all self-transcendent emotions regardless of interindividual variance in the changes across time. Changes in all self-transcendent emotions were positively associated with changes in wellbeing. The strength of those associations was comparable in the waiting-list group and the training group. More studies are needed to test whether the effects of mindfulness practice on wellbeing are driven by increases in self-transcendent emotions. The study was conducted over 6 weeks during the COVID19 pandemic. The results indicate that the mindfulness training can be an easily accessible effective intervention supporting eudaimonic wellbeing in face of adversity.

A social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA): Multiple explanations of system justification by the disadvantaged that do not depend on a separate system justification motive

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023
EUR REV SOC PSYCHOL

System justification theory (SJT) assumes that social identity theory (SIT) cannot fully account for system justification by members of low-status (disadvantaged) groups. Contrary to this claim, we provide several elaborations of SIT that explain when and why members of low-status groups show system justification independent from any separate system justification motive. According to the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA), the needs for social accuracy and a positively distinct social identity fully account for system justification by members of low-status groups. In the present article, we (a) explain SIMSA’s accounts of system justification, (b) develop associated hypotheses, (c) summarise evidence that supports each hypothesis, and (d) highlight issues to be addressed in future research. We conclude that SIMSA provides a more parsimonious explanation of system justification by the disadvantaged than SJT, because it does not refer to an additional separate system justification motive.

The “Need for Chaos” and Motivations to Share Hostile Political Rumors

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2023

Why are some people motivated to circulate hostile political information? While prior studies have focused on partisan motivations, we demonstrate that some individuals circulate hostile rumors because they wish to unleash chaos to “burn down” the entire political order in the hope they gain status in the process. To understand this psychology, we theorize and measure a novel psychological state, the Need for Chaos, emerging in an interplay of social marginalization and status-oriented personalities. Across eight studies of individuals living in the United States, we show that this need is a strong predictor of motivations to share hostile political rumors, even after accounting for partisan motivations, and can help illuminate differences and commonalities in the frustrations of both historically privileged and marginalized groups. To stem the tide of hostility on social media, the present findings suggest that real-world policy solutions are needed to address social frustrations in the United States.

Communal and National Identity in a Multiethnic State: A Comparison of Three Perspectives

Chapter

Aug 2001

How are group-based identities related to intergroup conflict? When and how do ethnic, religious, and national identities lead to oppression, violence, rebellion, war, mass murder, and genocide? How do intergroup conflicts change people’s identities? How might social identity be harnessed in the service of reducing conflict between groups? The chapters in this book present a sophisticated and detailed interdisciplinary analysis of the most fundamental issues in understanding identity and conflict.

They will (not) deceive us! The role of agentic and communal national narcissism in shaping the attitudes to Ukrainian refugees in Poland ☆

Article

Jul 2023
PERS INDIV DIFFER

Even though Poles accept war refugees from Ukraine, the refugees could represent a realistic threat (via economic competition), which could create anti-refugee attitudes. However, they are unlikely to represent a symbolic threat toward ingroup values, given that they are culturally like Poles. Agentic and communal national narcissists differ in their sensitivity toward realistic and symbolic threats but agentic ones are more sensitive to realistic threats whereas communal ones react more to symbolic ones. Therefore, we expect their different reactions toward Ukrainian refugees along with accepting relevant justifications of such reactions, that is, Russian anti-Ukrainian narration. Therefore, we examined (N = 402) the attitudes of Polish national agentic and communal narcissists toward Ukrainian refugees, both directly and indirectly, through belief in Russian narration. Agentic national narcissism was associated with less favorable attitudes toward Ukrainians both directly and indirectly through stronger beliefs in Russian narration. Communal national narcissism was correlated with more favorable attitudes toward Ukrainians and weaker beliefs in Russian narration. The results align with the idea that national narcissists react stronger to the kind of threat relevant to the domain that satisfies their narcissistic needs. Therefore, national narcissism is not necessarily accompanied by more anti-refugee prejudice.

Authoritarians and “revolutionaries in reverse”: Why collective narcissism threatens democracy

Abstract

Recommended publications

Collective narcissism of populism

Collective Narcissism and the Clash of Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups

Collective narcissism and prejudice

The Father’s Love: Collective Narcissism and Defensive Reactions to Allegations about Pope John Paul...