Content uploaded by Agnieszka Golec de Zavala
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Agnieszka Golec de Zavala on Feb 13, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
1
This chapter is to be published as Golec de Zavala, A. (2025). Collective narcissism, political violence and
terrorism. In M. Yal c h, M. Taylor, L. Brown, A. Merari, & B. Bongar (Eds.).The Oxford Handbook of the
Psychology of Terrorism and Terrorist Behavior. Oxford University Press
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
Agnieszka Golec de Zavala, Goldsmiths, University of London
Abstract
Collective narcissism is an individual predisposition toward political radicalization. It is the belief
that the ingroup’s exaggerated greatness is insufficiently recognized by others. This belief distorts
social cognition, fostering a consistent yet inaccurate narrative in which the ingroup is perpetually
wronged by others and therefore justified in responding with hostility. Collective narcissism predicts
(1) intergroup violence in escalating conflicts between antagonistic groups of comparable power
(e.g., religious, political); (2) resistance or progressive violence, in which historically disadvantaged
groups mobilize to challenge existing power structures; and (3) reactionary, supremacist, or state
violence, in which traditionally advantaged groups seek to preserve and expand their dominance.
Collective narcissists embrace violence for its own sake, derive satisfaction from the misfortunes of
others, and are indifferent to the destruction of a world that fails to satisfy their need for recognition.
Keywords: collective narcissism, political radicalization, political extremism, polarization, terrorism,
conflict escalation, collective action
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
2
The Global Terrorism Index (2024) indicates that terrorism - an illegal use of violence against
non-combatants to achieve political goals (Atran, 2021; Doosje et al., 2016)- remains a global threat
with the total of terrorism related deaths reaching their highest levels since 2017. In 2023, over 90%
of terrorist attacks occurred in conflict zones and were carried out by members of fighting groups
amid escalating violence. In contrast, terrorism in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) countries is at its lowest since 2007, following peaks in 2016 and 2017. In
the OECD countries, perpetrators of terrorist acts have been inspired by specific extremist
ideologies, but not formally tied to any political group. Extremist ideologies legitimize violence,
hatred and intolerance, rejection of rights of others and the use of undemocratic measures to achieve
political goals (New Definition of Extremism 2024 gov.uk). One factor associated with the adoption
of extremist ideologies, which is the focus of this chapter, is collective narcissism, as an individual
predisposition to political radicalization and proclivity toward political violence (Golec de Zavala,
2023; 2024a).
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
Psychological models of conflict escalation, political radicalization and political extremism
agree that regardless of its presentation in different regions of the world, terrorism is enabled by
moral condemnation, vilification, dehumanization and homogenization (i.e., seeing all members as
equivalent to each other) of the group identified as the enemy (Bandura, 2004; Moghadam, 2005).
Those models also converge on a key observation: ‘Not all people become increasingly radical’
(Doosje et al., 2016, p. 79) and not all group members are equally susceptible to mechanisms of
conflict escalation and political radicalization (Saguy & Reifen-Tagar, 2022). For example, the
influential Staircase to Terrorism model (Moghaddam, 2005) depicts radicalization as a narrowing
staircase. It begins with a broad base of grievances against an outgroup, shared by many members of
the ingroup. However, as the process of radicalization unfolds, fewer individuals advance to the
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
3
higher stages, with only a small number ultimately engaging in terrorist acts. This raises a question –
all contextual and situational factors of political radicalization being equal, can we identify those
who are more likely to radicalize?
Collective narcissism is the belief that the ingroup’s exaggerated greatness is not sufficiently
recognized by others. This belief remains relatively stable within individuals across time, different
situations and social identities, meaning that the same person tends to exhibit similar levels of
collective narcissism in relation to different groups they belong to (Federico et al., 2021; 2022; Golec
de Zavala & Keenan, 2024; Golec de Zavala et al., 2009; 2020). Research directly links collective
narcissism to support for supremacist and terrorist violence, including suicide terrorism—violent
attacks in which the attacker willingly dies. When collective narcissism was tied to radicalized
groups, such as the LTTE in Sri Lanka or jihadist movements in Morocco and Indonesia, it predicted
support for extreme political goals, including separatism and world domination, as well as political
violence, including terrorism (Jasko et al., 2020). In Indonesia, collective narcissism associated with
radical Sunni Islamic organizations was linked to the endorsement of terrorist violence and
willingness to die for the ingroup (Yustisia et al., 2020). Collective narcissism is also associated with
political extremism and supremacist violence. For example, American collective narcissism predicted
support for supremacist, alt-right movements (Marinthe et al., 2022), and supremacist violence such
as the Capitol raid on January 6th, 2021, the riot, which broke after Donald Trump framed his loss of
the presidential election to Joe Biden as a fraud (Federico et al., 2022a; Keenan & Golec de Zavala,
2021).
Collective narcissism research provides a unifying framework to integrate disparate
literatures addressing the psychological mechanisms underlying the escalation of intergroup
conflicts, collective action, and political radicalization. Collective narcissism theory posits that the
same narcissistic demand for special recognition and treatment of the ingroup drives various forms of
political violence, including support for terrorist acts both in impoverished conflict zones and within
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
4
affluent, stable OECD democracies. What differs is the ingroup on which the narcissistic need for
recognition is projected (Golec de Zavala, 2023; 2024a, 2024b; Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2021;
Golec de Zavala & Lantos, 2020). Collective narcissism may be expressed in relation to
superordinate groups, such as nations (i.e., national collective narcissism or national narcissism), as
well as horizontally organized, subordinate groups within a nation, including political parties,
interest groups, and ideological movements (e.g., religious organizations, political parties).
Furthermore, collective narcissism can manifest within hierarchically structured subordinate groups,
wherein traditionally advantaged groups (e.g., men, Whites, heterosexuals) dominate traditionally
disadvantaged groups (e.g., women, racial or sexual minorities). A nuanced understanding of the role
of collective narcissism in political radicalization requires considering the position of the ingroup
that satisfies the narcissistic need for recognition. Consistent with the theory of situated identities
(Oyserman & Schwarz, 2017), shifting intergroup contexts may activate distinct beliefs and
behavioral intentions in individuals, depending on which of their intersecting social identities is most
salient and mobilizing. The specific ingroup to which collective narcissism is attached determines the
form of political violence it predicts. When expressed in relation to horizontally organized groups of
relatively equal power and resources, collective narcissism fosters intergroup conflict escalation.
Among traditionally disadvantaged groups, it is associated with resistance or progressive violence as
a means of contesting access to power and resources. Within traditionally advantaged groups,
collective narcissism predicts reactionary, supremacist, or state-sanctioned violence aimed at
preserving and consolidating existing power hierarchies (Becker, 2020; Jost et al., 2017; Thomas &
Osborne, 2022). Regardless of the ingroup, the core motivational, emotional, and cognitive
mechanisms triggered by collective narcissism function similarly to justify political violence on
behalf of the salient ingroup. These mechanisms have the potential to radicalize individuals, and
may, in turn, radicalize entire groups. This occurs when collective narcissism is embraced and
internalized by group members as a normative belief that defines their ingroup’s identity. In such
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
5
cases, collective narcissism organizes perceptions, norms, and behaviors shared by ingroup members
and spreads through the processes of social influence and group cohesion.
This chapter begins by situating collective narcissism within broader theoretical frameworks
that explore the relationship between positive ingroup identification and intergroup hostility. In doing
so, it challenges the notion that strong identification with or positive evaluation of the ingroup
necessarily leads to hatred of outgroups and the escalation of intergroup hostility—a perspective
historically articulated through concepts such as ethnocentrism (a belief in the ingroup’s superiority,
Sumner, 1911) and nationalism (a dominant and antagonistic international stance, Kosterman &
Feshbach, 1989). The chapter then reviews empirical research demonstrating that collective
narcissism is distinct from genuine ingroup satisfaction – a belief that the group is of a high value
and a reason to be proud (e.g., Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990; Leach et al., 2008) - both in its
psychological underpinnings and behavioral consequences. While ingroup satisfaction reflects a
fundamental need to belong to a positively valued ingroup, collective narcissism is a desire for
external recognition of the ingroup’s exaggerated superiority. This distinction is critical because
collective narcissism is uniquely associated with an antagonistic, conflict-supporting mindset,
intergroup hostility, and aggression, particularly in response to perceived intergroup threats. Ingroup
satisfaction suppresses the negative consequences of collective narcissism. Further, the chapter
discusses how political radicalization presents differently depending on the social status of the
ingroup to which collective narcissism is attached. Finally, the chapter examines how collective
narcissism contributes to the endorsement of ruthless leadership regardless of political orientation
and a general predisposition toward destruction and chaos.
Collective narcissism motivates conflict-supporting mindset
The psychological study of mechanisms underlying intergroup hatred and the vilification of
outgroups is largely informed by the social identity perspective (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner &
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
6
Reynolds, 2003) and the literature on intergroup conflict escalation, particularly research on
intractable conflicts—those that are protracted, intense, and resistant to de-escalation (Bar-Tal, 2020;
Saguy & Reifen-Tagar, 2022). The social identity perspective posits that intergroup hatred arises
fundamentally from the categorization of individuals into “us” and “them”—the ingroup and the
homogenous outgroup—and from the universal desire for positive self-esteem, which is satisfied by
establishing positive ingroup distinctiveness, or the belief that the ingroup compares favorably to
relevant outgroups (Ellemers, 1993; Turner, 1975). The conflict escalation literature further
elucidates the cognitive, emotional, motivational, and intra- and intergroup processes that enable
individuals to adapt to the hardship and sacrifices necessitated by escalating intergroup conflicts, but
at the same time impair conflict de-escalation (Bar-Tal, 2020; Saguy & Reifen-Tagar, 2022). These
mechanisms foster shifts in cognitive, emotional and motivational frameworks towards conflict-
supporting mindset. A conflict-supporting mindset is characterized by a zero-sum perception of
intergroup relations, in which one group’s success is perceived as inherently coming at the expense
of the other. In this framework, any increase in the status or power of one group is seen as
necessarily infringing upon the status of the other. This mindset is also marked by a moralized black-
and-white perception of the ingroup and outgroup, wherein the ingroup is viewed as righteous,
moral, and victimized, while the outgroup is demonized as evil and inhuman. Consequently, the
conflict-supporting mindset is also characterized by a perceived continuous threat from the outgroup
that legitimizes escalating violence perpetrated by the ingroup. This mindset transforms initial
outgroup derogation —originally motivated by the need for positive ingroup distinctiveness—into
outgroup hatred, dehumanization and prioritization of the desire to hurt and annihilate the enemy
over the motivation to achieve the ingroup’s goals (Atran, 2021; Bar-Tal, 2020; Kruglanski et al.,
2018; Saguy & Reifen-Tagar, 2022; Webber et al., 2020).
Collective narcissism theory posits that a conflict-supporting mindset is chronically salient
among individuals exhibiting high levels of collective narcissism (Golec de Zavala, 2011; 2018;
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
7
Golec de Zavala & Lantos, 2020). Moreover, at elevated levels of collective narcissism, intergroup
conflicts are actively constructed, and adversaries are perceived—or even invented—irrespective of
the actual intergroup dynamics (Golec de Zavala et al., 2016; 2022). Importantly, research on
collective narcissism elucidates that outgroup derogation and its escalation are primarily driven by
the collective narcissistic need for external recognition of the ingroup’s superiority, rather than by the
more general motivation for positive ingroup distinctiveness or a fundamental need for positive self-
esteem (Golec de Zavala et al., 2013; 2020). To fully appreciate this distinction, it is crucial to clarify
what collective narcissism entails—and, equally, what it does not.
Clarifying the concept of collective narcissism
Collective narcissism constitutes a specific dimension of ingroup identification—the extent to
which group membership is “psychologically consequential”. Ingroup identification is a multifaceted
construct (Leach et al., 2008), fulfilling a variety of psychological needs, including belonging,
meaning, identity, and control (Vignoles et al., 2006). However, among these, the needs satisfied by
positive ingroup evaluation—such as self-esteem and self-enhancement—appear to be particularly
consequential for attitudes toward outgroups and intergroup dynamics (Ashmore et al., 2003; Roccas
et al., 2006). Collective narcissism reflects a specific aspect of the self-enhancement motive - the
narcissistic need for external recognition of superiority- at the social level of the self. This need
systematically distorts social cognition, guiding information selection and processing in a manner
that sustains face-saving narratives, which explain why the ingroup’s exceptional status remains
unrecognized by others (Golec de Zavala, 2020; 2023; 2024a). The same narcissistic motivational
core underpins and organizes a variety of beliefs about intergroup situations, all of which share a
common characteristic: a flexible relationship with facts and evidence, prioritizing narrative
coherence over empirical accuracy. This narrative serves to mobilize and justify violence against
those deemed adversaries, who are blamed for obstructing the ingroup’s rightful recognition.
Importantly, positive ingroup evaluation is not solely a manifestation of narcissistic needs. It is also
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
8
inspired by non-narcissistic motivations, such as the fundamental need to feel positively valued—
both as an ingroup member and by virtue of belonging to a respected group (Crocker & Luhtanen,
1990). Satisfaction of narcissistic need to be recognized and non-narcissistic need to be valued at the
social level of the self is achieved by markedly distinct behaviors (Golec de Zavala, 2023; Golec de
Zavala et al., 2020).
Collective narcissism and intergroup hostility
Existing research indicates that the relationships among collective narcissism, threat
perception, and retaliatory intergroup hostility are both robust and mutually reinforcing, forming a
self-perpetuating cycle illustrated by Figure 1. These dynamics are attenuated by the overlap between
collective narcissism and non-narcissistic ingroup satisfaction, which reflects the fundamental need
to feel positively valued projected at the social level of the self (Golec de Zavala, 2011; 2018; 2023;
Golec de Zavala et al., 2019; Golec de Zavala & Lantos, 2020).
Figure 1. The reciprocal relationships between collective narcissism, perceived intergroup
threat/disadvantage and intergroup hostility (based on Golec de Zavala, 2023).
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
9
Both realistic and symbolic, as well as real and imagined, threats to the ingroup (Guerra et al.,
2023; 2025) heighten collective narcissism, which in turn fuels retaliatory hostility toward perceived
adversaries. While intergroup threat sometimes increases ingroup satisfaction, ingroup satisfaction
does not elicit intergroup hostility (Golec de Zavala et al., 2013; 2016; Guerra et al., 2023). Notably,
collective narcissistic hostility is invariably framed and justified as ingroup defense (Golec de Zavala
& Lantos, 2020). At the same time, collective narcissism (but not ingroup satisfaction) fosters
heightened sensitivity to intergroup threats—particularly those that challenge the exaggerated
ingroup’s image—leading to the perception of criticism as insult even in the absence of any intended
or objective provocation (Golec de Zavala et al., 2009; 2013; 2016). Moreover, collective narcissism
(but not ingroup satisfaction) is associated with a pronounced tendency to vilify outgroups,
attributing their members with inherently threatening characteristics and hostile intentions toward the
ingroup (Dyduch-Hazar et al., 2019; Golec de Zavala et al., 2009). For example, collective
narcissism produces siege mentality, the belief that the righteous ingroup stands alone against the
hostility of the world (Golec de Zavala et al., 2009; Golec de Zavala & Cichocka, 2012). It inspires
meta-hatred, the belief that outgroup members hate the ingroup (Putra et al., 2022), and
conspiratorial beliefs about secret plots against the ingroup by more or less vaguely defined enemies
(Golec de Zavala et al., 2022; Golec de Zavala & Federico, 2018). Perceived threat to the ingroup’s
image strengthens the association between collective narcissism and retaliatory intergroup aggression
(Golec de Zavala et al., 2013; Hase et al., 2021).
Notably, the vilification of adversaries and the escalation of outgroup hatred are more
pronounced at high levels of collective narcissism across all groups and on all sides of escalating
conflicts. In other words, mirror-image perceptions—reciprocal attributions in which each party in a
conflict views the other as equally malevolent (Eckhart & White, 1967)—are particularly likely
among those who exhibit elevated collective narcissism (Golec de Zavala et al., 2009; Golec de
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
10
Zavala & Lantos, 2020). For example, collective narcissism is associated with the application of
moral double standards when evaluating similar actions by ingroup and outgroup members.
Collective narcissists exaggerate hostility of the outgroup and consider it unreasonable, immoral and
evil. At the same time, they consider violence perpetrated by the ingroup as necessary, legitimate and
defensive (Golec de Zavala et al., 2019; 2020; Golec de Zavala & Lantos 2020). Collective
narcissists believe that their ingroup has been uniquely wronged, deprived, and suffered in ways
incomparable to other groups (Capelos et al., 2024; Keenan & Golec de Zavala, 2024). They also
perceive themselves as personally disadvantaged, worse off than others, and excessively humiliated
and unrecognized (Golec de Zavala, 2023; Golec de Zavala et al., 2019). Additionally, collective
narcissism is linked to an inability to forgive (Golec de Zavala et al., 2009), a tendency toward
vengefulness (Golec de Zavala et al., 2009), and the experience of anger, resentment, and grievances
directed at outgroups (Capelos et al., 2024).
Collective narcissism and political violence across group status
Collective narcissism fosters biased, mirror-image perceptions among groups of comparative
power engaged in escalating conflicts. It similarly reinforces these perceptions among groups tied in
asymmetric social relationships between traditionally advantaged and disadvantaged groups (Bagci
et al., 2023; Golec de Zavala, 2024b; Golec de Zavala et al., 2009; Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2023,
2024; Keenan & Golec de Zavala, 2024). Regardless of group status, collective narcissists interpret
intergroup relations in zero-sum terms, perceiving them in starkly polarized, black-and-white terms.
They view their ingroup as both threatened and deprived by the outgroup while considering ingroup
hostility and violence as necessary defense. However, when ingroups differ in social power and
status, collective narcissism aligns with distinct ideological beliefs that justify either resistance or
reactionary (or state-sanctioned) violence to protect and promote ingroup interests. Thus, while
collective narcissism provides a common motivational foundation, the specific beliefs and behavioral
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
11
intentions it fosters may vary significantly between members of traditionally advantaged and
disadvantaged groups (Golec de Zavala, 2023; Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2023).
This is because inequality and group-based hierarchies present distinct challenges for
members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups. For disadvantaged groups, the challenge lies in
engaging in a power struggle for the ingroup’s emancipation, often at personal cost and in the face of
outgroup repression. In contrast, for advantaged groups, the challenge is to relinquish power despite
the motivation to preserve or enhance both individual and ingroup status. Social identity theory
predicts that, driven by the need for positive ingroup distinctiveness, members of traditionally
advantaged groups will seek to protect their privileges and resist the emancipation of disadvantaged
groups, whereas members of disadvantaged groups will strive to challenge hierarchies and achieve
greater social equity. The stronger people identify with their ingroups, the more pronounced should
be the difference between political behaviors of members of traditionally advantaged and
disadvantaged groups (Becker, 2020; Jost et al., 2017; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Thomas & Osborne,
2022). Research specifies that it is collective narcissism that most strongly drives these divergent
reactions among members of traditionally advantaged and disadvantaged groups (Golec de Zavala &
Keenan, 2023, 2024; Keenan & Golec de Zavala, 2024). Collective narcissism, more so than strong
or positive ingroup identification, predicts engagement in collective action and the endorsement of
ideological beliefs that align with the specific interests of groups in asymmetrical intergroup
relations. Put differently, group status moderates the relationship between collective narcissism and
either resistance or reactionary violence, as well as the legitimization of inequality versus the pursuit
of egalitarianism.
Collective narcissism and resistance violence
As a method of achieving political goals (Kruglanski et al., 2022) and what is perceived as
moral and just (Atran, 2021; van den Bos, 2018), terrorism is often viewed as one of the few means
available to less powerful groups. Consequently, terrorism is sometimes met with a degree of
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
12
sympathy within the general population (Frounfelker et al., 2019). Research links terrorism to the
relatable desire for social justice and fairness (e.g., Power, 2018; van den Bos, 2021) as well as the
need to matter. For example, the seminal ‘3 N’ (need, narration, network) model of extremism
(Kruglanski et al., 2022) posits that political extremism is a form of significance quest reflecting ‘the
desire to (…) have dignity and merit respect (…) to feel worthy and appreciated by others (…)’,
Kruglanski et al., 2022, p. 1050-1052). These needs are fundamental and only under certain
circumstances they motivate political violence. For example, the universal need for significance
motivates terrorism only when political violence appears to be the most rational course of action
within the worldview shaped by salient ideological narratives and is perceived as legitimate and
justified by social norms within available (radicalized) social networks (Kruglanski et al., 2018,
2022; Webber et al., 2020).
In contrast, collective narcissism consistently motivates political violence and oppression,
and only under certain circumstances, it may also drive egalitarianism and constructive collective
action. As outlined above, collective narcissism is associated with an antagonistic mindset, a
proclivity for aggression, and the oppression of others (Golec de Zavala, 2024a; Golec de Zavala &
Lantos, 2020). However, among disadvantaged groups, collective narcissism serves as a drive to
advocate social justice and equality, leading group members to engage in both normative and non-
normative collective action to advance their ingroup’s status and interests (Golec de Zavala &
Keenan, 2023). In fact, no other aspect of identification with a disadvantaged group predicts
engagement in collective action as strongly and consistently as collective narcissism (Golec de
Zavala & Keenan, 2023). For instance, among Black individuals in the United States, racial
collective narcissism uniquely predicts intentions to participate in Black Lives Matter protests and
support for collective action for racial equality, surpassing the predictive power of ingroup
satisfaction and strength of the overlap of personal and social identity (Keenan & Golec de Zavala,
2024; Marinthe et al., 2022). Similarly, among women in Poland, gender collective narcissism is
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
13
distinctly associated with heightened anger and distress over exclusion of women by men (Golec de
Zavala, 2022) and serves as a key predictor of both normative and non-normative collective action
for gender equality (Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2024).
Moreover, collective narcissism in disadvantaged groups motivates collective action that is
more likely to secure tangible concessions from advantaged groups, as it uniquely drives a
preference for non-normative, disruptive collective action. While the general public tends to view
non-disruptive collective action more favorably than its disruptive counterpart (Thomas & Louis,
2014), research suggests that moderately disruptive, non-normative action—when combined with
transparent constructive intentions, such as the promotion of egalitarian values—can be more
effective in eliciting concessions from advantaged groups (Shuman et al., 2021). In disadvantaged
groups, collective narcissists actively reject the legitimization of discrimination against their ingroup
and instead advocate for egalitarian values. For instance, among Black and Latinx individuals in the
United States, racial collective narcissism is associated with stronger endorsement of egalitarian
principles and the rejection of beliefs that legitimize racial inequality (Keenan & Golec de Zavala,
2024). Similarly, among women, gender collective narcissism predicts support for egalitarianism and
the rejection of beliefs that sustain gender inequality (Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2024). Because
egalitarian beliefs stand in direct opposition to the parochial antagonism inherent in collective
narcissism, they may generate sufficient cognitive dissonance to prompt a departure from narcissistic
perceptions of the ingroup. Thus, engagement in collective action may weaken the robust link
between collective narcissism and intergroup hostility. Moreover, participation in collective action—
often associated with the experience of prosocial emotions such as solidarity and compassion
(Lizarazo Pereira et al., 2022), moral elevation (Van de Vyer & Abrams, 2015), and a sense of moral
obligation toward the ingroup (Klar, 2016)—may serve to mitigate collective narcissism. Future
research should directly examine this proposition. Preliminary evidence suggests that experiencing
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
14
the prosocial emotion of gratitude weakens the link between national collective narcissism and
various forms of prejudice (Golec de Zavala et al., 2024a, 2024b).
Collective narcissism in disadvantaged groups is likely to sustain resistance to oppression
despite its costs and in the face of repression from advantaged groups. Repressive actions by the
outgroup can undermine collective efficacy and suppress resistance among members of traditionally
disadvantaged group (Ayanian et al., 2020; Gurr, 1970; Muller & Weede, 1990). Reactionary
backlash from advantaged groups further fosters pessimism regarding the possibility of systemic
change (Tausch & Becker, 2013), reconciliation, or allyship with advantaged groups (Hässler et al.,
2020; Urbiola et al., 2022). However, collective narcissists are more likely to persist in resistance, as
collective narcissism is strongly associated with anger, outrage, resentment, and hatred—emotions
that sustain engagement in collective action despite fear, repression, and escalating costs (Capelos et
al., 2024). However, repression by advantaged outgroups may also drive collective narcissists in
disadvantaged groups toward more extreme and disruptive forms of collective action (Carey, 2006;
Louis et al., 2020; Simon, 2020). Collective narcissists are particularly prone to radicalization in
response to repression. Retaliatory measures are likely to reinforce their biased perceptions of the
outgroup, exacerbating vilification and dehumanization of all its members, and fostering acceptance
of indiscriminate violence and terrorism as legitimate means of advancing the ingroup’s struggle for
power. Consequently, collective narcissists are not only the most likely to act on behalf of their
ingroup but also the most susceptible to early radicalization, the least likely to disengage from
extremism, and the most resistant to conflict resolution, deradicalization, and reconciliation efforts.
It is important to remember that in both disadvantaged and advantaged groups, collective
narcissism reflects a need to be regarded as better than others, rather than a desire for equality or fair
treatment. At high levels of collective narcissism, distress over deprivation and exclusion is
parochial, extending only to the ingroup while disregarding exclusion of outgroups by the ingroup
(Golec de Zavala, 2022). For instance, men with high levels of gender collective narcissism do not
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
15
experience distress over the marginalization of women by men but react strongly to the exclusion of
men by women (Golec de Zavala, 2022). Moreover, male collective narcissism is linked to sexism
and hostility toward women (Golec de Zavala & Bierwiaczonek, 2021) but men high in gender
collective narcissism do not perceive acts of sexism when they are committed by men against
women, yet they do recognize sexism when the same actions are directed at men by women (West et
al., 2022). Similarly, White collective narcissism is a predictor of anti-Black racism (Golec de Zavala
et al., 2009). However, White people high in racial collective narcissism deny the existence of anti-
Black racism (Federico et al., 2024; Golec de Zavala et al., 2009; Keenan & Golec de Zavala, 2024).
They are also more likely to perceive the same act as racist when committed by a Black person
against a White person, but not when perpetrated by a White person against a Black individual (West
et al., 2022). Thus, collective narcissistic involvement in the struggle for equality may also be
parochial, persisting only until equality is achieved. Once this goal is reached, collective narcissists
may shift toward the pursuit of ingroup supremacy, as they are inclined to reverse, rather than
attenuate, existing hierarchies. The involvement of this collective narcissistic dynamic in collective
action for social justice may help explain why some prosocial movements yield antisocial outcomes
(Coley et al., 2020) and why many progressive revolutions ultimately resulted in dictatorships that
were more oppressive than those they overthrew (Colgan & Weeks, 2015).
Collective narcissism and supremacist violence
Collective relative deprivation—the perception that one's ingroup is undeservingly worse off
than others—serves as a potent catalyst for political mobilization (Gurr, 1970; Obaidi et al., 2019;
Runciman, 1966; Smith & Pettigrew, 2015). Collective grievances directed at the outgroup
(Holbrook & Horgan, 2019), beliefs about ingroup relative deprivation (Atran, 2021; Kunst &
Obaidi, 2020; Obaidi et al., 2019), and feelings of humiliation (McCauley, 2017) contribute to the
radicalization toward political violence across group status. Both revolutionary and supremacist
ideologies involve the exaggeration of ingroup importance, victimhood, collective grievance,
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
16
resentment, anger, and hate (Capelos et al., 2024). This is because collective relative deprivation
does not have to be real to be psychologically engaging (Kraus et al., 2019; Power, 2018). The mere
perception of collective relative deprivation, when shared by group members, is sufficient to
mobilize support for coercive political leaders and to foster the endorsement of political violence
(Kunst et al., 2019). Research on collective narcissism suggests that a biased perception of collective
relative deprivation is more pronounced at high levels of collective narcissism (Golec de Zavala &
Keenan, 2023). The positive association between collective narcissism and perceived ingroup
deprivation is not moderated by the ingroup’s actual status. In other words, this relationship is
independent of objective group realities. At elevated levels of collective narcissism, members of both
traditionally advantaged and disadvantaged groups do not differ in their perceptions of collective
deprivation. For instance, collective narcissistic men perceive themselves as more disadvantaged
than women (Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2024), while collective narcissistic Whites believe they are
discriminated against by racial minorities (Keenan & Golec de Zavala, 2024).
A contemporary manifestation of this phenomenon is captured by sociologist Michael
Kimmel (2013) in his analysis of American White men’s ‘aggrieved entitlement’— perceived
injustice, victimization, and moral outrage at the erosion of privileges they regard as their rightful
due. According to Kimmel, some American White men, a historically dominant, advantaged group,
constructed their gender and ethnic identities around the privileges their gender and ethnic groups
have traditionally enjoyed. Angry White men feel resentful because all those positions of power have
been questioned. In reaction to this, they engage with misogynistic communities such as
“manosphere” or racist White supremacist movements to reaffirm their perceived status.
The literature on collective narcissism highlights a stronger alignment of national collective
narcissism and collective narcissism in traditionally advantaged groups than collective narcissism in
traditionally disadvantaged groups. This suggests that collective narcissists in the advantaged group
more often projected the identity of their ingroup onto the nation as a whole. For example, the
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
17
correlation between American and White collective narcissism is significantly stronger than that
between American and Black collective narcissism (Keenan & Golec de Zavala, 2024). Similarly, the
association between Polish and male collective narcissism exceeds that between Polish and female
collective narcissism (Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2024). The alignment between American and
White collective narcissism is evident in the phenomenon of White nationalism—a belief system that
asserts the inherent superiority of White people over other racial groups and advocates for their
preferential treatment. White nationalists perceive America as inherently White and view racial
diversity as a fundamental threat to the nation's true identity. Central to White nationalist ideology is
the notion of White victimhood, which is leveraged to rationalize and justify discrimination against
racial outgroups (Reyna et al., 2022).
The well-documented relationship between collective narcissism and the tendency to
unilaterally and coercively impose the ingroup’s goals and interests over those of other groups
(Golec de Zavala et al., 2019; Golec de Zavala & Lantos, 2020) suggests that the promotion of
national collective narcissism by members of traditionally advantaged groups serves as a strategic
mechanism for legitimizing their efforts to preserve and consolidate their privileged status within the
nation. Empirical evidence substantiates this interpretation, demonstrating that national collective
narcissism remarkably closely aligns with collective narcissism in advantaged groups (e.g., among
men or Whites) in predicting the endorsement of hierarchy-justifying ideologies, opposition to
egalitarianism, beliefs that legitimize social inequality, and resistance to the emancipation of
historically marginalized groups (Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2023). For example, both American
and White collective narcissism were positively correlated with support for the "Unite the Right"
rally in Charlottesville, which protested the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee, a symbol of the
Confederate States and White supremacy (Marinthe et al., 2022), as well as with state repression of
the Black Lives Matter movement (Keenan & Golec de Zavala, 2024). Similarly, male and Polish
collective narcissism predict sexism and opposition to gender equality movement (Golec de Zavala
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
18
& Bierwiaczonek, 2021; Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2024). National collective narcissism has also
been linked to various forms of prejudice that legitimize the exclusion of targeted co-nationals from
the national community, including anti-Semitism (Golec de Zavala & Cichocka, 2012), Islamophobia
(Verkuyten et al., 2022), and both explicit (Mole et al., 2021) and implicit (Lantos et al., 2022)
homophobia.
Moreover, research has demonstrated that the association between national collective
narcissism and prejudice is not moderated by group membership (Golec de Zavala & Bierwiaczonek,
2021; Golec de Zavala & Keenan, 2023, 2024; Keenan & Golec de Zavala, 2024). In other words, at
high levels of national collective narcissism, both members of traditionally advantaged and
disadvantaged groups endorse prejudice and beliefs that legitimize the discrimination of historically
marginalized groups. Notably, at the highest levels of American collective narcissism, symbolic anti-
Black racism is higher among Black people than White people (Golec de Zavala, 2023). American
collective narcissism is also more strongly associated with support for repressive actions against the
Black Lives Matter movement and anti-egalitarianism among Black people than among White
people (Keenan & Golec de Zavala, 2024). Similarly, the link between Polish national collective
narcissism and sexism is stronger among women than among men (Golec de Zavala &
Bierwiaczonek, 2021). The predicament faced by members of disadvantaged groups who endorse
national collective narcissism warrants further research. This situation represents a case in which
group members seek to fulfill their collective narcissistic needs through membership in an ingroup
where they are treated as second-class members. They may feel compelled to compensate for their
lower status, which could help explain why naturalized immigrants may vote for populist politicians
advocating anti-immigration policies, or why women may support anti-abortion movements.
Collective narcissism and contrarian political orientations
The unilateral pursuit of the ingroup's interests at the expense of marginalizing other groups
within a nation undermines the core principles of democracy, which is meant to reduce social
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
19
hierarchies and resolve intergroup conflicts constructively. National collective narcissism, which
fosters this kind of unilateral pursuit, contributes to democratic backsliding. For example, in 2020,
American collective narcissism was found to predict support for Donald Trump remaining in power
despite his loss in the democratic election (Keenan & Golec de Zavala, 2021). Specifically, American
collective narcissism was a robust, independent predictor of the opinion that Trump should stay in
office even if he had to “compromise the rule of law” and “bend the rules of democracy”.
Furthermore, research indicates that national collective narcissism is linked to right-wing
authoritarianism (Golec de Zavala, 2023). Right-wing authoritarianism is a syndrome of correlated
attitudes, including blind submission to traditional authorities defined by status and power,
conventionalism, and authoritarian aggression toward those who challenge conventions, group
cohesion, the established social order, or established authorities (Altemeyer, 1996). It is an aspect of
political conservatism with which national collective narcissism positively correlates (Golec de
Zavala, 2023).
However, national collective narcissism is also independently associated with left-wing
authoritarianism, a syndrome of correlated attitudes characterized by anti-hierarchical aggression,
including a willingness to use violence to overthrow established authorities and dismantle existing
group-based hierarchies, rigid anti-conventionalism and rejection of traditional norms, and top-down
censorship aimed at controlling the public expression of counter-liberal or non-progressive ideas
(Costello et al., 2022). Left-wing authoritarianism is typically negatively associated with political
conservatism and predicts voting for progressive political parties (Conway III et al., 2021). What
right- and left-wing authoritarianism share is support for political violence—pro-state violence in the
case of right-wing authoritarianism (Webber et al., 2020) and anti-state violence in the case of left-
wing authoritarianism (Costello et al., 2022). Thus, it stands to reason that collective narcissists
would support any ideology that legitimizes political violence.
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
20
Thus, collective narcissists appear to prefer violence for its own sake, deriving satisfaction
from the discord and destruction it produces. This conclusion is supported by finding that national
collective narcissism is associated with contrarian political attitudes, including an anti-establishment
orientation and a need for chaos (Federico et al., 2024; Golec de Zavala, 2023). Anti-establishment
orientation reflects a pervasive distrust and hostility toward political institutions and authorities,
regardless of partisanship or ideology (Uscinski et al., 2021), while need for chaos captures a spiteful
desire to dismantle the existing social and political order (Petersen et al., 2023). These associations
emphasize irrational aspect of collective narcissism also reflected in the pervasive association
between collective narcissism and generic denial of science (Golec de Zavala, 2025). The strength of
a democracy lies in its capacity to address such contrarian, irrational and anti-social orientations
within its population without succumbing to their destabilizing effects. Ultimately, the resilience of
democracy is measured by its ability to withstand and constructively address the challenges posed by
collective narcissism.
Conclusion
This chapter discussed collective narcissism, a facet of ingroup favoritism that fosters a
chronically antagonistic, conflict-supporting mindset, alongside a predisposition toward political
violence and heightened susceptibility to radicalizing triggers at levels much below that of the
general population. Those who endorse collective narcissism are the first to rally behind coercive
political leaders, resonate with divisive rhetoric, identify and denounce perceived enemies both
within and beyond the ingroup, and advocate for violence and destruction (Golec de Zavala &
Keenan, 2023, 2024; Keenan & Golec de Zavala, 2024). Extreme in their actions and outlook,
collective narcissists are not "devoted actors" who exhibit unwavering ingroup loyalty and a
willingness to make costly sacrifices for the ingroup’s protection (Atran & Ginges, 2015; Atran,
2021; Swann et al., 2012; Whitehouse, 2018). In stark contrast, collective narcissists prioritize the
fulfillment of their own need for recognition over genuine ingroup solidarity. When this need is
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
21
frustrated, they are not only prepared to treat the ingroup instrumentally endangering its welfare but
are also willing to embrace destruction for its own sake, indifferent to the consequences.
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
22
References
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian Spectre. Harvard University Press
Armaly, M.T., & Enders, A.M. (2022). ‘Why Me?’ The Role of Perceived Victimhood in American
Politics. Political Behavior, 44, 1583–1609. 10.1007/s11109-020-09662-x
Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An Organizing Framework for
Collective Identity: Articulation and Significance of Multidimensionality.
Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 80–114. 10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80
Atran, S. (2021). Psychology of transnational terrorism and extreme political conflict. Annual review
of psychology, 72(1), 471-501. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050800
Atran, S., & Ginges, J. (2015). Devoted actors and the moral foundations of intractable intergroup
conflict. 10.7551/mitpress/9988.003.0008
Ayanian, A. H., Tausch, N., Acar, Y. G., Chayinska, M., Cheung, W.-Y., & Lukyanova, Y. (2021).
Resistance in repressive contexts: A comprehensive test of psychological predictors. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 912–939. 10.1037/pspi0000285
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
satisfaction. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minor Psychology, 29(2), 208-220.
10.1037/cdp0000509
Bandura, A. (2004). The role of selective moral disengagement in terrorism and counterterrorism. In
F. M. Mogahaddam & A. J. Marsella (Eds). Understanding terrorism: Psychological roots,
consequences and interventions (pp. 121-150). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association Press.
Bar-Tal, D. (2020). Conflict-supporting narratives. Israeli and Palestinian collective narratives in
conflict: A tribute to Shifra Sagy and her work, 36.
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
23
Becker, J. C. (2020). Ideology and the promotion of social change. Current Opinion in Behavioral
Sciences, 34, 6-11. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.10.005
Capelos, T., Salmela, M., Sullivan, G. B., & Chrona, S. (2024). The Anti-Social Triad of Grievance
Politics: An Integrated Model of Reactionism, Ressentiment, and Collective
Narcissism. American Behavioral Scientist, 0(0). 10.1177/00027642241240351
Carey, S. C. (2006). The dynamic relationship between protest and repression. Political Research
Quarterly, 59(1), 1–11. 10.1177/106591290605900101
Coley, J.S., Raynes, D., & Das, D. (2020). Are social movements truly social? The prosocial and
antisocial outcomes of social movements. Sociology Compass, 14,
e12820. 10.1111/soc4.12820
Costello, T. H., Bowes, S. M., Stevens, S. T., Waldman, 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. 10.1037/pspp0000341
Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 58(1), 60–67. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.60
Doosje, B., Moghaddam, F. M., Kruglanski, A. W., De Wolf, A., Mann, L., & Feddes, A. R. (2016).
Terrorism, radicalization and de-radicalization. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 79-84.
Dyduch-Hazar, K., Mrozinski, B., & Golec de Zavala, A. (2019). Collective Narcissism and In-
Group Satisfaction Predict Opposite Attitudes Toward Refugees via Attribution of Hostility.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01901
Eckhardt, W., & White, R. K. (1967). A test of the mirror-image hypothesis: Kennedy and
Khrushchev. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 11(3), 325-332. 10.1177/002200276701100306
Ellemers, N. (1993). The Influence of Socio-structural Variables on Identity Management
Strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 27–57.
10.1080/14792779343000013
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
24
Federico, C.M., Farhart, C., Vitriol, J. A. & Golec de Zavala, A. (2022a). 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., & Baran, T. (2021). Collective Narcissism, InGroup
Satisfaction, and Solidarity in the Face of COVID-19. Social Psychology and Personality
Science 12(6), 1071-1081. 10.1177%2F1948550620963655
Federico, C.M., Golec de Zavala, A., & Baran, T. (2024). Collective narcissism and contrarian
political orientations. Manuscript submitted.
Federico, C.M., Golec De Zavala, A. and Bu, W. (2022b), Collective Narcissism as a Basis for
Nationalism. Political Psychology, 44, 177. 10.1111/pops.12833
Federico, C.M., Hopkins, L., Devaney, M, & Golec de Zavala, A. (2024). Collective Narcissism and
Perceptions of Racism Among White and Black Americans. Manuscript under review.
Frounfelker R. L., Frissen T., Vanorio I., Rousseau C., & d’Haenens L. (2019). Exploring the
discrimination-radicalization nexus: Empirical evidence from youth and young adults in
Belgium. International Journal of Public Health, 64(6), 897–908. 10.1007/s00038-019-
01226-z
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. (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 Controversies (pp. 79–88). Springer
International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-92171-6_8
Golec de Zavala, A. (2020). Why is populism so robustly associated with conspiratorial thinking?
Collective narcissism and the Meaning Maintenance Model. In J. Sinnott & J. Rabin (Eds).
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
25
The psychology of political behavior in a time of change: Identity in a changing world. (pp.
277-290). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing
Golec de Zavala, A. (2022). Conditional Parochial Vicarious Ostracism: Gender Collective
Narcissism Predicts Distress at the Exclusion of the Gender Ingroup in Women and Men. Sex
Roles, 87, 267–288. 10.1007/s11199-022-01315-z
Golec de Zavala, A. (2023). The Psychology of collective narcissism. Insights from Social Identity
Theory. Routledge.
Golec de Zavala, A. (2024a). Authoritarians and “revolutionaries in reverse”: Why collective
narcissism threatens democracy. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 0(0),
10.1177/13684302241240689
Golec de Zavala, A. (2024b). Bright sides of tribal exaggeration: Collective narcissism and tribal
attitudes towards equality. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), The tribal mind and the psychology of
collectivism (pp. 20-40). Routledge.
Golec de Zavala, A. (2025). Narcissism of science denial. Journal of Social Issues.
Golec de Zavala, A., & Bierwiaczonek, K. (2021). Male, National, and Religious Collective
Narcissism Predict Sexism. Sex Roles, 84(11), 680–700. 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 narcissism and conspiracy theories.
Current Opinion in Psychology, 47. 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, 213–229. 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,
1074-1096. 10.1037/a0016904
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
26
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, 1019-1039. 10.1037/a0032215
Golec de Zavala, A. & Federico, C.M. (2024). The Father’s Love: Collective Narcissism and
Defensive Reactions to Allegations about Pope John Paul II in Polish Public Opinion, Public
Opinion Quarterly, 88(2), 291–314. 10.1093/poq/nfae008
Golec de Zavala, A., Federico, C. M., & Baran, T. (2024). Collective narcissism and
authoritarianism on the right and on the left. Manuscript submitted.
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 Satisfaction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 119(3), 741-764. 10.1037/pspp0000260
Golec de Zavala, A., Dyduch‐Hazar, K., & Lantos, D. (2019). Collective narcissism:
Political consequences of investing self‐worth in the ingroup’s image. Political Psychology,
40, 37-74. 10.1111/pops.12569
Golec de Zavala, A., & Keenan, O. (2021). Collective narcissism as a framework for understanding
populism. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 5(2), 54-64. 10.1002/jts5.69
Golec de Zavala, A. & Keenan, O. (2023). Collective narcissism in advantaged and disadvantaged
groups. In The psychology of politically unstable societies. Current Issues in Political
Psychology. Edited by Kende, A. & Lášticová, B. Routledge.
Golec de Zavala, A. & Keenan, O. (2024). Gender and National Collective Narcissism: Gender
Asymmetries and Obstacles to Gender Equality. Sex Roles. 10.31234/osf.io/spmqf
Golec de Zavala A, Keenan, O., Ziegler, M., Ciesielski, P, Mazurkiewicz M., Wahl, J., Nalberczak-
Skora, M., & Sedikides, C (2024a) Mindful-gratitude practice reduces prejudice at high levels
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
27
of collective narcissism. Psychological Science, 35(2), 137-149.
10.1177/09567976231220902
Golec de Zavala, A. & Lantos, D. (2020). Collective narcissism and its social consequences: The
Bad and the Ugly, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 273–278,
10.1177/0963721420917703
Golec de Zavala, A., Peker, M., Guerra, R., & Baran, T. (2016). Collective narcissism predicts
hypersensitivity to in–group insult and direct and indirect retaliatory intergroup
hostility. European Journal of Personality, 30(6), 532-551. 10.1002/per.2067
Golec de Zavala A, Ziegler, M., Keenan, O., Ciesielski, P., Mazurkiewicz M., Wahl, J. (2024b). App-
based mindfulness training supported eudaimonic wellbeing during the COVID19
pandemic. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 16(1), 42–
59. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12468
Global Terrorism Index 2024 (GIT, 2024) https://www.visionofhumanity.org/maps/global-terrorism-
index Downloaded 18/11/2024
Gronfeldt, B., Cislak, A., Sternisko, A., Eker, I., & Cichocka, A. (2022). A Small Price to Pay:
National Narcissism Predicts Readiness to Sacrifice In-Group Members to Defend the In-
Group’s Image. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 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
hostility in four European Union countries. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(2),
415–433. 10.1177/1368430220972178
Guerra, R., Golec de Zavala, A. Sedikides, C., Bierwiaczonek, K. Ciesielski P. & Widlshut, T.
(2025). Misrecognition threat increases collective narcissism. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations
Gurr, T.R. (1970). Why men rebel. Routledge
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
28
Hase, A., Behnke, M., Mazurkiewicz, M., Wieteska, K. K., & Golec de Zavala, A. (2021). Distress
and retaliatory aggression in response to witnessing intergroup exclusion are greater on
higher levels of collective narcissism. Psychophysiology, 58(9). 10.1111/psyp.13879
Hässler, T., et al., (2022). Need satisfaction in intergroup contact: A multinational study of pathways
toward social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(4), 634–658.
10.1037/pspi0000365
Holbrook, D., & Horgan, J. (2019). Terrorism and ideology. Perspectives on terrorism, 13(6), 2-15.
Jasko, 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 Psychology, 118(6), 1165–1187.
10.1037/pspi0000198
Jost, J. T., Becker, J., Osborne, D., & Badaan, V. (2017). Missing in (Collective) Action: Ideology,
System Justification, and the Motivational Antecedents of Two Types of Protest
Behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(2), 99-
108. 10.1177/0963721417690633
Keenan O. & de Zavala A.G. (2021). Collective narcissism and weakening of American
democracy. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 21, 237–258. 10.1111/asap.12274
Keenan, O. & Golec de Zavala, A. (2024, in press). Collective narcissism of White supremacy and
minority resistance. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations
Kimmel, M. (2013) Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era. New York, NY:
Nation Books.
Klar, Y. (2016). Four moral obligations in the aftermath of historical ingroup victimization. Current
Opinion in Psychology, 11, 54-58.
Kosterman, R. and Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes.
Political Psychology, 10, 257-274. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791647
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
29
Kraus, M. W., Onyeador, I. N., Daumeyer, N. M., Rucker, J. M., & Richeson, J. A. (2019). The
Misperception of Racial Economic Inequality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6),
899-921. 10.1177/1745691619863049
Kruglanski, A., Jasko, K., Webber, D., Chernikova, M., & Molinario, E. (2018). The Making of
Violent Extremists. Review of General Psychology, 22(1), 107-120. 10.1037/gpr0000144
Kruglanski, A. W., Molinario, E., Jasko, K., Webber, D., Leander, N. P., & Pierro, A. (2022).
Significance-Quest Theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(4), 1050-
1071. 10.1177/17456916211034825
Kunst, J., & Obaidi M. (2020). Understanding violent extremism in the 21st century: the
(re)emerging role of relative deprivation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 55-59.
10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.010.
Kunst, J.R., Dovidio, J.F. & Thomsen, L. (2019). Fusion with political leaders predicts willingness to
persecute immigrants and political opponents. Nature Human Behavi or, 3, 1180–1189
10.1038/s41562-019-0708-1
Lantos, D., Mole, R. & Golec de Zavala, A. (2024). Born This Way? National Collective Narcissism,
Implicit Homophobia, and Homosexual Essentialism in Populist Poland. Archives of Sexual
Behavior. 10.1007/s10508-024-02952-z
Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B.,
Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A
hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 95(1), 144–165. 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 Analysis and Empirical Data. Political
Psychology, 41(S1), 35–74. 10.1111/pops.12671
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
30
Lizarazo Pereira, D. M., Schubert, T. W., & Roth, J. (2022). Moved by social justice: the role of
Kama muta in collective action toward racial equality. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 780615.
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. European Journal of Social Psychology, 00, 1– 17. 10.1002/ejsp.2885
Mashuri, A., van Leeuwen, E., Zaduqisti, E., Sukmawati, F., Sakdiah, H., & Herani, I. (2022). The
psychological antecedents of resistance to humanitarian aid. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 25(1), 280-297. 10.1177/1368430220962179
McCauley, C. (2017). Toward a Psychology of Humiliation in Asymmetric Conflict. American
Psychologist, 72, 255-265.
Moghaddam, F. M. (2005). The Staircase to Terrorism: A Psychological Exploration. American
Psychologist, 60(2), 161–169. 10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.161
Mole, R. C. M., Golec de Zavala, A., & Ardag, M. M. (2021). Homophobia and national collective
narcissism in populist Poland. European Journal of Sociology, 62(1), 37–70.
10.1017/S0003975621000072
Muller, E. N., & Weede, E. (1990). Cross-national variation in political violence: a rational action
approach. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34(4), 624–651. 10.1177/0022002790034004003
New Definition of Extremism (2024) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-definition-
of-extremism-2024/new-definition-of-extremism-2024 Downloaded 18/11/2024
Obaidi, M., Bergh, R., Akrami, N., & Anjum, G. (2019). Group-Based Relative Deprivation Explains
Endorsement of Extremism Among Western-Born Muslims. Psychological Science, 30(4),
596-605. 10.1177/0956797619834879
Oyserman D., Schwarz N. (2017). Conservatism as a situated identity: Implications for consumer
behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(4), 532–536. 10.1016/j.jcps.2017.08.003
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
31
Petersen, M., Osmundsen, M., & Arceneaux, K. (2023). The “Need for Chaos” and Motivations to
Share Hostile Political Rumors. American Political Science Review, 1-20.
10.1017/S0003055422001447
Power, S. A. (2018). The deprivation-protest paradox: How the perception of unfair economic
inequality leads to civic unrest. Current Anthropology, 59(6), 765-789.
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, 906– 927. 10.1111/asap.12320
Reyna, C., Bellovary, A. and Harris, K. (2022), The Psychology of White Nationalism: Ambivalence
Towards a Changing America. Social Issues and Policy Review, 16: 79-
124. 10.1111/sipr.12081
Roccas, S., Klar, Y., & Liviatan, I. (2006). The paradox of group-based guilt: Modes of national
identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 698–711. 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.698
Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative Deprivation and Social Justice. Routledge
Saguy, T., & Reifen-Tagar, M. (2022). The social psychological roots of violent intergroup
conflict. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(10), 577-589.
Shuman, E., Saguy, T., van Zomeren, M., & Halperin, E. (2021). Disrupting the system
constructively: Testing the effectiveness of nonnormative nonviolent collective
action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(4), 819–841. 10.1037/pspi0000333
Simon, B. (2020). A new perspective on intergroup conflict: The social psychology of politicized
struggles for recognition. Theory & Psychology, 30(2), 147-163. 10.1177/0959354319887227
Smith, H. J., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2015). Advances in relative deprivation theory and research. Social
Justice Research, 28(1), 1–6. 10.1007/s11211-014-0231-5
Sumner, W. G. (1911). War and other essays. Freeport: Yale University Press.
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
32
Swann, W. B., Jr., Jetten, J., Gómez, Á., Whitehouse, H., & Bastian, B. (2012). When group
membership gets personal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review, 119(3), 441–
456. 10.1037/a0028589
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations
(pp. 33-37). Brooks/Cole.
Tausch, N., & Becker, J. C. (2013). Emotional reactions to success and failure of collective action as
predictors of future action intentions: A longitudinal investigation in the context of student
protests in Germany. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3), 525–542. 10.1111/j.2044-
8309.2012.02109.x
Thomas, E. F., & Louis, W. R. (2014). When will collective action be effective? Violent and non-
violent protests differentially influence perceptions of legitimacy and efficacy among
sympathizers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 263-276.
10.1177/0146167213510525
Thomas, E. F., & Osborne, D. (2022). Protesting for stability or change? Definitional and conceptual
issues in the study of reactionary, conservative, and progressive collective actions. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 985–993. 10.1002/ejsp.2912
Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup
behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(1), 5 34. 10.1002/ejsp.2420050102
Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations:
Theories, themes, and controversies. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup
processes, 133-152.
Urbiola, A., McGarty, C., & Costa-Lopes, R. (2022). The AMIGAS Model: Reconciling Prejudice
Reduction and Collective Action Approaches Through a Multicultural Commitment in
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
33
Intergroup Relations. Review of General Psychology, 26(1), 68–85.
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), American Politics in Two Dimensions: Partisan and
Ideological Identities versus Anti-Establishment Orientations. American Journal of Political
Science, 65, 877-895 10.1111/ajps.12616
Van den Bos, K. (2018). Why People Radicalize New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Van de Vyver, J., & Abrams, D. (2015). Testing the prosocial effectiveness of the prototypical moral
emotions: Elevation increases benevolent behaviors and outrage increases justice
behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 23–
33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.12.005
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, 111217.
Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., Manzi, C., Golledge, J., & Scabini, E. (2006). Beyond self-esteem:
influence of multiple motives on identity construction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90(2), 308 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.308
Webber, D., Kruglanski, A., Molinario, E., & Jasko, 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
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 Psychology, 52, 735– 747. 10.1002/ejsp.2849
Whitehouse H.(2018). Dying for the group: towards a general theory of extreme self-sacrifice.
Behavioral and Brain Science.
Collective narcissism, political violence and terrorism
34
Yustisia, W., Putra, I. E., Kavanagh, C., Whitehouse, H., & Rufaedah, A. (2020). The role of
religious fundamentalism and tightness-looseness in promoting collective narcissism and
extreme group behavior. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 12(2), 231–240.
10.1037/rel0000269
