Search results

Traditional conceptualisations of nationalism focus on the need for intergroup domination. We argue that current politics are rather driven by the need for recognition of the greatness of one's nation. In psychological literature, the need for the nation's appreciation is captured by the concept of collective narcissism—a belief in in-group greatness contingent on external recognition. We demonstrate that collective narcissism is associated with support for national populist parties and policies. We also review the empirical evidence for the intergroup and intragroup concomitants of collective narcissism. We demonstrate that collective narcissism benefits neither out-group nor in-group members. Instead, it helps manage psychological needs of the individual. We conclude that collective narcissism might undermine social cohesion both within and between groups.

"Encompassing contemporary social problems and cutting-edge research, top international experts provide a window into understanding the psychology behind societal problems and why they develop, offering crucial applications of psychological theory for the undergraduate student."--Publisher's website

Abstract
The perception of leaders as charismatic personalities has been linked to the level of (positive) emotion in their
messages. The present paper reports a cross-modal perception study on the relationship between perceived charisma and positive as
well as negative emotions. One hundred forty-nine participants listened or read Brexit speeches by four British politicians (David
Cameron, Nicola Sturgeon, Nigel Farage, Theresa May) and rated their charisma using a 7-point Likert scale. Emotions in speeches
were quantified on three dimensions (valence, arousal, dominance) and supplemented by analyses of person deixis
(I vs. we). Results revealed that effects of emotions on perceived charisma are moderated by
the modality of speeches. Emotionally positive words as well as inclusive person deixis increased charisma ratings in written
messages, but the effect was reduced or not present in auditory versions of these messages. Implications arise for studies of
political discourse that tend to focus on scripted speeches.

One of the classic questions in political psychology has been whether feelings of self‐worth are relevant for politics. In this review, we summarize seven decades of research attempting to address this question, focusing on three sets of political outcomes: (1) political ideology, (2) political interest and engagement, and (3) intergroup relations. We rely on the distinction between self‐esteem (feelings of adequacy and satisfaction with oneself) and narcissism (feelings of entitled self‐importance and superiority over others). We argue that this distinction allows us to integrate the literature and explain the mixed effects observed in past research on self‐evaluation and politics. Our review points to a key role of narcissistic status pursuit and psychological defensiveness in predicting potentially problematic political attitudes and behaviors. We discuss practical implications these associations might have for democratic functioning and for understanding political leaders. We conclude by identifying outstanding questions and promising new research directions.

Narcissism—a conviction about one's superiority and entitlement to special treatment—is a robust predictor of belief in conspiracy theories. Recent developments in the study of narcissism suggest that it has three components: antagonism, agentic extraversion, and neuroticism. We argue that each of these components of narcissism might predispose people to endorse conspiracy theories due to different psychological processes. Specifically, we discuss the role of paranoia, gullibility, and the needs for dominance, control, and uniqueness. We also review parallel findings for narcissistic beliefs about one's social groups. We consider the wider implications this research might have, especially for political leadership. We conclude by discussing outstanding questions about sharing conspiracy theories and other forms of misinformation.

AbstractThe procedural qualities of decisions made by public agencies are known to shape citizens' perceptions of decision legitimacy. Existing empirical studies focus on procedures such as whether citizens are consulted, and whether their preferences are taken into account. Less is known about whether decisions made by public agencies are deemed legitimate if they reflect citizens' broad interests rather than their immediate preferences. Yet, many contemporary issues confront policy-makers with dilemmas of whether to respond to citizens' demands or instead to act on their interests. Using an experimental approach among a sample of British citizens, we analyse the effects on perceived legitimacy of various aspects of decision responsiveness. We focus in particular on whether public agencies are rewarded if they ignore citizens' preferences while showing they are acting in their broader interests. Our results show that perceived legitimacy is indeed higher when decisions are seen to reflect citizens' collective interests. But this boost disappears if individuals disapprove of the agency's decision. We conclude that acting in citizens' broad interests is unlikely to stimulate legitimacy among individuals who do not favour a decision's outcome.

Two studies examined the relationship between collective narcissism—an emotional investment in an unrealistic belief about the greatness of an in-group (Golec de Zavala, Cichocka, Eidelson, & Jayawickreme, 2009) — and anti-Semitism in Poland. The results indicate that this relationship is simultaneously mediated by (a) a belief that the in-group is constantly threatened by hostile intentions of other groups (Polish siege beliefs; Bar-Tal & Antebi, 1992a , 1992b ) and (b) a belief that the Jews are a particularly threatening out-group because they secretly aim to dominate the world (the conspiracy stereotype of Jews; Bergmann, 2008 ; Kofta & Sędek, 2005 ). These results confirm that collective narcissism predicts prejudice against social groups perceived as threatening. Collective narcissists' sensitivity to intergroup threat is composed of beliefs about vulnerability of the in-group and hostility of the out-group.

Abstract
Contested factual claims shared online are of increasing interest to scholars and the public. Characterizing temporal patterns of sharing and engagement with such information, as well as the effect of sharing associated fact-checks, can help us understand the online political news environment more fully. Here, we investigate differential engagement with fact-checked posts shared online via Reddit from 2016 to 2018. The data comprise ∼29,000 conversations, ∼849,000 users, and ∼9.8 million comments. We classified the veracity of the posts being discussed as true, mixed, or false using three fact-checking organizations. Regardless of veracity, fact-checked posts had larger and longer lasting conversations than claims that were not fact-checked. Among those that were fact-checked, posts rated as false were discussed less and for shorter periods of time than claims that were rated as true. We also observe that fact-checks of posts rated as false tend to happen more quickly than fact-checks of posts rated as true. Finally, we observe that thread deletion and removal are systematically related to the presence of a fact-check and the veracity of the fact-check, but when deletion and removal are combined the differences are minimal. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Surveys conducted across multiple countries show that most people view seeking lower immigration to help maintain the majority group's population share as a sign of racial self‐interest—as opposed to racism. We investigated whether the belief that it is not racist to want immigration restrictions for cultural reasons is associated with ingroup identification (a positive attachment to and solidarity with one's group) or collective narcissism (a conviction that the ingroup is exceptional and deserves special treatment). We argue that if this belief reflects concern for the ingroup, it should be linked to ingroup identification. However, if it is a defensive justification of the ingroup's privileged position, it should be linked to collective narcissism. Across four studies, national (Study 1: United Kingdom, N = 467; Study 2: Poland, N = 1,285) and ethnic (Study 3a: United States, N = 2,000; Study 3b: United States, N = 2,938) narcissism emerged as predictors of the belief that ethnoculturally motivated immigration restrictions are racial self‐interest (vs. racism). This belief was also associated with justifying collective violence against migrants (Study 2) and supporting the alt‐right (Studies 3a–3b). We found less consistent evidence for an association between ingroup identification and immigration‐restriction beliefs. We discuss implications for intergroup relations and political extremism.

In three studies we examine the link between types of national identity and support for leaving the European Union (EU). We found that national collective narcissism (but not national identification without the narcissistic component) was positively associated with a willingness to vote Leave, over and above the effect of political orientation. This pattern was observed in a representative Polish sample (Study 1, n = 635), as well as in samples of Polish youth (Study 2, n = 219), and both Polish (n = 73) and British (n = 60) professionals employed in the field of international relations (Study 3). In Studies 2 and 3 this effect was mediated by biased EU membership perceptions. The role of defensive versus secure forms of in-group identification in shaping support for EU membership is discussed. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

In three studies we examine the link between types of national identity and support for leaving the European Union (EU). We found that national collective narcissism (but not national identification without the narcissistic component) was positively associated with a willingness to vote Leave, over and above the effect of political orientation. This pattern was observed in a representative Polish sample (Study 1, n = 635), as well as in samples of Polish youth (Study 2, n = 219), and both Polish (n = 73) and British (n = 60) professionals employed in the field of international relations (Study 3). In Studies 2 and 3 this effect was mediated by biased EU membership perceptions. The role of defensive versus secure forms of in-group identification in shaping support for EU membership is discussed.

Abstract. National narcissism is a defensive form of group identity that is contingent on external validation and involves unrealistic belief in the nation's greatness. Those high in national narcissism are susceptible to ingroup-enhancing narratives. In two pre-registered studies, conducted in Poland ( N = 1,134) and the United Kingdom ( N = 501), we hypothesized and found that national narcissism predicts support for historical policies that emphasize the great achievements and past dominance of one's own group. Furthermore, we found that the relationship between national narcissism and support for ingroup-enhancing historical policies can be accounted for by the perceived contribution of one's own country to the world's history. We discuss implications for research on collective narcissism and historical policies.

Collective narcissism is a belief in one's in-group greatness that is underappreciated by others. Across three studies conducted in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we found that collective narcissism, measured with respect to the national group, was related to support of policies that protect the national image at the expense of in-group members' health. In Study 1, British national narcissism was related to opposing cooperation with the European Union (EU) on medical equipment. In Study 2, American national narcissism predicted opposition to COVID-19 testing to downplay the number of cases. In Study 3, American national narcissism was related to support for releasing an untested COVID-19 vaccine, to beat other countries to the punch. These relationships were mediated by concern about the country's reputation. Our studies shed light on collective narcissism as a group-based ego-enhancement strategy in which a strong image of the group is prioritized over members' well-being.

Past research indicates that national narcissism (but not national identification) predicts support for anti- environmental policies, and that this effect is driven by national narcissists' need to defend the group's image. We hypothesized that although national narcissists might not support proenvironmental actions, they would support promoting a proenvironmental image of their nation (i.e., greenwashing). In five studies (overall N =2231), we demonstrated that individuals high in national narcissism were less likely to support actual proenvironmental actions (Studies 2–5), but more likely to support greenwashing campaigns (Studies 1–3, 5), although not when greenwashing would involve financial costs incurred by the ingroup (Study 4). In Study 5, national narcissism predicted support for greenwashing as a political strategy—it was related to the preference for green image enhancement over green actions (controlling for proenvironmental attitudes and individual narcissism). We did not observe similar effects for national identification or right-wing political ideology. Im-plications for promoting proenvironmentalism across distinct groups are discussed.