Suchergebnisse

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.

Abstract
People's pro-war attitudes provide an important lens for understanding the various conflicts and wars taking place around the globe. The present research bridges the social psychological insights on ingroup identity with the macro realism theory of international relations studies. It examines the association of populism and collective narcissism with support for war under the conditions of offensive and defensive realist foreign policies. The research comprises two studies. Study 1 shows that populism is linked with offensive realism, whereas collective narcissism is associated with defensive realism. Study 2 further demonstrates that the perceptions of threat mediate the relationship between collective narcissism and support for war, rather than mediating the relationship between populism and support for war. Both populism and collective narcissism are related to authoritarianism. This research contributes to a theoretical understanding of the effects of populism and collective narcissism on resorting to military actions in international politics.

AbstractThe storming of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and voter intimidation by Donald Trump's supporters have marked significant upheaval in American democracy. In two cross‐sectional studies and one experiment, we tested the proposition that American collective narcissism is associated with support for populist leadership (particular, their message of renewed ingroup recognition) to the point of disregard for democratic procedures. In Study 1, conducted just before the 2020 presidential elections, we examined the association of American collective narcissism with support for Trump's re‐election even if he was to violate the democratic procedures while securing it. In pre‐registered Study 2, conducted just after the Capitol attack, we examined the association between American collective narcissism and support for the attacks. In Study 3, we experimentally examined a more general proposition that collective narcissism is associated with support for populist leaders and lack of support for democratic procedures, in a minimal group setting deprived of any associations with a particular political context. The results of the three studies converge to indicate that collective narcissism is most strongly (beyond variables commonly implicated in support for right‐wing populism) associated with populist leadership to the extent of disregarding democratic norms.

Recent work suggests that collective narcissism—an exaggerated, unrealistic belief in an ingroup's greatness that demands constant external validation—is a strong predictor of a variety of political attitudes. In the present study, we use nationally representative panel data from Poland to examine the relationship between national collective narcissism and nationalism, a belief that the national ingroup is superior and should dominate other nations. We first demonstrate that national collective narcissism, nationalism, and mere satisfaction with national ingroup are distinct. In turn, in both cross‐sectional and panel analyses, we find that (1) national collective narcissism is positively related to nationalism, whereas satisfaction with the national ingroup is not; and (2) national collective narcissism is a stronger predictor of nationalism than national ingroup satisfaction is in absolute terms. Our analyses thus provide evidence that nationalism may be rooted in narcissistic exaggeration of the greatness of the national ingroup rather than nonnarcissistic national ingroup satisfaction.

AbstractThis article analyzes Hungary's kin-state policy starting from the premise that the concept of collective narcissism most succinctly captures its emotional foundations. I look to substantiate this claim by examining at a wide range of sources on how Hungary feels toward neighboring states and show the preponderance of emotions connected to collective narcissism. The real-life consequences of collective narcissism are demonstrated through a case study of the relationship between Hungary and Ukraine before and after the Russian attack of 2022. Overall, I find that anger is the master emotion of Hungary's kin-state policy, resulting in a lack of solidarity and characteristic self-centeredness in Hungary's foreign policy, which cannot be explained by rational factors alone.

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.

The Psychology of Collective Narcissism is a ground-breaking text that presents a new theory of collective narcissism, a belief that exaggerated greatness of one's own group should be but is not sufficiently appreciated by others. The book presents this concept against the background of social identity theory and research. It explores antecedent as well as social and political consequences of collective narcissism. The author discusses how this burgeoning theory and research can help to elucidate a wide range of psychological dynamics involved in pressing societal issues, such as the declining appeal of democracy, increasing populism, decreasing social solidarity, increasing societal polarization and prejudice, intergroup hostility and political violence, social inequality, and fake news and belief in conspiracy theories. Also referring to societal problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, this highly topical work explores socially shared beliefs as risk factors when predicting responses to crises and highlights conditions in which collective narcissism can be expected. The author also reviews research on interventions reducing the link between collective narcissism, prejudice, and retaliatory intergroup hostility focusing on her recent research on mindfulness. This is a valuable read for academics and students in psychology and the social sciences, those interested in societal processes as well as professionals dealing with the impact of collective narcissism.

This article proposes a new theoretical framework for the reviewed state‐of‐the‐art research on collective narcissism—the belief that the ingroup's exceptionality is not sufficiently appreciated by others. Collective narcissism is motivated by the investment of an undermined sense of self‐esteem into the belief in the ingroup's entitlement to privilege. Collective narcissism lies in the heart of populist rhetoric. The belief in ingroup's exceptionality compensates the undermined sense of self‐worth, leaving collective narcissists hypervigilant to signs of threat to the ingroup's position. People endorsing the collective narcissistic belief are prone to biased perceptions of intergroup situations and to conspiratorial thinking. They retaliate to imagined provocations against the ingroup but sometimes overlook real threats. They are prejudiced and hostile. Deficits in emotional regulation, hostile attribution bias, and vindictiveness lie behind the robust link between collective narcissism and intergroup hostility. Interventions that support the regulation of negative emotions, such as experiencing self‐transcendent emotions, decrease the link between collective narcissism and intergroup hostility and offer further insights into the nature of collective narcissism.

Although it is known that collective narcissism is associated with problematic intergroup relations, its predictors are less well understood. Two studies, conducted in four European Union countries (Germany, Greece, Portugal, the United Kingdom [UK]), tested the hypotheses that integrated (i.e., realistic and symbolic) threat (Study 1, N = 936) as well as distinctiveness threat (Study 2, N = 434) positively predict national collective narcissism and national ingroup satisfaction, but that only national collective narcissism predicts problematic intergroup relations in reference to threatening outgroups. The results were consistent with those hypotheses. The two types of threat predicted increased national collective narcissism and national ingroup satisfaction. However, only national collective narcissism was associated with negative emotions and hostile behavioral intentions toward the threatening outgroups, when its overlap with national ingroup satisfaction was partialled out. These cross-national findings advanced knowledge of predictors, as well as consequences, of collective narcissism. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

"From Mean to Green is written for the person who no longer wishes to function in a world that revolves around selfish, disconnected identities and yearns to step into healthy relationships with one's self, one's community, and our planet. Seeing the suffering of the planet and that of humans as inseparably linked-the ecological crisis as psychological crisis, and vice versa-opens the door to a mutuality of healing between people and nature. At the heart of both chronic and acute forms of narcissism is a socially-constructed false self-an isolated, damaged ego in a delusional cycle of selfishness. Through guided analysis and practices of reflection and embodied meditation, the reader will gain skills to begin experiencing a loving, pluralistic, and ecological self. This book is an invitation to wake up from the dream of the false self and join the movement toward social and planetary healing"--

The rise of exclusive puritanism movements challenges several communities to live in peaceful coexistence. This research aimed to observe the level of interreligious contact among university students. This was a threefold study. The first part was an initial inquiry to construct an interreligious contact scale. The second sought to see the inferential association between interreligious contact, belief in religious teachings (i.e. religious fundamentalism, kindly religious belief, and meta-religion endorsement), and collective narcissism. The third part was to inves tigate differences in those variables between students who joined student political organizations with religion based ideology and those who did not. There were 381 respondents from various religious backgrounds (e.g. Muslim, Christian, and other) participating in this research. The result of the exploratory factor analysis indicated a unidimensionality of the interreligious contact scale. Regression analysis found that religious fundamentalism and collective narcissism made individuals less likely to exhibit interreligious contact. However, kindly religious belief and meta-religion endorsement encouraged interreligious contact. In addition, an independent sample t-test suggested that there was a difference in the inclusivism level between religion-based student organization members and non-members. Members of such organization tended to exhibit a lower level of interreligious contact, while their level of religious fundamentalism and collective narcissism were higher compared to their non-member counterparts.

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

Results of five studies (N = 1596) linked collective narcissism-a belief in in-group exaggerated greatness contingent on external validation-to direct and indirect, retaliatory hostility in response to situations that collective narcissists perceived as insulting to the in-group but which fell well beyond the definition of an insult. In Turkey, collective narcissists responded with schadenfreude to the European economic crisis after feeling humiliated by the Turkish wait to be admitted to the European Union (Study 1). In Portugal, they supported hostile actions towards Germans and rejoiced in the German economic crisis after perceiving Germany's position in the European Union as more important than the position of Portugal (Study 2). In Poland, they supported hostile actions towards the makers of a movie they found offensive to Poland (Studies 3 and 5) and responded with direct and indirect hostility towards a celebrity whose jokes about the Polish government they found offensive (Study 4). Comparisons with self-positivity and in-group positivity indices and predictors of intergroup hostility indicated that collective narcissism is the only systematic predictor of hypersensitivity to in-group insult followed by direct and indirect, retaliatory intergroup hostility. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion

Although it is known that collective narcissism is associated with problematic intergroup relations, its predictors are less well understood. Two studies, conducted in four European Union countries (Germany, Greece, Portugal, the United Kingdom [UK]), tested the hypotheses that integrated (i.e., realistic and symbolic) threat (Study 1, N = 936) as well as distinctiveness threat (Study 2, N = 434) positively predict national collective narcissism and national ingroup satisfaction, but that only national collective narcissism predicts problematic intergroup relations in reference to threatening outgroups. The results were consistent with those hypotheses. The two types of threat predicted increased national collective narcissism and national ingroup satisfaction. However, only national collective narcissism was associated with negative emotions and hostile behavioral intentions toward the threatening outgroups, when its overlap with national ingroup satisfaction was partialled out. These cross-national findings advanced knowledge of predictors, as well as consequences, of collective narcissism.