Consequences of collective narcissism

Thousands of studies have explored the consequences, and especially the drawbacks, of narcissism.  Fewer studies have examined the consequences of collective narcissism—the tendency of some individuals to gravely overestimate the status of their nation, ethnicity, demographic, or some other community to which they belong.  Nevertheless, some research has established the adverse impact of collective narcissism. 

For example, individuals who report collective narcissism tend to be especially sensitive to insults of their community or demographic—as well as more inclined to retaliate in response to these insults.  To illustrate, in an intriguing set of studies, published by Golec de Zavala et al. (2016), participants first completed a series of questions that assesses collective narcissism, such as “My group deserves special treatment”.  Next, they completed a range of measures that gauge their sensitivity to insults towards their collective and their inclination to retaliate.  To illustrate

• Turkish participants read a newspaper article that discussed the failed attempts of their nation to be an EU member and then indicated the degree to which they felt ashamed or humiliated,
• European participants indicated the degree to which they felt insulted after watching a movie they mocked their country—as well as the extent to which they want to express this anger to the producers, and so forth.

In general, if people reported collective narcissism, they were especially sensitive to insults about their nation or community and were more inclined to retaliate in some sense.  In contrast, neither grandiose narcissism nor vulnerable narcissism in individuals was associated with this sensitivity to these insults.   Thus, only people who exhibit collective narcissism feel especially affronted when their community or nation is insulted.   

The moderating effect of group affirmation

According to Golec de Zavala et al. (2016), group affirmations should, at least in principle, diminish this impact of collective narcissism on sensitivity to these insults.  Group affirmations refer to activities that individuals undertake that boost the perceived integrity and value of their collectives.  To illustrate, in a pioneering study, reported by Sherman et al. (2007), some participants were granted an opportunity to affirm the key values of their sports team.  That is, these individuals ranked the extent to which a series of values, like religion or relationships, are important to the team.  Next, they wrote three reasons to specify why the value ranked first is important to the team.

After these activities, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which a specific victory or defeat could be ascribed to the performance of their teammates or the own performance.  If participants had not completed the group affirmation task, they ascribed victories, but not defeats, to both the performance of teammates and their own performance.  That is, they showed an attribution bias, assuming responsibility for success and denying responsibility for failure. If participants had completed the group affirmation task, however, they were equally like to ascribe victories and defeats to the performance of teammates.

Accordingly, after individuals complete the group affirmation procedure, they do not need feel the need to defend their group.  That is, they are not as defensive and could ascribe failures to deficits in the team.

Many other studies have examined the benefits of group affirmations (for a review, see Smith & Grant, 2025).  After participants complete activities that reinforce the integrity and value of their collective, these individuals are more likely to acknowledge and accept criticisms of this collective and recognise the relative merits of other nations, teams, or communities.    

As research has revealed, racism in general and antisemitism in particular can often be ascribed to collective narcissism. That is, often to boost their self-esteem, some individuals like to perceive their collective—such as their nationality, ethnicity, or field of work—as superior and entitled to better treatment.  Because these beliefs are typically unjustified and thus fragile, individuals who experience collective narcissism become especially sensitive to events or changes that could challenge these assumptions.  These individuals are thus very susceptible to narratives about potential threats, such as threats from Jewish communities.  Therefore, collective narcissism may partly explain rampant antisemitism. 

Seminal research on collective narcissism and antisemitism

A seminal research project, conducted by Golec de Zavala and Cichocka (2012), and published in the journal Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, first corroborated this possibility. In the first study, 148 Polish undergraduate students, primarily women, completed a survey.  The survey comprised several validated scales or measures including

• the Collective Narcissism Scale, in which participants specified the degree to which they agree or disagree with nine statements such as “I wish other groups would more quickly recognize authority of my group”,
• a measure of antisemitism in which participants needed to indicate the degree to which they would like Jewish people to be neighbours or friends as well as the extent to which they would mind their children playing with Jewish peers or marrying a Jewish person,
• the degree to which the participants experienced a siege mentality, assessed by questions in which participants specify the degree to which they agree or disagree with statements like “Most nations will conspire against us, if only they have the possibility to do so” (Bar-Tal & Antebi, 1992).

As the analyses revealed, after utilising the bootstrapping method that Preacher and Hayes (2004) recommended, collective narcissism was positively associated with antisemitism.  A siege mentality fully mediated this relationship.  These findings suggest that Polish individuals who exhibit collective narcissism, in which they strive to perceive their community as superior, are especially inclined to perceive this community as under threat, evoking a siege mentality.  In Poland, where conspiracy theories about Jewish people abound, this siege mentality provokes significant antisemitism.    

The second study was similar but corrected some of the drawbacks of the first study.  For example, this study administered a more comprehensive measure of antisemitism.   Specifically, to measure antisemitism,

• participants evaluated Jewish people on five semantic differential scales, such as cold versus warmth, trustful versus distrustful, and admiration versus disgust,
• participants also indicated the likelihood they would choose various aggressive acts towards Jewish people, such as refuse to hire Jewish individuals or convince friends not to rent their property to Jewish individuals.  

Furthermore, to test a possible mediator—conspiracy beliefs towards Jewish people—participants indicated the degree to which they agree with six items, such as “Members of this group strive to rule the world” (Kofta & Sędek, 2005).  Finally, these individuals completed a measure that assessed the extent to which they feel a sense of identity with Poland.  Again, as the findings revealed,

• collective narcissism was positively associated with antisemitism,
• furthermore, both a siege mentality and conspiracy beliefs around Jewish people mediated this relationship,
• the extent to which the participants identified with Poland was not associated with antisemitism. 

These results, however, do not clarify why conspiracies are often directed to Jewish communities rather than many other possible religions, ethnicities, or peoples.  Alternative theories, such as the notion of enemy-ship, can perhaps explain this observation more effectively.  According to the pioneering work of Sullivan et al. (2010), people like to ascribe most of their problems and threats to one community.  That is, if they can impute these problems to one source, they feel a sense of control—a sense their hazards might subside if this community was defeated.  Typically, individuals choose a community that, from their perspective, is familiar but hazy, like a mysterious, surreptitious force.  In many nations, Jewish communities may fulfill these criteria.

Subsequent research on narcissism and antisemitism

Admittedly, antisemitism cannot be ascribed only to collective narcissism but also to other variants of narcissism and psychopathy.  Bertrams and Krispenz (2025) confirmed this possibility. Specifically, these researchers collated data from 15 datasets, collected over time from almost 4000 participants, recruited from multiple nations.  The study examined many predictors and measures of antisemitism including

• the five-factor narcissism inventory and the pathological narcissism inventory to gauge both grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism,
• the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure, validated by Patrick (2010), to gauge three dimensions of psychopathy: boldness (e.g., “I am well-equipped to deal with stress”), meanness (e.g., “I don’t mind if someone I dislike gets hurt”), and disinhibition (20 items; “My impulsive decisions have caused problems with loved ones”),
• the Short Dark Tetrad scale to measure not only narcissism and psychopathy but also Machiavellianism and sadism (Paulhus et al., 2021),
• measures of aggression, dominance, sensation seeking, and virtue signalling,
• various measures of antisemitism to assess generalised antisemitism, antizionism, the belief that Jewish people enjoy undue power in the media, and pro-Palestinian attitudes.

The results were informative.  Antagonistic narcissism, a variant of narcissism that is common to both grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism, characterised by contempt and distrust, predicted most facets of antisemitism. Grandiose narcissism and psychopathy were also positively associated with many variants of antisemitism.  These findings are compatible with the dark-ego-vehicle principle—the notion that individuals who exhibit narcissism and other dark personality traits gravitate to ideologies that reinforce their moral superiority and justify their aggression.   

Many challenges in society, such as the refusal of some communities to observe health regulations, can be ascribed to the inclination of many individuals to reject the insights and recommendations that emanate from scientific findings.  That is, many people express contempt towards science. To ascertain the source of this tendency, Golec de Zavala (2025) explored how various facets of collective narcissism and individual narcissism may foster this repudiation or denial of science.   

In the first study, 800 American adults completed a series of online measures.  Specifically, these individuals completed

• the Antiestablishment Orientation Scale (Uscinski et al. 2021) to assess the inclinations of participants to reject science—typified by items like “People who have studied for a long time and have many diplomas do not really know what makes the world go round”,
• the Collective Narcissism scale, comprising items like “I will never be satisfied until Americans get the recognition they deserve”,
• the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire—a question that measures two facets of narcissism: narcissistic admiration (e.g., “I am great”) and narcissistic rivalry (e.g., “I want my rivals to fail”),
• the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale to gauge vulnerable narcissism, comprising items like “My feelings are easily hurt by ridicule or by the slighting remarks of others”,
• a question that measures political orientation—that is, whether they are liberal or conservative, and
• questions that assess ingroups satisfaction, such as “I am glad to be American”.

The data were subjected to multiple regression analysis and random forest regression (see Grömping, 2009).  As these analyses revealed,

• collective narcissism was positively associated with denial of science—even after controlling political orientation, ingroup satisfaction, and education,
• similarly, collective narcissism was positively associated with denial of science, even after controlling other facets of narcissism, such as narcissistic admiration, narcissistic rivalry, and vulnerable narcissism,
• vulnerable narcissism was also positively related to this denial of science (Golec de Zavala, 2025).

Explanation

These findings are consistent with the notion that, when individuals demonstrate collective narcissism, they often suspend rationality to adopt the beliefs their community shares.  That is, collective narcissism, arguably, emanates from the motivation of individuals to feel affiliated with a community and to perceive this community as special and superior.  This sense of affiliation with a special community boosts the sense of status and importance that individuals feel.   Two accounts may explain why this need of individuals to perceive their community as special and superior may promote contempt towards science.   

• First, to perceive their community as special and superior, these individuals may denigrate other respected communities, such as scientists.
• Second, to perceive their community as special and superior, these individuals may adopt beliefs that are irrational—such as the belief their community is divine—and scientists tend to discount these irrational beliefs. 

The other studies generalised this pattern of findings to other nations and with other measures of narcissism and denial of science—such as anti-vaccination beliefs (Golec de Zavala, 2025). In contrast to the effects of collective narcissism, satisfaction with the nation was inversely associated with denial of science. This satisfaction with a nation tends to foster wellbeing and diminish the motivation to adopt irrational beliefs.  

Collective narcissism and individual narcissism, although related to one another, predict diverse consequences.  To illustrate, many studies have explored whether collective narcissism or individual narcissism coincide with prejudice against other communities, such as racism.  In her seminal book entitled “The psychology of collective narcissism: Insights from social identity theory”, Agnieszka Golec De Zavala in 2023 analysed these studies methodically.  As her analysis revealed

• the correlation between collective narcissism and prejudice against people from other nations was, on average, 0.33—across 47 samples,
• the correlation between individual narcissism and prejudice against people from other nations was, on average, only 0.16—across 78 samples,
• this finding that collective narcissism is more strongly associated with prejudice than is individual narcissism was observed regardless of how prejudice was measured,
• furthermore, individual narcissism may not be associated with prejudice after controlling collective narcissism.

These findings imply that collective narcissism, in which people inflate the status, achievements, and qualities of their groups or communities, is a key determinant of prejudice.  In contrast, individual narcissism may increase the susceptibility of people to collective narcissism.  But, besides this effect on collective narcissism, individual narcissism may not affect prejudice. 

Arguably, collective narcissism may promote some facets of individuals narcissism—and these facets of individual narcissism might culminate in a range of adverse consequences, from domestic violence to car accidents.  To illustrate this cycle of events

• some individuals may belong to groups that often underscore their superiority,
• these individuals will thus perceive their group as superior, epitomising collective narcissism,
• according to self-categorisation theory (e.g., Turner & Reynolds, 2011), individuals often derive information about themselves from the groups to which they belong,
• therefore, these individuals may perceive themselves as superior as well, manifesting as individual narcissism,
• this individual narcissism could then shape the choices and decisions of these individuals, such as inspire these people to drive recklessly, because they may inflate their driving capabilities. 

Indeed, in her pioneering book, Golec De Zavala (2023) presented evidence that suggests, convincingly but not definitively, that collective narcissism may foster individual narcissism rather than vice versa. Specifically,

• every two weeks, during three months of the year 2020, over 600 participants completed measures of collective narcissism, ingroup satisfaction, vulnerable narcissism, grandiose narcissism, and prejudice towards LGBTIQ+,
• collective narcissism at one time was positively associated with vulnerable narcissism at a subsequent time, but not vice versa,
• ingroup satisfaction was negatively associated with vulnerable narcissism at a subsequent time.

Thus, at least vulnerable narcissism may emanate from high levels of collective narcissism and low levels of ingroup satisfaction.  Arguably, if people feel their group does not receive the recognition they deserve, they may feel a sense of injustice—a sense their qualities and capabilities are underestimated.  Consequently, they may become unduly sensitive to criticism, manifesting as vulnerable narcissism.

The role of emotional recognition

Some of the effects of collective narcissism could be ascribed to an impairment in emotional recognition.  Across a series of four studies, Rogoza et al. (2025) showed that collective narcissism, and specifically the tendency of individuals to boost and to defend the status of their nation, impairs the capacity of individuals to recognise their feelings and decipher the emotions of other people.   

In the first study, over 400 Polish adults completed a measure of national narcissism, specifying the degree to which they agree or disagree with items such as “Polish people deserve special treatment” or “The true worth of Polish people is often misunderstood”.  In addition, participants completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Bagby et al., 1994.) to gauge alexithymia or an impairment in the capacity of some individuals to recognise, decipher, and label their own emotions.  A typical item is “I find it hard to describe how I feel about people”.  National narcissism was positively associated with alexithymia, consistent with the possibility that collective narcissism might coincide with problems in emotional recognition.  This pattern of results persisted even after controlling individual narcissism and a sense of identity or attachment to Poland. 

The other studies were similar, except the researchers also administered other measures. For example, in one study, participants completed the Averaged Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces (Lundqvist & Litton, 1998).  Specifically, these participants observed a series of photographs displaying facial expressions and needed to indicate the emotion these expressions displayed.  This procedure assesses the capacity of individuals to recognise the emotions of other people.  Again, national narcissism was negatively associated with the capacity of individuals to recognise the emotions of other people, even after controlling a sense of identity or attachment to Poland. 

Arguably, if individuals experience national or collective narcissism, they become sensitive to possible threats against this nation or collective.  That is, they become attuned to insults or other affronts.  So, they misconstrue facial expressions as hostile, compromising their capacity to recognise emotions.