Narcisismo y sus incidencias

1. 1
To be published in Hermann, A., Brunell, A.,& Foster., J. (2017, Eds.) The Handbook of
Trait Narcissism: Key Advances, Research Methods, and Controversies. Springer
Collective narcissism: antecedents and consequences of exaggeration of the in-
group image.
Agnieszka Golec de Zavala
Goldsmiths, University of London
University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Poznań
Instituto Universitário de Lisboa ISCTE-IUL, Centro de Investigação e Intervenção
Social (CIS-IUL), Lisboa
Suggested keywords: Collective narcissism, intergroup hostility, in-group satisfaction,
nationalism
Collective narcissism pertains to individual difference in a belief in exaggerated
greatness of one’s own group contingent on external recognition (Golec de Zavala,
Cichocka, Eidelson, & Jayawickreme, 2009; Golec de Zavala, 2011, 2012). This
definition extends the concept of individual narcissism as an exaggerated self-image
dependent on admiration of others (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) onto the social level of
self. People who score high on the Collective Narcissism Scale agree that their group’s
importance and worth are not sufficiently recognized by others, their group deserves
special treatment and they insist that their group must obtain special recognition and
respect (Table 1, Golec de Zavala, et al., 2009). Rather than contributing to their in-

2. 2
group’s welfare, collective narcissists engage their energy to monitor whether the
greatness and uniqueness of their in-group is sufficiently acknowledged and recognized
by others.
When Theodore Adorno first proposed that collective narcissism motivated
support for the Nazi politics in Germany, he argued that the exaggerated sense of
national entitlement compensated for hidden weakness of the self. He maintained that,
by dissolving in an idealized and omnipotent group, the ‘weak egos’ sought protection
from the sense of alienation, powerlessness and self-blame. Unfortunately, once
legitimized by national authorities, unrestrained collective narcissism led to support for
the aggressive leader and escalation of intergroup hostilities (Adorno, 1963/1998).
Recently, appeals to national collective narcissism could be observed in political
campaigns alarming about the loss of national greatness in the US (“Make America
great again”) and in the UK (“Take back control”). Collective narcissism predicted the
Brexit vote in the UK because of the perception that the country was threatened by
immigrants and foreigners (Golec de Zavala, Guerra & Símão, 2017). Collective
narcissism predicted an increase in conspiratorial thinking during Donald Trump’s
presidential campaign (Golec de Zavala & Federico, 2017) and the Trump vote in the
2016 American presidential election (Federico & Golec de Zavala, 2017).
This chapter reviews previous studies examining the link between collective
narcissism and intergroup hostility. Next, the chapter presents recent results pointing to
collective narcissistic vulnerability and compensatory nature and differentiating
collective narcissism from in-group satisfaction - taking pride in being a member of a
worthy group (Amiot & Aubin, 2013; Leach, et al., 2008). However, first the chapter
differentiated national collective narcissism from a related concept of nationalism.

3. 3
Collective narcissism vs. Nationalism
People can be collective narcissistic about various social groups (Golec de
Zavala, et al., 2009). When applied to a national group, collective narcissism may make
similar predictions regarding intergroup attitudes as nationalism: a desire for national
supremacy (Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989). However, there are reasons to think that the
two constructs refer to different psychological realities. First, nationalists are openly
dominant and deny weakness. They are convinced that their nation should dominate
others (Blank and Schmidt, 2003; Mummendey, Klink & Brown, 2001; Kosterman &
Feshbach, 1989; Pehrson, Brown, & Zagefka, 2009). Collective narcissists emphasize
weakness and lack of in-group recognition to justify their hostility (Golec de Zavala, et
al., 2017). In addition, when the overlap between nationalism and national collective
narcissism was controlled, collective narcissism, not nationalism, was related to
hypersensitivity to intergroup threat and retaliatory hostility (Golec de Zavala, et al.,
2016). Finally, in line with this finding, recent results indicate that collective narcissism
and nationalism may be underlain by different motivations. Unlike collective
narcissism, nationalism was related to individual grandiose narcissism (i.e. a sense of
agentic superiority over others), and only inasmuch as it was associated with grandiose
narcissism was it also related to high self-esteem. Otherwise, nationalism was related to
low self-esteem. Collective narcissism was related to low self-esteem via vulnerable
narcissism (i.e. frustrated and unfulfilled sense of self-entitlement, Golec de Zavala, et
al., 2017).
Thus, both collective narcissism and nationalism, seem to be underlain by low
self-esteem and both are likely to use their national identity instrumentally to
compensate for deficits in their sense of self-worth. However, they engage in intergroup
hostility in different ways and for different reasons. While nationalistic intergroup

4. 4
hostility is actively aggressive and openly dominant, collective narcissistic intergroup
hostility is subjectively defensive. Collective narcissists protect the in-group’s image
rather than assert the in-group’s dominance (Golec de Zavala, et al., 2016). This does
not make their hostility more justified. The same atrocities would be motivated by
nationalistic belief in the in-group’s right to dominate and the collective narcissist’s
belief that the in-group image needs to be protected from external threats. However, it is
important to recognize that dominant nationalists may use the rhetoric of intergroup
threat and loss of national greatness to mobilize defensive collective narcissists to fight
their wars.
Previous studies: Collective narcissism, hypersensitivity to intergroup threat and
retaliatory intergroup hostility
Results converge to indicate that collective narcissism, not individual narcissism
or personal sense of entitlement, predicts hostile intergroup attitudes and behaviors (Cai
& Gries, 2013; Golec de Zavala, et al., 2009; Golec de Zavala, Cichocka, & Iskra-
Golec, 2013; Golec de Zavala, Cichocka, & Bilewicz, 2013; Golec de Zavala, Pekker,
Guerra, & Baran, 2016). Specifically, collective narcissism predicts retaliatory hostility
to past, present, actual and imagined offences to the in-group (Golec de Zavala, et al.,
2009, 2013a, 2016).
Collective narcissism predicts retaliatory intergroup hostility after the in-group
image is undermined by other groups. For example, American collective narcissism
predicted support for military intervention in Iraq in 2003 because American collective
narcissists felt besieged by hostility of other countries (Golec de Zavala et al., 2009).
However, out-group aggression is not the only threat that triggers collective narcissistic
intergroup hostility. Collective narcissistic prejudice is underlain by the perception of

5. 5
targeted groups as threatening to the in-group’s image, position or narrowly defined
identity. For example, the link between collective narcissism and anti-Semitism in
Poland was explained by the belief that Jews conspire against Poles (Golec de Zavala &
Cichocka, 2012). Collective narcissism in Poland was also linked to homophobia. This
link was mediated by religious fundamentalism. Such findings indicate that collective
narcissistic narrow definition of the ‘true’ Polish national identity – Catholic and
heterosexual (Graff, 2010) - is threatened by Jews and homosexual Poles (Golec de
Zavala & Mole, 2017; see also Górska & Mikołajczyk, 2015). In China, collective
narcissists disliked American celebrities portrayed on the covers of Chinese magazines.
This result was interpreted as their rejection of American cultural intrusion into the
‘pure’ Chinese culture (Gries, et al. 2015).
In addition, collective narcissism uniquely (in comparison to individual
narcissism, right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, national in-group
identification and blind and constructive patriotism) predicts hostile retaliation to in-
group criticism. For example, in an experimental study, American participants were
presented with a fictional interview with a foreign exchange student. After reading
unfavorable (vs. favorable) comments about their country, American collective
narcissists expressed the intention to engage in hostile behaviors towards all compatriots
of the exchange student. In another experiment, Polish collective narcissists advocated
hostile confrontation with a team of British scientists with whom Polish scientists
allegedly discovered new chemical elements but disagreed over how to name them.
Polish collective narcissists preferred hostile strategies only after participants were
previously exposed to critical comments about anti-Semitism in Poland issued by the
British press. Participants chose conciliatory approach to the same conflict in the control
conditions, after the critical comments were attributed to the Austrian press.

6. 6
In another study, collective narcissists reported that they thought negative
opinions about their in-group were threatening to them personally. In retribution,
collective narcissists made resource distribution decisions that harmed the criticizing
out-group. The perception of the in-group criticism as personally threatening mediated
the relationship between collective narcissism and retaliatory aggression (Golec de
Zavala, et al., 2013a).
Collective narcissists retaliate not only in response to incontrovertibly
intentional intergroup threat or criticism. They feel threatened in ambiguous intergroup
situations or even such that require a stretch of imagination to be perceived as insulting.
For example, Mexican collective narcissists felt offended by the construction of the wall
along Mexican-American border in 2006 (Note that the 2006 attempt to justify the wall
was more subtle than 2016 one by president Trump who unambiguously insulted
Mexicans). According to the American government at the time, the wall was
constructed to protect against the terrorist threat. Nevertheless, Mexican collective
narcissists wanted to boycott American companies and engage in destructive actions
against American institutions in Mexico because they perceived the construction of the
wall as an insult to Mexico and Mexicans (Golec de Zavala et al., 2009). Similarly, in
Turkey, collective narcissists rejoiced in the European economic crisis after feeling
humiliated by the Turkish wait to be admitted to the European Union. In Portugal,
collective narcissists supported hostile actions towards Germans and rejoiced in the
German economic crisis because they perceived Germany’s position in the European
Union as more appreciated than the position of Portugal.
Stretching the definition of intergroup offence even further, in Poland, collective
narcissists supported hostile actions towards the makers of a movie which alluded to
one of the least laudable moments in the national history: Polish anti-Semitism during

7. 7
the Second World War. Even after a transgression as petty as a joke made by a Polish
celebrity about the country’s government, Polish collective narcissists threatened
physical punishment and engaged in schadenfreude, openly rejoicing in the misfortunes
of their “offender” (Golec de Zavala, et al, 2016). Such results indicate that collective
narcissists are hypersensitive to signs of the in-group image threat and perceive an insult
to the in-group even when it is debatable, not perceived by others, or not intended by
the other group. Collective narcissists do not have a sense of humor as far as their in-
group is concerned and they are disproportionately punitive in responding to what they
consider the in-group image threat.
Such findings are important in the light of analyses suggesting that feeling
humiliated in the name of one’s own group is one of the most frequently-reported
motives for political radicalization and violence (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2008).
Indeed, analyses presented by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and
Responses to Terrorism (supported by the US Department of Homeland Security)
showed that collective narcissism mobilized support for terrorist violence in radical
social networks in Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Morocco. In radicalized social contexts,
either due to the past involvement in political violence (LTTE in Sri Lanka), current
ideological climate (Morocco), or explicit ideological agenda (Islamists and Jihadists in
Indonesia), collective narcissism predicted suport for violent political extremism.
Participants who scored high on the Collective Narcissism Scale and were embedded
within the extremist networks felt their group had not received the appreciation it
deserved and supported intergroup violence as a means of advancing their in-group’s
goals (Jaśko, Webber, & Kruglanski, 2017).
New developments: Collective narcissism and weaknesses of the Self

8. 8
In line with Adorno’s suggestion, recent studies suggest that collective
narcissists protect their in-groups’ exaggerated greatness so vehemently because they
regard those in-groups as vehicles for fulfilment of their frustrated sense of entitlement.
Previous studies linked collective narcissism to the conviction that other groups do not
appreciate the in-group sufficiently and to lack of positive automatic associations of the
in-group’s symbols with positive stimuli (Golec de Zavala, et al., 2009). In addition,
collective narcissism was linked to low sense of personal control - not having the ability
to influence the course of one’s own life (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Temporarily lowered
sense of personal control resulted in heightened collective narcissism suggesting that
increased investment in in-group’s exaggerated greatness may be a way of
compensating for loss of personal control (Cichocka, Golec de Zavala et al., 2017).
Recent studies, conducted on large and nationally representative samples in
Poland and Russia, showed that collective narcissism was related to low self-esteem via
individual vulnerable narcissism and it was not related to individual grandiose
narcissism (Golec de Zavala, et al., 2017). The dominance analysis and two other
relative importance analyses indicated that the role of personal control in explaining
variance in collective narcissism was negligible in comparison to vulnerable narcissism
(.01 vs. .07) and self-esteem (.02 vs. 07), respectively (Golec de Zavala et al., 2017).
Collective narcissism was also associated with self-criticism, low self-acceptance,
negative affectivity and a tendency to react strongly to environmental stimuli (Golec de
Zavala, 2017). Such findings suggest that engaging in the protection of inflated in-group
greatness may seem essential to collective narcissists who feel entitled to special
treatment but concurrently feel unrecognized and disempowered.
Such results indicate also that collective narcissism may be underlain by deficits
in the ability to constructively face adversity, and soothe and restore after threat. Since

9. 9
collective narcissists may not be able to protect themselves from aversive effects of
individual hardship, they may invest their sense of self-worth in a group. When their in-
group is undermined their sense of self-worth is destabilized. Thus, they monitor signs
of threat to in-group image and overreact when they detect them. Since their
emotionality is mostly negative, their reactions are as well. They express anger,
contempt, hostility and aggression.
Collective narcissism vs. in-group satisfaction
When President Kennedy famously asked Americans, to think not what their
nation can do for them but what they can do for their nation, he recognized that a non-
instrumental, intrinsically motivated group identity can coexist with one that is
instrumental and compensatory. Research on collective narcissism shows that feeling
proud and satisfied to be a member of a valuable group are correlated. Correlations
between collective narcissism and private collective self-esteem (participant’s own
opinion about the in-group, Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992) ranged from .31 in Turkey to
.50 in Poland (Golec de Zavala, et al., 2009; 2013a; 2016). Correlations with in-group
satisfaction (feeling glad and satisfied to belong to a valuable group, Leach, et al.,
2008), ranged from .48 to .63 in Poland (Golec de Zavala, et al., 2016; Golec de Zavala,
et al., 2017). However, research also suggest that these constructs are functionally
distinct: they make different predictions for intergroup attitudes and they are related to
different emotional profiles. In addition, those two constructs are related to different
attitudes towards the self.
Studies showed that in-group satisfaction suppressed the link between collective
narcissism and rejection of out-groups. After the overlap was accounted for, the link
between collective narcissism and rejection of out-groups became stronger. In addition,

10. 10
collective narcissism suppressed the link between in-group satisfaction and positive
attitudes towards out-groups. In-group satisfaction predicted more positive attitudes
towards out-groups after its overlap with collective narcissism was accounted for (Golec
de Zavala, 2011; Golec de Zavala et al, 2013b). Collective narcissism with in-group
positivity partialled out can be interpreted as group-based entitlement without the
comfort of the sense of belonging to a valuable group In-group satisfaction with
collective narcissism partialled out can be interpreted as a confident positive evaluation
of the in-group, independent of external recognition and resilient to threats and
criticism. Indeed, unlike collective narcissism, in-group satisfaction did not predict
hypersensitivity to intergroup threat (Golec de Zavala et al, 2016), it was not related to
conspiracy beliefs about Jews or Siege mentality (Golec de Zavala & Cichocka, 2012)
and it was negatively related to the belief in conspiracy explanations of intergroup
situations (Cichocka et al., 2016).
Recent studies showed also that unlike collective narcissism, in-group
satisfaction was associated with positive affectivity, psychological well-being and
greater life-satisfaction. In-group satisfaction was also associated with feeling safe and
grounded in social networks and the tendency to experience gratitude. The differences
were found when zero order correlations were analyzed and when the positive overlap
between in-group satisfaction and collective narcissism was controlled for. However,
some of the relationships changed when residual variables were analyzed. For example,
the link between collective narcissism and gratitude changed direction suggesting that
this link was suppressed by the positive overlap between collective narcissism and in-
group satisfaction (Golec de Zavala, 2017). In addition, the link between in-group
satisfaction and high self-esteem was strengthened after the overlap between in-group
satisfaction and collective narcissism was controlled for suggesting that collective

11. 11
narcissism partially suppressed the positive link between in-group satisfaction and high
self-esteem (Golec de Zavala, et al., 2017).
Findings linking in-group satisfaction to positive affectivity and high self-esteem
and collective narcissism with negative affectivity, vulnerable narcissism and out-group
hostility are in line with the application of self-determination theory to understand the
social identity processes. This literature suggests that nonself-determined motivations to
identify with the social group – such as collective narcissistic investment of one’s self-
worth in group identity – are linked with in-group bias, defensiveness and negative
attitudes towards outgroups. Positive, non-contingent, intrinsic in-group satisfaction is
related to high self-esteem and intergroup tolerance (Amiot & Aubin, 2013; Amiot &
Sansfaçon, 2011; Legault & Amiot, 2014).
Future directions
Collective narcissists engage in intergroup hostility because they invest their
sense of self-worth in their group identities and feel motivated to protect their in-groups
to protect the vulnerability of their self-images. However, investment of the self-worth
in the group identity is not the only way of coping with personal vulnerability. Evidence
suggests that there are other ways to stabilize emotional regulation and facilitate
resilience to threat, such as self-affirmation (Cohen & Sherman, 2014). Future studies
could explore whether such interventions can weaken the link between collective
narcissism and retaliatory intergroup hostility by fortifying collective narcissistic fragile
self-image. Studies indicated that self-affirmation reduced the link between individual
grandiose narcissism and interpersonal aggression among adolescents (Thomaes, et al,
2009). Perhaps such intervention could also reduce the link between collective
narcissism and compensatory intergroup hostility. Future research could also explore

12. 12
whether the impact of collective narcissism in shaping intergroup attitudes can de-
emphasized. Studies indicate that, negative consequences of collective narcissism for
intergroup relations are reduced when collective narcissism overlaps with in-group
satisfaction (Cichocka, et al., 2016; Golec de Zavala, et al., 2013b, 2016). Future
studies would do well to examine how and when in-group satisfaction can be
emphasized over collective narcissism in inspiring intergroup attitudes.
Future studies could also advance our understanding of the nature of collective
narcissism as an individual difference variable. It is not yet entirely clear whether
collective narcissism is a general tendency to form narcissistic attachment to all social
groups to which people belong or whether some groups inspire collective narcissism
more than others. Groups which possess reified existence - such as national, ethnic or
religious groups, or political parties - may be more likely to inspire collective
narcissism. However, even members of more mundane and loosely defined groups
(students of a certain university, workers in the same organization) were shown to be
collective narcissistic about their groups (Galvin, et al., 2015; Golec de Zavala, et al.,
2009; 2013a, 2013b).
Another issue that requires further clarification is whether levels of collective
narcissism can be changed by situational factors. One unpublished study indicated that
negative feedback to the in-group (university students) increased collective narcissism
(Golec de Zavala, 2010). Intensification of political rhetoric emphasizing social
divisions and idealizing certain groups may increase collective narcissism with respect
to this group. Intergroup conflicts may also increase collective narcissism with reference
to the in-group engaged in the conflict but not to other in-groups. Moreover, collective
narcissism may be increased in groups experiencing relative deprivation (Guerra., et al.,
2017). In the context of perceived disadvantage and deprivation, future studies should

13. 13
carefully distinguish between conditions that increase collective narcissism and
retaliatory intergroup hostility from conditions that increase commitment to engage in
peaceful social protest, resistance and civil disobedience on behalf of the valued in-
group.
Finally, future studies could advance our understanding of the link between
collective narcissism and grandiose narcissism. The summary presented in Table 2
suggest that collective narcissism is related to individual grandiose narcissism in the
U.S. and the UK but not in Poland, Russia or China. This data is in line with the
proposition that the relationship between individual and collective narcissism may be
shaped by cultural contexts (Golec de Zavala, et al., 2009). It seems that individualistic
cultural contexts that allow for the development of a strong ego may enhance the
positive relationship between individual grandiose narcissism and collective narcissism.
In line with this proposition, this relationship was found in individualistic cultures,
where the projection of perceived individual greatness onto in-groups could be more
likely. In collectivistic cultures, commitment to the in-group may be associated with the
submission of individual needs or goals thus diminishing the association of grandiose
individual narcissism and collective narcissism.
To sum up, collective narcissism is a distinct form of positive attitude towards
an in-group uniquely predicting intergroup hostility in the context of intergroup threat.
It accounts for intergroup hostility better than individual narcissism, self-esteem or
other forms of positive attitudes towards the in-group. National collective narcissism
can be distinguished from nationalism on the level of the antecedents and predictions.
Collective narcissism suppresses the link between in-group satisfaction and positive
attitudes towards out-groups. This suggest that non-contingent in-group satisfaction

14. 14
refers to a different psychological reality than collective narcissism and can serve as a
platform on which to build harmonious intergroup relations.

15. 15
References
Adorno, T. (1963/1998). Critical models: Interventions and catchwords. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Amiot, C. E., & Aubin, R. M. (2013). Why and how are you attached to your social
group? Investigating different forms of social identification. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 52, 563-586. doi:10.1111/bjso.12004
Amiot, C. E., & Sansfaçon, S. (2011). Motivations to identify with social groups: A
look at their positive and negative consequences. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 15(2), 105.
Blank, T., & Schmidt, P. (2003). National identity in a united Germany: Nationalism or
patriotism? An empirical test with representative data. Political Psychology, 24,
289-312. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00329
Cai, H., & Gries, P. (2013). National narcissism: Internal dimensions and international
correlates. PsyCh Journal, 2, 122-132. doi: 10.1002/pchj.26
Cichocka, A., Golec de Zavala, A., Marchlewska, M., Bilewicz, M., Jaworska, M., &
Olechowski, M. (2017). Personal control decreases narcissistic but increases
non-narcissistic in-group positivity. Journal of Personality.
DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12328
Cichocka, A., Marchlewska, M., Golec de Zavala, A., & Olechowski, M. (2016). “They
will not control us”: In-group positivity and belief in intergroup conspiracies.
British Journal of Psychology, 107, 556–576. doi:10.1111/bjop.12158
Cohen, G. & Sherman, D. (2014). The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and
Social Psychological Intervention. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 65, 333–371.

16. 16
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11, 227-
268.
Federico, C., & Golec de Zavala, (2017). Collective Narcissism and the 2016 United
States Presidential Vote. Manuscript under revision.
Galvin, B. M., Lange, D., & Ashforth, B. E. (2015). Narcissistic organizational
identification: Seeing oneself as central to the organization’s identity. Academy
of Management Review, 40, 163–181. doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0103
Golec de Zavala, A. (2010). Negative evaluation of the group increases collective
narcissism and intergroup hostility under intergroup threat. Working Paper.
British Academy, London.
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.
Golec de Zavala, A. (2012). Collective narcissism. (pp. 151-155) In D. J.
Christie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. Hoboken, New
Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Golec de Zavala, A. (2017). Differential association of collective narcissism and in-
group satisfaction with psychological wellbeing and prosociality. Manuscript
under preparation
Golec de Zavala, A., & Cichocka, A. (2012). Collective narcissism and anti-Semitism in
Poland. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 15, 213-229. doi:
10.1177/1368430211420891
Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., & Bilewicz, M. (2013b). The paradox of in-group
love: Differentiating collective narcissism advances understanding of the

17. 17
relationship between in-group and out-group attitudes. Journal of Personality,
81, 16-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00779.x
Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., & Iskra-Golec, I. (2013a). Collective narcissism
moderates the effect of in-group image threat on intergroup hostility. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 1019-1039. doi: 10.1037/a0032215
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. doi: 10.1037/a0016904
Golec de Zavala, A. & Federico, C. (2017). Collective Narcissism and the Growth of
Conspiratorial Thinking Over The Course of the 2016 United States Presidential
Election: A Longitudinal Analysis. Manuscript provisionally accepted for a
special issue of European Journal of Social Psychology on Conspiracy Theories
Golec de Zavala, A., Guerra, R., & Símão, C. (2017). The relationship between the
Brexit vote and individual predictors of prejudice: Collective narcissism, right
wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Manuscript presented
at the Annual Meeting of European Association of Social Psychology, Granada,
Spain.
Golec de Zavala, A & Mole, R. (2017). Homophobia and collective narcissism in
contemporary Poland. Manuscript under preparation.
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.
Golec de Zavala, A., & Schatz, R. (2013). Extreme forms of in-group positivity and
their negative consequences for intergroup relations. In Golec de Zavala, A. &

18. 18
Chicocka, A. (Eds). Social psychology of social problems. The intergroup
context. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Golec de Zavala, A., Sedikides, C., Lantos, D., Baran, T., Murteira, C. & Artamanova,
E. (2017). Untangling the relationships between self-views and in-group
positivity: vulnerable collective narcissism, grandiose nationalism and non-
contingent in-group satisfaction. Manuscript submitted
Górska. P. and Mikołajczak, M. (2015) ‘Tradycyjne i nowoczesne uprzedzenia wobec
osób homoseksualnych w Polsce’ in Stefaniak, A., Bilewicz, M. and Winiewski,
M. (eds) Uprzedzenia w Polsce. Warsaw: Liberi Libri, 179-206
Graff, A. (2010). Looking at Pictures of Gay Men: Political Uses of Homophobia in
Contemporary Poland. Public Culture, 22, 583-603.
Gries, P., Sanders, M., Stroup, D., & Cai, H. (2015). Hollywood in China: How
American popular culture shapes Chinese views of the ‘Beautiful Imperialist,’
na experimental analysis. The China Quarterly, 224, 1070–1082.
doi:10.1017/S0305741015000831
Guerra, R., Golec de Zavala, A., Neves, T. (2017). Fraternalistic deprivation, collective
narcissism and intergroup hostility in Europe. 18th European Association of
Social Psychology General Meeting, 5-8 July Granada, Spain.
Jaśko, K., Webber, D., & Kruglanski, A., (2017) Relative effects of individual and
group-based quest for significance on violent extremism depends on the social
context. Paper accepted for presentation at the Annual Meeting of European
Association of Social Psychology, Granada, Spain.
Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic
attitudes. Political Psychology, 10, 257-274. doi: 10.2307/3791647

19. 19
Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B.,
... & 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, 144-165. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.95.1.144
Legault, L., & Amiot, C. E. (2014). The Role of Autonomy in Intergroup Processes:
Toward an Integration of Self-Determination Theory and Intergroup
Approaches. In Human Motivation and Interpersonal Relationships (pp. 159-
190). Springer Netherlands.
Luhtanen, R. & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of
one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302- 318.
doi:10.1177/0146167292183006
Lyons, P. A., Coursey, L. E., & Kenworthy, J. B. (2013). National identity and group
narcissism as predictors of intergroup attitudes toward undocumented Latino
immigrants in the United States. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 35,
323-335. doi: 10.1177/0739986313488090
Lyons, P. A., Kenworthy, J., & Popan, J. (2010). In-group identification and grouplevel
narcissism as predictors of U.S. citizens’ attitudes and behavior toward Arab
immigrants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1267–1280.
doi:10.1177/0146167210380604
McCauley, C. & Moskalenko, S. (2008). Mechanisms of political radicalization:
pathways toward terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 20, 415-433,
doi:10.1080/09546550802073367

20. 20
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A
dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177-196.
doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_1
Mummendey, A., Klink, A., & Brown, R. (2001). Nationalism and patriotism: National
identification and out‐group rejection. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40,
159-172. doi: 10.1348/014466601164740
Pehrson, S., Brown, R., & Zagefka, H. (2009). When does national identification lead to
the rejection of immigrants? Cross‐sectional and longitudinal evidence for the
role of essentialist in‐group definitions. British Journal of Social Psychology,
48(1), 61-76.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance
orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(4), 741.
Schatz, R. T., Staub, E., & Lavine, H. (1999). On the varieties of national attachment:
Blind versus constructive patriotism. Political Psychology, 20, 151-174.
doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00140
Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., de Castro, B. O., Cohen, G. L., & Denissen, J. J. (2009).
Reducing narcissistic aggression by buttressing self-esteem: An experimental
field study. Psychological Science, 20, 1536-1542. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2009.02478.x

21. 21
Table 1. Collective Narcissism Scale.
Collective Narcissism Scale (Golec de Zavala, et al., 2009, shorter version
includes items: 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8, Golec de Zavala et al., 2013b).
Typical instruction: Please think about [this group] when answering the items of
the scale. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statements
using the scale 1 = I strongly disagree to 6 = I strongly agree.
1. I wish other groups would more quickly recognize the authority of [my group].
2. [My group] deserves special treatment.
3. I will never be satisfied until [my group] gets the recognition it deserves.
4. I insist upon [my group] getting the respect that is due to it.
5. It really makes me angry when others criticize [my group].
6. If [my group] had a major say in the world, the world would be a much better
place.
7. I do not get upset when people do not notice achievements of [my group] (R).
8. Not many people seem to fully understand the importance of [my group].
9. The true worth of [my group] is often misunderstood.
(R) Denotes a reverse coded item.

22. 22
Table 2. Summary of the relationship between collective narcissism and grandiose
individual narcissism as measured by Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) and
vulnerable individual narcissism measured by the Hyper-Sensitive Narcissism Scale
(HSNS). * Denotes significant correlations.
Study Country r
(grandiose
narcissism
r
(vulnerable
narcissism)
N
1 Golec de Zavala, et al., 2013,
Study 3, NPI
Poland -.09 117
2 Golec de Zavala, et al., 2013,
Study 4, NPI
Poland .24* 80
3 Golec de Zavala, et al., 2013,
Study 1, NPI
USA .18* 134
4 Golec de Zavala, et al., 2009,
Study 2, NPI
UK .27* 92
5 Golec de Zavala, et al., 2013,
Study 2, NPI
USA .29* 108
6 Cai & Gries, 2013, Study 1,
NPI
USA .15* 279
7 Cai & Gries, 2013, Study 1,
NPI
China .04 436
8 Cichocka, et al., 2015, Study 2,
NPQC
USA .35* 269

23. 23
10 Golec de Zavala, unpublished,
NPI, HSNS
Poland .04 .15* 569
11 Golec de Zavala, et al., 2016,
Study 4, NPI, HSNS
Poland -.008 .25* 427
12 Golec de Zavala, et al., 2017,
Study 1, NPI, HSNS
Russia .02 .09* 1198
13 Golec de Zavala, et al., 2017,
Study 2, NPI, HSNS
Poland .03 .24* 506
14 Golec de Zavala, et al., 2017,
Study 3, NPI, HSNS
Poland .07 .24* 1065
15 Murteira, unpublished, HSNS Portugal .18* 276
Meta-analytical summary of the data for the relationship between collective
narcissism and grandiose narcissism indicates a small effect (0.09). The weighted
mean effect estimated by random effect model was significantly larger than 0
(SE=0.03, 95%CI[0.03;0.15]; z=3.20, p=.004, k=13) with a significant heterogeneity
between countries (Q(12)=53.03, p<.001). Collapsing the relationship in USA and
UK vs. Poland, Russia and China indicated significant difference in average effects
between those two groups of countries (Q(2)=42.46, p< .001) and no significant
variance within countries (Q(10)=10.61, p= .39). The relationship exists in USA and
UK (p=0.25, SE=0.04, 95%CI[0.18;0.31]; z=7.26, p<.001, k=5), but does not exist in
Poland, Russia and China (p=0.01, SE=0.02, 95%CI[-0.03;0.04]; z=0.35, p=.77, k=8).
Meta-analytical summary of the data for the relationship between collective
narcissism and vulnerable narcissism indicates a small effect (0.19). The weighted
mean effect estimated by random effect model was significantly larger than 0

24. 24
(SE=0.03, 95%CI[0.13;0.25]; z=6.06, p<.001, k=6) with a significant heterogeneity
(Q(5)=17.9, p=.003).