CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 278Social and Intergroup PsychologyDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionPersonality Traits and Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 108 of the 108 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding defensive and secure in-group positivity: The role of collective narcissism

Cichocka, Aleksandra·2016·European Review of Social Psychology
DOI 10.1080/10463283.2016.1252530
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Integrating psychoanalytic ideas of group idealisation with social identity and categorisation theories, this article discusses the distinction between secure and defensive in-group positivity. Narcissistic in-group positivity captures a belief in in-group greatness that is contingent on external validation. It reflects defensive in-group positivity, insofar as it stems from the frustration of individual needs, and predicts increased sensitivity to threats as well as undesirable consequences for out-groups and the in-group. Secure in-group positivity—that is, in-group positivity without the narcissistic component—is a confidently held positive evaluation of one’s in-group that is independent of the recognition of the group in the eyes of others. It stems from the satisfaction of individual needs, is resilient to threats and has positive consequences for the in-group and out-groups. I review evidence for these two distinct ways people relate to their social groups and discuss theoretical and practical implications for understanding intra- and intergroup relations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10463283.2016.1252530

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 107 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Alleyne E. Blake E. & Walsh E. (2014 November). The narcissistic reactance theory of rape in group context. Paper presented at the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Annual Conference San Diego CA.
  2. 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Berlin, A., Roccas, S., & Sagiv, L. (2014). Individual differences in dissonance intolerance: Ingroup identification and need for cognitive closure intensify intragroup dissonance. Manuscript in preparation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Isreal.
  4. Cichocka, A., & Bilewicz, M. (2010). Co się kryje w nieistotnych efektach statystycznych? Możliwości zastosowania analizy supresji w naukach społecznych [What’s hidden in nonsignificant statistical effects? Suppression analysis in social sciences]. Psychologia Społeczna [Social Psychology], 5, 191–198.
  5. Cichocka, A., Maciejewski, A., & Cisłak, A. (2016). Collective narcissism harms organisations. Unpublished Manuscript.
  6. Coyne J. R. (2015 December). Book review: ‘Crippled America: How to make America great again’ The Washington Times. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/20/book-review-crippled-america-how-to-make-america-g/
  7. 10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.574 · DOI
  8. Imhoff, R. (2010). The dynamics of collective guilt three generations after Holocaust: Young Germans’ emotional experiences in response to the Nazi past. Hamburg, Germany: Kovac.
  9. Jaworska M. (2016). Czym jest dojrzała identyfikacja z grupą? W poszukiwaniu komponentów identyfikacji grupowej mających pozytywne konsekwencje dla grupy własnej i relacji międzygrupowych [What is secure in-group identification? Looking for in-group identification components that lead to in-group’s benefit and positive inter-group relations] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
  10. Millon, T. (2006). Manual for the Millon clinical mutiaxial inventory – III (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.
  11. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London, UK: Academic Press.
  12. Webber D. (2014 September). Deradicalization of former members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. START Annual Conference. Washington DC.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–276 of 276

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cichocka, A.
Affiliations
University of Kent (GB)
Corresponding author
Cichocka, Aleksandra
ORCID
Cichocka, Aleksandra
Venue
European Review of Social Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2016-01
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
283-317
ISSN
  • 1046-3283 (ISSN-L)
  • 1479-277X
DOI
10.1080/10463283.2016.1252530
OpenAlex
W2566484759
Cited by
278
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 6
FWCI
53.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Review of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Narodowe Centrum Nauki (2014/13/B/HS6/03137, 2011/01/B/HS6/04637)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
Keywords
collective narcissism, social identity, categorization, intergroup relations, threat sensitivity, individual needs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review