The Relationship between Russian Identity and Political Polarization: The Role of Secure National Identification and National Narcissism

Objective. To analyse the relationship between secure national identification and national narcissism with political polarization (intergroup differentiation between people with different political views).
Background. Previous research has shown that individuals with a strong secure national identification are more supportive of their fellow citizens than those with a weaker national identity. At the same time, individuals with high levels of national narcissism exhibit more negative attitudes toward co-citizens whom they perceive as threats to the country, compared to those with lower levels of national narcissism. This suggests that secure national identification and national narcissism are associated differently with political polarization.
Study design. Respondents completed questionnaires to measure secure national identification, national narcissism, and political polarization. The presence and nature of the relationships were verified through linear regression analysis.
Participants. In the study, 693 Russian citizens participated (N1 = 473, N2 = 220). Respondents participated in an online survey conducted in Yandex Toloka platform (sample 1) and Anketolog (sample 2). The study involved two measurements: the first was conducted in 2023, and the second in 2024.
Measurements. To measure political polarization, proprietary methodology was used. The criterion for political polarization was whether participants believed the country was moving in the right or wrong direction. Participants appraised the extent to which fellow citizens with these views exhibit certain traits; expressed emotions towards them; evaluated their willingness to interact and collaborate on common issues and considered the acceptability of restricting their rights and opportunities. To assess national identity, modified social identity and collective narcissism scales were used.
Results. The current study showed that secure national identification and national narcissism are associated with more positive attitudes towards people who approve of the country’s direction, compared to those who do not. However, secure national identification is more strongly associated with positive attitudes towards fellow citizens who support status-quo compared to national narcissism. Conversely, national narcissism was more strongly related to negative attitudes towards those who oppose the status quo than secure national identification.
Conclusions. Russian identity increases polarization between individuals who support vs. those who do not support the current state of affairs in the country. However, secure national identification fosters unity among Russians by encouraging a positive attitude toward citizens who support the country's current state of affairs. Conversely, national narcissism creates division by rejecting those who are critical of the status quo.

1. Gulevich O. Psikhologicheskiy analiz politicheskikh oriyentatsiy. Chast I. Opredeleniye. metody izmereniya i problemy izucheniya [Psychological analysis of political orientations. Part I. Definition, methods and problems of study]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Psychological Journal, 2020. Vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 18–24. DOI:10.31857/S020595920011076-9 (In Russ.).
2. Gulevich O. Psikhologicheskiy analiz politicheskikh oriyentatsiy. Chast II. Prediktory i posledstviya politicheskikh vzglyadov [Psychological analysis of political orientations. Part II. The Predictors and Consequences of Political Views]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Psychological Journal, 2021. Vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 46–55. DOI:10.31857/S020595920012575-8 (In Russ.).
3. Gullevich O.A., Kosimova S.S. Svyaz' rossijskoj identichnosti i politicheskoj polyarizacii: rol' nadezhnoj nacional'noj identifikacii i nacional'nogo narcissizma [The relationship between Russian identity and political polarization: The role of secure national identification and national narcissism] [Dataset]. RusPsyData: Psychological Research Data & Tools Repository. DOI:10.48612/MSUPE/1f94-pe99-vv3v
4. Romanova M.O., Ivanov A.A., Bogatyreva N.I., Terskova M.A., Bykov A.O., Ankushev V.V. Adaptatsiya shkaly kollektivnogo nartsissizma na rossiyskoy vyborke [Adaptation of the scale of collective narcissism in the Russian sample]. Sotsialnaya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social psychology and society, 2022. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 201–220. DOI:10.17759/sps.2022130312 (In Russ.).
5. Abramowitz A.I., Saunders K.L. Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics, 2008. Vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 542–555. DOI:10.1017/S0022381608080493
6. Bertin P., Marinthe G., Biddlestone M., Delouvée S. Investigating the identification-prejudice link through the lens of national narcissism: The role of defensive group beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2022. Vol. 98, Article 104252. DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104252
7. Biddlestone M., Cichocka A., Główczewski M., Cislak A. Their own worst enemy? Collective narcissists are willing to conspire against their in‐group. British Journal of Psychology, 2022. Vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 894–916. DOI:10.1111/bjopp.12569
8. Brown J.K., Hohman Z.P. Extreme party animals: Effects of political identification and ideological extremity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 351–362. DOI:10.1111/jasp.12863
9. Cai H., Gries P. National narcissism: Internal dimensions and international correlates. PsyCh Journal, 2013. Vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 122–132. DOI:10.1002/pchj.26
10. Cichocka A. Understanding defensive and secure in-group positivity: The role of collective narcissism. European Review of Social Psychology, 2016. Vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 283–317. DOI:10.1080/10463283.2016.1252530
11. Cichocka A., Golec de Zavala A., Marchlewska M., Bilewicz M., Jaworska M., Olechowski M. Personal control decreases narcissistic but increases non-narcissistic in-group positivity. Journal of Personality, 2018. Vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 465–480. DOI:10.1111/jopy.12328
12. De Keersmaecker J., Roets A. Is there an ideological asymmetry in the moral approval of spreading misinformation by politicians? Personality and Individual Differences, 2019. Vol. 143, pp. 165–169. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.003
13. Denning K.R., Hodges S.D. When polarization triggers out-group “counter-projection” across the political divide. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2022. Vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 638–656.
14. Eker I., Cichocka A., Cislak A. Collective narcissism: How being narcissistic about your groups shapes politics, group processes, and intergroup relations. The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology / Ed. by D. Osborne, C. Sibley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022, pp. 214–227. DOI:10.1017/9781108779104.015
15. Ekstrom P.D., Lai C.K. The selective communication of political information. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2021. Vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 789–800. DOI:10.1177/1948550620942365
16. Ellemers N., Haslam S.A. Social Identity Theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology / Ed. by P.A.M. Van Lange, A.W. Kruglanski, E.T. Higgins. Sage Publications Ltd., 2012. Vol. 2, pp. 379– DOI:10.4135/9781446249222.n46
17. Frimer J.A., Skitka L.J., Motyl M. Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another's opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2017. Vol. 72, pp. 1–12. DOI:10.1016/j.jespp.2017.04.003
18. Golec de Zavala A., Cichocka A., Bilewicz M. The paradox of in-group love: Differentiating collective narcissism advances understanding of the relationship between in-group and out-group attitudes. Journal of Personality, 2013. Vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 16–28. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00779.x
19. Golec de Zavala A., Cichocka A., Eidelson R., Jayawickreme N. Collective narcissism and its social consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009. Vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 1074–1096. DOI:10.1037/a0016904
20. Golec de Zavala A., Cichocka A., Iskra-Golec I. Collective narcissism moderates the effect of in-group image threat on intergroup hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2013. Vol. 104, no. 6, pp. 1019–1039. DOI:10.1037/a0032215
21. Golec de Zavala A.G., Federico C.M., Sedikides C., Guerra R., Lantos D., Mroziński B., Cypryańska M., Baran T. Low self-esteem predicts out-group derogation via collective narcissism, but this relationship is obscured by in-group satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2020. Vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 741–764. DOI:10.1037/pspp0000260
22. Golec de Zavala A., Lantos D. Collective narcissism and its social consequences: The bad and the ugly. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2020. Vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 273–278. DOI:10.1177/0963721420917703
23. Golec de Zavala A., Peker M., Guerra R., Baran T. Collective narcissism predicts hypersensitivity to in-group insult and direct and indirect retaliatory intergroup hostility. European Journal of Personality, 2016. Vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 532–551. DOI:10.1002/per.2067
24. Górska P., Stefaniak A., Marchlewska M., Matera J., Kocyba P., Łukianow M., Malinowska K., Lipowska K. Refugees unwelcome: Narcissistic and secure national commitment differentially predict collective action against immigrants and refugees. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2022. Vol. 86, pp. 258–271. DOI:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.11.009
25. Goya-Tocchetto D., Kay A.C., Vuletich H., Vonasch A., Payne K. The partisan trade-off bias: When political polarization meets policy trade-offs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2022. Vol. 98, Article 104231. DOI:10.1016/j.jespp.2021.104231
26. Gronfeldt B., Cislak A., Sternisko A., Eker I., Cichocka A. A small price to pay: National narcissism predicts readiness to sacrifice in-group members to defend the in-group’s image. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2023. Vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 612–626. DOI:10.1177/01461672221074790
27. Guerra R., Bierwiaczonek K., Ferreira M., Golec de Zavala A., Abakoumkin G., Wildschut T., Sedikides C. An intergroup approach to collective narcissism: Intergroup threats and hostility in four European Union countries. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2022. Vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 415–433. DOI:10.1177/1368430220972178
28. Hamer K., Penczek M., Bilewicz M. Between universalistic and defensive forms of group attachment: The indirect effects of national identification on intergroup forgiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 2018. Vol. 131, pp. 15–20. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.052
29. Iyengar S. Fear and loathing in American politics. A review of affective polarisation. The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology / ed. by D. Osborne, C. Sibley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022, 399–413. DOI:10.1017/9781108779104.028
30. Iyengar S., Krupenkin M. The strengthening of partisan affect. Political Psychology, 2018. Vol. 39, pp. 201–218. DOI:10.1111/pops.12487
31. Iyengar S., Sood G., Lelkes Y. Affect, not ideology. A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 2012. Vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 405–431. DOI:10.1093/poq/nfs038
32. Leach C.W., van Zomeren M., Zebel S., Vliek M.L.W., Pennekamp S.F., Doosje B., Ouwerkerk J.W., Spears R. Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008. Vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 144–165. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
33. Lee T.K., Kim Y., Coe K. When social media become hostile media: An experimental examination of news sharing, partisanship, and follower count. Mass Communication and Society, 2018. Vol. 21, pp. 450–472. DOI:10.1080/15205436.2018.1429635
34. Lovakov A.V., Agadullina E.R., Osin E.N. A hierarchical (Multicomponent) model of in-group identification: Examining in Russian samples. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 2015. Vol. 18, Article E32. DOI:10.1017/sjp .2015.37
35. Luca C., Kevin O.C., Chiara B. Do superordinate identification and temporal/social comparisons independently predict citizens’ system trust? Evidence From a 40-Nation Survey. Frontiers in Psychology, 2021. Vol. 12. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.745168
36. Marchlewska M., Cichocka A., Jaworska M., Golec de Zavala A., Bilewicz M. Superficial ingroup love? Collective narcissism predicts ingroup image defense, outgroup prejudice, and lower ingroup loyalty. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 2020. Vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 857–875. DOI:10.1111/bjso.12367
37. Morais C., Abrams D., de Moura G.R. Ethics versus success? The acceptance of unethical leadership in the 2016 us presidential elections. Frontiers in Psychology, 2020. Vol. 10. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03089
38. Mukerjee S., Yang T. Choosing to avoid? A conjoint experimental study to understand selective exposure and avoidance on social media. Political Communication, 2021. Vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 222–240. DOI:10.1080/10584609.2020.1763531
39. Munro G.D., Zirpoli J., Schuman A., Taulbee J. Third-party labels bias evaluations of political platforms and candidates. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2013. Vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 151–163. DOI:10.1080/01973533.2013.764299
40. Schmuck D., Tribastone M., Matthes J., Marquart F., Bergel E.M. Avoiding the other side? An eye-tracking study of selective exposure and selective avoidance effects in response to political advertising. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 2020. Vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 158–164. DOI:10.1027/1864-1105/a000265
41. Schott M., Wolf J. Election poster persuasion: Attitude formation in the void. Social Psychology, 2018. Vol. 49, pp. 3–15. DOI:10.1027/1864-9335/a000323
42. Seibt B., Schubert T.W., Zickfeld J.H., Fiske A.P. Touching the base: Heart-warming ads from the 2016 U.S. election moved viewers to partisan tears. Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 197–212. DOI:10.1080/02699931.2018.1441128
43. Stathi S., Vezzali L., Waldzus S., Hantzi A. The mobilizing and protective role of national identification in normative and non‐normative collective action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 596–608. DOI:10.1111/jasp.12619
44. Stevens S.M., Jago C.P., Jasko K., Heyman G.D. Trustworthiness and ideological similarity (but not ideology) promote empathy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2021. Vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 1452–1465. DOI:10.1177/0146167220972245
45. Turner J.C., Reynolds K.J. Self-categorization theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology. / ed. by P.A.M. Van Lange, A.W. Kruglanski, E.T. Higgins. Sage Publications Ltd., 2012. Vol. 2, pp. 399–417. DOI:10.4135/9781446249222.n46
46. Van Bavel J.J., Cichocka A., Capraro V. et al. National identity predicts public health support during a global pandemic. Nature Communication, Vol. 13, no. 1, Article 517. DOI:10.1038/s41467-021-27668-9
47. Vargas-Salfate S., Paez D., Liu J.H., Pratto F., Gil de Zúñiga H. A comparison of social dominance theory and system justification: The role of social status in 19 nations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 1060–1076. DOI:10.1177/0146167218757455
48. Verkuyten M., Kollar R., Gale J., Yogeeswaran K. Right-wing political orientation, national identification and the acceptance of immigrants and minorities. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 184, Article 111217. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2021.111217
49. Walter A.S., Redlawsk D.P. Voters’ partisan responses to politicians’ immoral behavior. Political Psychology, 2019. Vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1075–1097. DOI:10.1111/pops.12582
50. Wan C., Tam K.-P., Chiu C.-Y. Inter-subjective cultural representations predicting behaviour: The case of political culture and voting. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2010. Vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 260–273. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01318.x
51. Zell E., Stockus C.A., Bernstein M.J. It’s their fault: Partisan attribution bias and its association with voting intentions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2022. Vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1139–1156. DOI:10.1177/1368430221990084