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

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

Personal control decreases narcissistic but increases non-narcissistic in-group positivity

Objective: We examined the effects of control motivation on in-group positivity. Past research suggests that people compensate for low personal control by increasing support for social ingroups. We predicted that the effect of personal control on in-group positivity would depend on the type of in-group positivity. Low personal control should increase compensatory, narcissistic in-group positivity, while high personal control should increase secure, non-narcissistic in-group positivity. Method: These hypotheses were tested in a cross-sectional survey (Study 1, n= 1083,54% female, Mage= 47.68), two experiments (Study 2, n= 105, 50% female, Mage = 32.05; Study 3, n=154, 40% female, Mage= 29.93) and a longitudinal survey (Study 4, n= 398, 51% female,Mage= 32.05). Results: In all studies personal control was negatively associated with narcissistic in-group positivity but positively associated with non-narcissistic in-group positivity. The longitudinal survey additionally showed that the positive relationship between personal controland non-narcissistic in-group positivity was reciprocal. Moreover, both types of in-group positivity differentially mediated between personal control and out-group attitudes:narcissistic in-group positivity predicted negative attitudes and non-narcissistic positivity predicted positive attitudes. Conclusions: These findings highlight the role of individual motivation in fostering different types of in-group positivity and intergroup outcomes

Threat and defense:From anxiety to approach

The social psychological literature on threat and defense is fragmented. Groups of researchers have focused on distinct threats, such as mortality, uncertainty, uncontrollability, or meaninglessness, and have developed separate theoretical frameworks for explaining the observed reactions. In the current chapter, we attempt to integrate old and new research, proposing both a taxonomy of variation and a common motivational process underlying people’s reactions to threats. Following various kinds of threats, people often turn to abstract conceptions of reality—they invest more extremely in belief systems and worldviews, social identities, goals, and ideals. We suggest that there are common motivational processes that underlie the similar reactions to all of these diverse kinds of threats. We propose that (1) all of the threats present people with discrepancies that immediately activate basic neural processes related to anxiety. (2) Some categories of defenses are more proximal and symptom-focused, and result directly from anxious arousal and heightened attentional vigilance associated with anxious states. (3) Other kinds of defenses operate more distally and mute anxiety by activating approach-oriented states. (4) Depending on the salient dispositional and situational affordances, these distal, approach-oriented reactions vary in the extent to which they (a) resolve the original discrepancy or are merely palliative; (b) are concrete or abstract; (c) are personal or social. We present results from social neuroscience and standard social psychological experiments that converge on a general process model of threat and defense. Threat and defense: From anxiety to approach (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261699050_Threat_and_defense_From_anxiety_to_approach [accessed Jan 16 2018]