Together or divided: How collective narcissism versus secure identity are related to solidarity between disadvantaged groups?

Abstract

The distinction between collective narcissism and secure identity reflects differences in the nature of social identity. While collective narcissism is a belief that one's in-group is great but under-recognized, secure identity is a modest positive evaluation of the in-group that is not dependent on external validation. In this study, I operationalized these two identities in the context of a disadvantaged group (i.e., women) and examined how each related to intentions for political solidarity with another disadvantaged group (i.e., LGBTQ+) through inclusive victimhood beliefs. I hypothesized that gender narcissism would predict lower intentions for political solidarity, whereas a secure gender identity would predict higher solidarity intentions, with inclusive victimhood mediating both relationships. I tested these hypotheses in one correlational study (N = 737) among women in Turkey. The results revealed that secure gender identity positively predicted political solidarity through inclusive victimhood. In contrast, gender narcissism did not predict political solidarity intentions or inclusive victimhood. These findings suggest that gender narcissism may act as a barrier to solidarity between disadvantaged groups, while a secure gender identity could foster it.

Public Significance Statement: This study highlights the importance of identity in shaping political solidarity among disadvantaged groups. The findings indicate that while gender narcissism may hinder solidarity, secure gender identity promotes greater inclusiveness and support for marginalized communities, like LGBTQ+ individuals. These results suggest that fostering secure identities can help build stronger coalitions between disadvantaged groups, which may inform policies aimed at increasing cross-group solidarity and collective action for social change.