A recent study in the British Journal of Social Psychology offers new insights into why some people view their political opponents in dehumanizing ways. The researchers found that political narcissism, rather than political identification alone, is strongly linked to seeing outgroups as less human. Both liberals and conservatives are susceptible to this behavior when their connection to their political group is driven by a sense of grandiosity and insecurity.
Political polarization has become a significant problem in many democracies worldwide, leading to greater hostility between political factions. This growing division often results in negative partisanship, where people express stronger dislike for opposing political groups than positive feelings toward their own.
Scholars have long debated whether conservatives or liberals are more prone to such biases, but this study aimed to shift the focus from ideological differences to the nature of how individuals identify with their political groups. Specifically, the researchers wanted to explore whether political narcissism, rather than political identification itself, leads to the dehumanization of political opponents.
“We were intrigued by how both liberals/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans can exhibit similar psychological patterns, particularly regarding political conflict,” said study author Marta Marchlewska, an associate professor and head of the Political Cognition Lab at the Polish Academy of Sciences.
“Central to this phenomenon is political collective narcissism, characterized by an inflated sense of superiority about one’s own political group. This mindset fosters blatant dehumanization, leading individuals to view opponents as less than human and to strip away empathy. Understanding these dynamics reveals how shared psychological processes contribute to escalating hostility across the political spectrum.”
The researchers conducted four separate studies to investigate the relationship between political narcissism and dehumanization. These studies took place in different contexts, including both Poland and the United States, and involved a mix of cross-sectional and experimental designs.
Study 1 focused on establishing the basic link between political narcissism and dehumanization in a Polish context. The researchers surveyed 320 participants, both liberals and conservatives, using various measures, including a scale to assess political narcissism and a well-known measure of blatant dehumanization called the “Ascent of Man” scale. They also measured political identification and the quality of intergroup contact. The goal was to determine whether political narcissism, independent of political identification, predicted dehumanization of political opponents.
Study 2 sought to replicate the findings from Study 1 in the United States, using a sample of 316 participants (Democrats and Republicans). In addition to measuring political narcissism and dehumanization, this study also assessed participants’ feelings of being dehumanized by others, a concept known as “metadehumanization.” The researchers hypothesized that people who felt dehumanized by political opponents might be more likely to dehumanize others in return.
Study 3 extended the previous studies by examining whether political narcissism also predicted aggressive tendencies toward political opponents. The researchers used a larger sample of 500 Americans (250 Democrats and 250 Republicans) and added an aggression measure known as the “Voodoo Doll Task,” where participants indicated how many needles they would insert into a doll representing their political opponents. This allowed the researchers to test whether political narcissism led to more aggressive inclinations, beyond just dehumanizing attitudes.
Study 4 was experimental in design and aimed to establish a causal relationship between political narcissism and dehumanization. The researchers manipulated political narcissism by exposing participants to a threat to their political ingroup, such as reading a fabricated news article portraying their group as under attack. The sample included 525 Polish participants, divided into liberals and conservatives. After the manipulation, participants completed the same measures of political narcissism, dehumanization, and aggression used in the previous studies.
Across all four studies, the researchers consistently found that political narcissism was positively linked to the dehumanization of political opponents. This relationship held true even when controlling for political identification, meaning that it was not simply a matter of people identifying strongly with their political group; it was the narcissistic quality of their identification that predicted dehumanization.
In Study 1, political narcissism predicted the dehumanization of both liberal and conservative outgroups in Poland. Interestingly, intergroup contact—the extent to which participants interacted with people from opposing political groups—was negatively associated with dehumanization, but it did not affect the link between political narcissism and dehumanization.
Study 2 replicated these findings in the United States, with political narcissism predicting dehumanization among both Democrats and Republicans. Additionally, metadehumanization—feeling dehumanized by others—was positively associated with dehumanizing political opponents, suggesting that people who feel dehumanized may, in turn, dehumanize others.
In Study 3, the researchers found that political narcissism not only predicted dehumanization but also aggressive tendencies toward political outgroups. Participants who scored high on political narcissism were more likely to express aggression toward their political opponents in the Voodoo Doll Task, regardless of whether they identified as Democrats or Republicans.
Study 4 provided experimental evidence that political narcissism could be heightened through perceived threats to one’s political group. Participants who were exposed to a threat to their political ingroup showed higher levels of political narcissism, which in turn led to greater dehumanization of and aggression toward political opponents. However, this effect was only observed among liberal participants in Poland, possibly because conservatives were in a position of political dominance at the time of data collection.
“Our findings suggest that dehumanization is not exclusive to any one political ideology,” Marchlewska told PsyPost. “Both liberals and conservatives may dehumanize their opponents when they identify with their political group in a narcissistic way. Collective narcissism stems from self-related psychological issues, such as anxious attachment styles and low personal control, as well as group-related concerns like perceived in-group disadvantage.”
“This narcissistic identification serves as a compensatory response. In our study, we focused on political groups and found that individuals who narcissistically identify with their political affiliations tend to exhibit greater hostility toward those with differing views. Our research indicates that how one identifies with a political group appears to be more critical than the specific political affiliation itself.”
Future studies could explore interventions aimed at reducing political narcissism. For instance, group affirmation techniques, which help people feel more secure in their group identity, may help reduce the defensive tendencies associated with political narcissism and, in turn, decrease political polarization.
“It’s crucial to recognize the role of psychological factors in shaping political attitudes and behaviors,” Marchlewska said. “By acknowledging our biases and understanding the motivations behind our political identities, we can foster healthier dialogues. I encourage readers to reflect on their own identification with political groups and how it might influence their perceptions of others. This awareness could lead to more empathetic interactions, even amidst differing viewpoints.”
The study, “So different yet so alike? Political collective narcissism predicts blatant dehumanization of political outgroups among conservatives and liberals,” was authored by Marta Marchlewska, Paulina Górska, Wojciech Podsiadłowski, Marta Rogoza, and Dagmara Szczepańska.
