“A group experience takes place on a lower level of consciousness than the experience of an individual. This is due to the fact that, when many people gather together to share one common emotion, the total psyche emerging from the group is below the level of the individual psyche. If it is a very large group, the collective psyche will be more like the psyche of an animal, which is the reason why the ethical attitude of large organizations is always doubtful. The psychology of a large crowd inevitably sinks to the level of mob psychology. If, therefore, I have a so-called collective experience as a member of a group, it takes place on a lower level of consciousness than if I had the experience by myself alone.” Carl Gustav Jung
Its now under six months to Brexit and the following work is a summary of the main Social Psychological explanattions of the decision to leave.
The Leave
campaign in the U.K., which advocated exiting the European Union,
emphasized anxiety over immigration and the need to take control of
the U.K.'s borders. Citizens who expressed concerns about immigration
to the U.K. were more likely to vote to leave. Two correlational
studies examined the previously unexplored question of whether the
Brexit vote and support for the outcome of the E.U. referendum were
linked to individual predictors of prejudice toward foreigners:
British collective narcissism (a belief in national greatness), right
wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation. The results
converged to indicate that all three variables were independently
related to the perceived threat of immigrants and, via this variable,
to the Brexit vote and a support for the outcome of the E.U.
referendum. These variables explained the variance in the perceived
threat of immigrants and support for the Brexit vote over and above
other previously examined predictors such as age, education, or
ethnicity, as well as, national identification and national
attachment.
Introduction
On June 23,
2016 almost 52% of British citizens who participated in the European
Union (E.U.) referendum in the United Kingdom voted to leave.
Individual level explanations that followed this largely unexpected
result pointed to the role of voter's age and ethnicity, their
cost-benefit and risk calculations, susceptibility to influence
political elites and low feelings of attachment to the wider
international community (Clarke
et al., 2016). Several explanations suggested that the Leave
campaign might have mobilized xenophobic attitudes by emphasizing
fear of foreigners and the need to take control of the U.K.'s borders
to limit free movement of E.U. nationals. In this vein, survey
results suggested that those respondents who expressed concerns about
immigration to the U.K. were more likely to vote Leave (Hobolt,
2016).
Was the Brexit
vote related to xenophobia? To answer this question the present
studies examined whether the Brexit vote and support for the
referendum's outcome were linked to feeling threatened by immigrants
and foreigners and whether they were more likely among people already
prone to prejudice. More specifically, we examined whether collective
narcissist (i.e., individuals who believe in their nation's
unparalleled greatness, Golec
de Zavala et al., 2009), authoritarians (those who obey authority
and social conventions and reject dissenters, Altemeyer,
1988) and people high in social dominance orientation (those who
want to maintain group based hierarchies, Pratto
et al., 1994) were more likely to vote to leave the E.U. because
they felt threatened by immigrants.
Although,
right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation have
been already implicated in voting for radical right wing parties
because of the perceived threat of immigrants (Aichholzer
and Zandonella, 2016), collective narcissism has almost never
been examined in the context of political behaviors such as voting.
However, multiple studies indicate that collective narcissism
predicts rejection of outgroups more systematically than national
identification (i.e., considering one's own national identity as
important and central to the self) or national attachment (i.e.,
feeling love for and pride of one's own nation) (Mummendey
et al., 2001; Herrmann
et al., 2009; see also Roccas
et al., 2006). Moreover, although research demonstrated that
collective narcissism predicts rejection of outgroups independently
of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation (for
review see, Golec
de Zavala, in press), no previous studies examined whether the
three variables explain attitudes toward the superordinate group that
would undermine the strength of the boundaries between the national
ingroup and outgroups, i.e., the European Union.
Collective Narcissism and Perceived Immigration Threat
Previous
studies have linked British national identification and attachment to
unfavorable attitudes toward immigration to the U.K. and toward the
E.U. (Carrey,
2002; Cinnirella
and Hamilton, 2007). However, a closer examination of these
relationships is desirable in light of the findings that the average
association between ingroup identification (Pehrson
et al., 2009) or positive ingroup attachment (Leach
et al., 2008) and rejection of outgroups is close to zero (Rubin
and Hewstone, 1998). Instead, psychological research has
differentiated between positive national attitudes that are more
likely to be linked to outgroup derogation (e.g., blind or
conventional patriotism) and those that are not (e.g., constructive
patriotism, national ingroup satisfaction, Kosterman
and Feshbach, 1989; Schatz
et al., 1999; Leach
et al., 2008; Sekerdej
and Roccas, 2016).
Collective
narcissism is a form of a positive ingroup attitude that, when
applied to a nation, is systematically related to rejection of
foreigners and national and ethnic minorities (Cai
and Gries, 2013; Lyons
et al., 2013; Cichocka,
2016; Golec
de Zavala, in press). People who score high on the Collective
Narcissism Scale (i.e., collective narcissists) endorse the view that
their nation's importance and true worth is not sufficiently
recognized by others, concur that their nation “deserves special
treatment,” and expect that their nation receives its due
acknowledgement and respect (Golec
de Zavala et al., 2009; Golec
de Zavala, in press). Collective narcissism is related to direct
and indirect retaliatory hostility in response to real or imagined
offenses to the ingroup (Golec
de Zavala et al., 2013a, 2016).
Collective narcissistic prejudice and rejection of outgroups is
driven by a belief that the targeted outgroups threatened the
ingroup's safety (Golec
de Zavala et al., 2009; Golec
de Zavala and Cichocka, 2012) or its narrowly defined “purity”
(Gries
et al., 2008).
Collective
narcissism explains the rejection of outgroups even after controlling
for levels of national identification or national attachment. After
their links with collective narcissism are controlled for, national
identification and national attachment cease to explain outgroup
rejection in the context of intergroup threat (with the exception of
one study showing an independent relation between outgroup rejection
and blind patriotism mediated by the perceived threat after
controlling for collective narcissism, Golec
de Zavala et al., 2013b, 2016).
Given such findings, we expected that collective narcissism might
predict political behaviors such as support for anti-immigrant
policies, voting for political parties that support such politics or,
as in the case of the E.U. referendum, choosing to leave the E.U.
However, collective narcissism has not been frequently examined in
the context of political behaviors, despite the above evidence
suggesting that it may predict voting at least as much as right wing
authoritarianism and social dominance orientation whose implications
for political behaviors were studied more frequently.
One of the few
studies that examined the implications of collective narcissism in
the context of voting showed that collective narcissism predicted
voting for Donald Trump in 2016 Presidential election in the U.S.
independently of demographic variables, authoritarianism, and
national identification. Thus, collective narcissism predicted
support for the political candidate whose campaign emphasized alleged
threat to the country's unique and privileged position (“America
first” or “Make America great again”)
and who advocated anti-immigrant policies (Federico
and Golec de Zavala, 2017). Such findings suggest that collective
narcissists may be mobilized by political rhetoric emphasizing
threatened national uniqueness. Since the Leave campaign heavily
relied on such rhetoric, we expected that British collective
narcissism would predict the Brexit vote via the perception of
immigrants in the UK as threatening.
There are
other reasons to expect that collective narcissists may perceive
immigrants as threatening. First, immigrants' foreign values and
customs may undermine the “purity” of British identity (Gries
et al., 2008). In addition, misunderstandings that are frequent
in interactions between nationals of different countries may seem
particularly aggravating to collective narcissists. Collective
narcissism has been linked to a tendency to perceive ambiguous
intergroup situations as intentional offenses to the ingroup, to
which collective narcissists react aggressively (Golec
de Zavala et al., 2016). Immigrants and foreign workers who fair
better than host country nationals pose a threat of unfavorable
intergroup comparisons that may undermine perceived superiority of
the host group (Esses
et al., 2013; Murray
and Marx, 2013). Such comparisons are aversive to collective
narcissists sensitivity to threats to the ingroup's image. Collective
narcissism predicts hostile responses to such perceived threats
(Golec
de Zavala, in press). Finally, the expectation that collective
narcissism predicts the perceived threat of immigrants is in line
with the Intergroup Emotions Theory which posits that group-based
emotions arise when people appraise the implications of intergroup
situations in terms of their implication for the ingroup (Smith
and Mackie, 2015). The results reviewed above indicate that
collective narcissists are likely to appraise immigrants as a threat
to their ingroup and react to them with negative, hostile, emotions.
Such group-based hostility might have been expressed in the Brexit
vote. A post-referendum increase in the narrative about national
uniqueness and superiority, on the one hand, and in hate speech and
discrimination against foreigners in the U.K., on the other hand,
offered anecdotal support for this expectation (Forster,
2016).
Collective Narcissism, Right Wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation and Prejudice
Apart from the
threat to the national ingroup image, the Leave campaign brought up
other issues that might have linked the perceived threat of
immigration to the U.K. with two correlates of collective narcissism
and robust predictors of prejudice: right wing authoritarianism
(Altemeyer,
1988) and social dominance orientation (Pratto
et al., 1994; for their links to prejudice see, Whitley,
1999; Ekehammar
et al., 2004; Dru,
2007; Duckitt
and Sibley, 2007; Asbrock
et al., 2010).
Research
indicated that the links between right wing authoritarianism and
social dominance orientation and prejudice are additive rather than
interactive: the two variables predict prejudice independently and
for different reasons (Ekehammar
et al., 2004; Sibley
et al., 2007a,b).
Right wing authoritarianism, which has been indirectly implicated in
the Brexit vote (Kaufman,
2016), is a three-faceted attitude syndrome combining submission
to strength-based authority, aggressiveness toward social deviants
and dissenters, support for conventionalism, order and a non-diverse
environment (Altemeyer,
1988). It is related to a belief that the world is a dangerous
place. Thus, right wing authoritarianism is related to prejudice
toward those social groups that appear to threaten the traditional
status quo (Duckitt,
2006; Duckitt
and Sibley, 2007).
In this vein,
research has linked right wing authoritarianism with hostile
responses to social threats (Lavine
et al., 1999; Hibbing
et al., 2014), political conservatism (Jost
et al., 2003; Duckitt
et al., 2010), and more specifically, to voting for right wing
political parties and candidates advocating rejection of immigrants
in Europe (Aichholzer
and Zandonella, 2016), in the U.S. (Crawford
et al., 2013; MacWilliams,
2016; Choma
and Hanoch, 2017; Crowson
and Brandes, 2017), or in Latin America (Cohen
and Smith, 2016). The Leave campaign emphasized the economic
threat that immigrants pose to British nationals. In addition, it
framed the principles pursued by the E.U. as not complying with
traditional British values. Such framing might have mobilized people
high in right wing authoritarianism to reject immigrants and to vote
to leave the E.U. in order to protect the traditional social order.
Social
dominance orientation refers to individual degree of preference for
group-based hierarchies (Pratto
et al., 1994). It is related to the belief that the world is a
“competitive jungle,” where groups need to fight for superiority.
Thus, social dominance orientation is related to prejudice toward
groups threatening the ingroup's status (Duckitt,
2006). Indeed, previous studies have linked social dominance
orientation with anti-egalitarian, anti-immigrant attitudes (Sidanius
et al., 2000; Kteily
et al., 2017), political conservatism (Ho
et al., 2012), and voting for radical, right wing political
parties advocating maintenance of group-based social hierarchies
(Cornelis
and Van Hiel, 2015; Aichholzer
and Zandonella, 2016). The Leave campaign alluded to the U.K.'s
subsidiary role in the E.U. (Elliott,
2016). Such allusions might have mobilized people high in social
dominance to vote to leave the E.U. to compete for higher
international status. Individuals high in social dominance
orientation might also have been mobilized to reject immigrants who
fare well in the U.K., thus posing a status threat to British
nationals.
Thus, it is
likely that the Brexit vote was an expression of hostility toward
immigrants in response to different concerns that immigration raised
for collective narcissists, authoritarians, and people high in social
dominance orientation. More specifically, the perceived threat of
immigrants was likely to be motivated by the collective narcissistic
concern regarding threaten national uniqueness, authoritarian concern
about maintaining the normative status quo, and the concern regarding
the protection of the elevated international status related to social
dominance orientation.
The Present Studies
The present
studies tested the hypothesis that collective narcissism, right wing
authoritarianism and social dominance orientation independently
predicted the Brexit vote and a support for the outcome of the E.U.
referendum because they independently
predicted the perceived threat of immigrants. As such, these are the
first studies to compare the relationships of the three robust
predictors of prejudice with attitudes toward immigrants and the E.U.
in the U.K. We hypothesized that collective narcissism, right wing
authoritarianism and social dominance orientation remain related to
the perceived threat of immigrants and the Brexit vote after
participants' age, gender, education, ethnicity, reported national
group and national ingroup identification (Study 1) and national
attachment (Study 2) are accounted for. Previous studies indicate
that neither ingroup identification nor ingroup attachment is
positively related to outgroup rejection after collective narcissism
is controlled for (Golec
de Zavala et al., 2016). Thus, Study 1 looked at the role of
collective narcissism as compared to national identification and
Study 2 compared collective narcissism and national attachment as
predictors of the perceived threat of immigrants, the referendum vote
and support for the referendum's outcome.
Study 1
Study 1 was
conducted in July 2016 just after the E.U. referendum in the U.K. It
tested whether collective narcissism, right wing authoritarianism and
social dominance orientation were related to the Brexit vote and a
support for the referendum's outcome because of their unique
relationships with the perceived threat of immigrants. Study 1 also
tested whether the link between collective narcissism and the Brexit
vote was specific to collective narcissism and not explained by the
strength of national identification.
Participants
Study 1 was
conducted online online using the Qualtrics platform via the Prolific
Academic research panel (www.prolific.ac)
among 280 British citizens who voted in the European referendum, of
whom 194 reported voting to remain. We obtained a sample of 285
participants but 5 participants did not meet the participation
criterion (having voted in the referendum). Their data was not taken
into account in the analyses. The mean age of the remaining 280
participants was 34.58 (SD
= 12.94), 184 of the respondents were women. One hundred and
fifty-one participants reported their nationality as English, 2 as
Scottish, 15 Welsh, 90 British, 17 U.K., 5 as Other. The sample size
was set to be over 250 participants based on research suggesting that
correlations stabilize at more or less this number of participants
(Schönbrodt
and Perugini, 2013). All participants were paid a small fee in
exchange for their participation.
Procedure
Participants
were told that the study examined attitudes toward the E.U. in
relation to national attitudes and personality. After reading the
informed consent form and consenting by clicking the “By clicking
here you give your consent to participate in this study” button,
participants could proceed to the study. They were first asked to
provide their demographic data. Next, they responded to individual
difference measurements presented in random order to each
participant. The order of items was also randomized. Then,
participants were thanked, paid, and debriefed. In both studies data
collection ceased on a predetermined date and data were not observed
prior to analyses.
Measurements
Study 1
controlled for participants' age, gender (0 = “Male,” 1 =
“Female”), education, ethnicity (0 = “Black” or
“Asian” or “Other,” 1 = “White”) and
reported national group (0 = “English” or “Welsh”
or “Scottish” or “Irish,” 1 = “British”
or “U.K.”).
Collective Narcissism
Collective
narcissism was measured using the 5-item Collective Narcissism Scale
(Golec
de Zavala et al., 2009, 2013b,
i.e., “My national
group deserves special treatment,” “I
will never be satisfied until my national group gets all it
deserves,” “It really makes me angry when others criticize my
national group,” “If my national group had a major say in the
world, the world would be a much better place,” “Not many people
seem to fully understand the importance of my national group,” α =
0.87). Items were answered on scales from “1” = “I
strongly disagree”
to “6” = “I
strongly agree.”
Right wing authoritarianism
Right wing
authoritarianism was measured by a 10-item version of the Right-Wing
Authoritarianism Scale (Zakrisson,
2005, e.g., “Obedience
and respect for authority are the most important virtues children
should learn,” α =
0.78). Items were answered on scales from “1” = “I
strongly disagree”
to “7” = “I
strongly agree.”
Social-dominance orientation
Social-dominance
orientation was measured by a 4-item version of the Social Dominance
Orientation Scale (Pratto
et al., 2013, e.g., “We
should not push for group equality,”
reversely coded, α = 0.82). Items were answered on scales from “1”
= “I strongly
disagree” to “7”
= “I strongly agree.”
National identification
National
identification was measured by the Centrality subscale of the Social
Identity Scale proposed by Cameron
(2004, e.g., “Being
from my national group is an important reflection of what I am.,”
“Being from my national group is not important for how I think of
what type of person I am.,” “I have a strong feeling of belonging
to my national group.,” “In general, being from my national group
has little to do with the way I feel about myself.,” “Being from
my national group is not a central factor of my social relations,”
“In general, being from my national group is an important part of
my self-image.,” α = 0.87). Items were answered on scales from “1”
= “I strongly
disagree” to “7”
= “I strongly agree.”
Perceived threat of immigrants in the U.K.
Perceived
threat of immigrants in the U.K. was measured by 10 items asking to
what extent immigrants pose a realistic and symbolic threat to the
U.K. Specifically, participants were asked to what extent they agreed
that immigrants and foreign workers “threaten
our jobs and economic opportunities”; “threaten our personal
possessions”; “threaten our personal rights and freedoms”;
“violate reciprocity relations by choice”; “threaten our social
coordination and functioning”; “violate our trust”; “threaten
our physical health”; “hold values inconsistent with those of my
national group”; “endanger our physical safety”; “violate
reciprocity relations because of a lack of ability”
(Cottrell
and Neuberg, 2005, α = 0.95). Items were answered on scales from
“1” = “I strongly
disagree” to “7”
= “I strongly agree.”
The principal component factor analysis resulted in one factor
solution with factor loading of 8.16. Items loadings ranged from 0.66
to 92. Thus, the items were averaged to form one index of the
perceived threat of immigrants to the U.K.
Brexit vote
Brexit vote
was measured by asking participants how they voted in the E.U.
referendum: “How did you vote in the European referendum on 26th
of June?” (0 = “Remain”; 1 = “Leave”).
Support for the referendum's outcome
Support for
the referendum's outcome was measured by the question: “To what
extent do you feel … about the outcome of the European referendum?”
Following emotions were assessed: “happy”; “disappointed”;
“proud”; “shocked”; “frightened”; “disgusted”;
“unhappy”; “thrilled”; and “worried.” Positive
and reversed negative emotion formed a reliable scale, α = 0.94.
Items were answered on scales from “1” = “Not at all”
to “5” = “Very much so.”
Results
Predictors of Prejudice and the Referendum Vote via the Perceived Threat of Immigrants
The results in
Table 1
show that all continuous variables in Study 1 were positively
correlated. In order to test the hypothesis that collective
narcissism, right wing authoritarianism and social dominance
orientation were related to the referendum vote because they were
associated with the perceived threat of immigrants, we first
performed multiple mediation analyses in a multiple regression
context with the self-reported vote in the E.U. referendum as a
binary outcome variable using PROCESS (Model 4, Hayes,
2013). The macro estimates the direct and indirect effects, as
well as the path from the proposed mediator to the outcome using
logistic regression. Logistic regression coefficients are estimated
using a Newton–Raphson iteration algorithm. Regression path
coefficients for the dichotomous outcome are the
maximum-likelihood-based logistic regression coefficients or the log
odds ratios. The confidence intervals are associated with the Wald
test (Z-value).
TABLE
1
Table
1. Descriptive
statistics and correlations for the measurements of Study 1, N
= 280.
In order to
estimate the direct and indirect effects of all variables we ran the
multiple mediation analysis three times, each time with a different
variable as a predictor in the model (a model for each predictor:
collective narcissism, right wing authoritarianism and social
dominance orientation), the perceived threat of immigrants as a
mediator, the referendum vote as the outcome variable and the
remaining variables as covariates. Mathematically, all resulting
paths, direct and indirect effects, are the same as if they were
estimated simultaneously (Hayes,
2013) (Table 2,
Figure 1).
This analysis allowed us to test the hypothesis that collective
narcissism, right wing authoritarianism, and social dominance
orientation independently predict the Brexit vote via the perception
of immigrants as threatening. We ran the analyses without demographic
covariates first. Next, the analyses controlled for participants'
age, gender, education, ethnicity, and national identification in
order to demonstrate that collective narcissism, right wing
authoritarianism and social dominance orientation accounted for a
unique portion of variance in the referendum vote. Finally, in order
to compare the relative contribution of collective narcissism and
national identification to explaining the variance in the perceived
threat of immigrants and the Brexit vote, we performed the same
multiple mediation analysis with national identification as a
predictor instead of collective narcissism, first without controlling
for the overlap between the two variables (but controlling for the
overlap with right wing authoritarianism and social dominance
orientation), next entering collective narcissism as a covariate, and
finally including all covariates (results of the latter analysis are
presented in Table 2,
Figure 1).
All predictors were mean centered prior to the analyses. We used the
default bootstrapping with 10,000 samples in all analyses to
construct the confidence intervals for the observed effects.
TABLE
2
Table
2. Direct and
indirect effects of all variables on the Brexit vote and support for
the referendum's outcome, Study 1 and 2.
FIGURE
1
Figure
1. Relationship
between variables in Study 1. Coefficients for the binary outcome
variable represent log odds [odd ratios] and standard errors are in
parentheses. Coefficients for the continuous variables represent
unstandardized regression weights. Numerals in italic font correspond
to analyses with covariates (national identification, age, gender,
education, ethnicity, and indicated national group). Numerals in bold
font correspond to unstandardized regression weights and standard
error in analyses predicting the continuous support for the outcome
of the referendum. ***p
< 0.001.
The model we tested first, with
collective narcissism, right wing authoritarianism, and social
dominance orientation independently predicting the perceived threat
of immigrants and the Brexit vote, was significant, RCS2
= 0.35 (0.50 Nagelkerke), χ2(1)
= 223.59, p
< 0.001. Collective narcissism, right wing authoritarianism and
social dominance orientation were independently, positively related
to the perceived threat of immigrants. The indirect relationships
between collective narcissism, right wing authoritarianism and social
dominance orientation via the perceived threat of immigrants were
significant. Adding covariates to the analyses did not change the
pattern of the results (Table 2,
Figure 1).
In order to assess the role of
national identification, we first ran the mediation model with
national identification as a predictor instead of collective
narcissism (adding right wing authoritarianism and social dominance
orientation as covariates). The whole model was significant, RCS2
= 0.35 (0.49 Nagelkerke), χ2(1)
= 225.64, p
< 0.001. However, the direct effect and indirect effects of
national identification were not significant, b
= 0.20, SE = 0.15, z
= 1.29, p
= 0.20, 95%CI [−0.10; 0.50] and IE = 0.11, SE = 0.07, 95%CI [−0.01;
0.25], z
= 1.61, p
= 0.11, respectively. When collective narcissism and other covariates
were entered into the equation the direct and indirect effects of
national identification were reduced but the overall pattern of
relationships remained unchanged (Table 2).
Predictors of Prejudice and Support for the Referendum's Outcome via the Perceived Threat of Immigrants
Next, we
performed the same multiple mediation analysis using support for the
referendum outcome as a continuous outcome variable. Collective
narcissism, right wing authoritarianism, and social dominance
orientation were entered as predictors, the perceived threat of
immigrants as the mediator and a support for the referendum's outcome
as the outcome variable. The analyses were performed three times
using PROCESS (Model 4, Hayes,
2013). Next, the analyses were performed with national
identification and demographic variables as covariates. Finally, the
analyses were performed with national identification as a predictor
without, and then with collective narcissism as a covariate.
The first
analysis showed that collective narcissism, right wing
authoritarianism and social dominance orientation independently
indirectly predicted support for the outcome of the referendum via
the perceived threat of immigrants which explained variance in, R2
= 0.44, F(4,
275) = 54.26, p
< 0.001. Analyses with covariates did not change the pattern of
the relationships (Table 2,
Figure 1).
The analyses with national identification entered as a predictor
without controlling for its overlap with collective narcissism
produced a significant model, R2
= 0.43, F(4,
275) = 52.54, p
< 0.001. The direct effect and indirect effects of national
identification were not significant, b
= 0.08, SE = 0.05, t(275)
= 1.68, p
= 0.09, 95%CI [−0.01; 0.17] and IE = 0.04, SE = 0.02, 95%CI
[−0.003; 0.09], z
= 1.64, p
= 0.10, respectively. When collective narcissism was entered as a
covariate, the direct and indirect effects of national identification
were reduced to values presented in Table 2.
Especially, the indirect effect was reduced from marginally
significant to non-significant. This pattern of results remained
unchanged when demographic covariates were also controlled.
Relative Importance of All Predictors of Prejudice for the Perceived Threat of Immigrants and Support for the Referendum's Outcome
Finally,
because the analyzed predictors of perceived threat of immigrants and
support for the referendum's outcome were correlated, relative
importance indices were computed to assess the unique contribution of
each predictor in the context of possible multicollinearity:
dominance weights, relative importance weights, and incremental R2
(Braun
and Oswald, 2011). Those indices determine the unique and
combined contribution of collective narcissism, right wing
authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and national
identification to explaining variance in the perceived threat of
immigrants and support for the referendum's outcome.
Regression
weights of strongly correlated predictors may not give an adequate
indicator of the unique contribution of each variable because they
change with covariance relationships, and therefore may be
sample-specific and not easily generalizable. Dominance weights give
a more accurate assessment of the hierarchy of importance of the
correlated predictors. General dominance weights are computed by
averaging the given predictor's incremental validity across all
possible submodels that involve that predictor. This analysis reduces
the importance of redundant predictors when multicollinearity is
present. Relative importance weights indicate the proportionate
contribution of each predictor to the variance explained in the
outcome variable. Incremental R2
analysis reflects the unique contribution of each predictor after the
variance accounted for by the remaining predictors has been
partialled out of the outcome. It represents the increase in R2
when the predictor is entered last in a stepwise fashion, indicating
the unique impact of that predictor in the model (For detailed
description of the computations of each weights please see Braun
and Oswald, 2011).
The relative
importance indices converged to indicate that collective narcissism,
right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation
independently contributed to explaining the variance in the perceived
threat of immigrants, in this order of importance. In comparison, the
national identification contribution was decidedly minor (Table 3).
In the event of a support for the referendum's outcome, collective
narcissism, and right wing authoritarianism were the main predictors,
whereas the contribution of social dominance orientation was smaller
and the contribution of national identification was negligible.
TABLE
3
Table
3. Comparison of
relative importance of all variables in explaining variance in the
perceived threat of immigrants and in support for the referendum's
outcome, Study 1, N
= 280.
Together, the
results of Study 1 strongly suggest that collective narcissism, right
wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation were related
to the perceived threat of immigrants, and indirectly predicted the
Brexit vote and support for the referendum's outcome. National
identification did not predict the perceived threat of immigrants,
the Brexit vote or support for referendum's outcome after its overlap
with collective narcissism, right wing authoritarianism and social
dominance orientation was controlled for. We sought to replicate
those results to examine whether they generalize to a different
sample of British referendum voters. Given the fact that all main
predictors were significantly correlated, repeated pattern of
relationships in Study 2 would increase our confidence in the
replicability of our results. In addition, in Study 2 the role of
collective narcissism in predicting the Brexit vote was compared to
the role of national attachment.
Study 2
Study 2 was
conducted just after the U.K. government's support for the “hard”
Brexit option was announced in September 2016. Study 2 examined the
same predictions as Study 1 and sought to clarify that collective
narcissism, rather than national attachment, would predict the Brexit
vote and support for the referendum's outcome via the perceived
threat of immigrants.
Participants
The same
criteria for the sample size were chosen as in Study 1 but the
platform did not effectively filter out participants who did not vote
in the referendum. The requested sample was 251 participants but 25
participants reported not having voted in the E.U. referendum and
their data were excluded from analyses. Out of the 226 participants
who reported voting in the E.U. referendum, 161 reported voting to
remain in the E.U. The mean age was 34.37 (SD = 11.89), 125
were women. One hundred and thirty-four participants identified as
English, 20 as Welsh, 7 as Scottish, 2 as Irish, 57 as British, 5 as
U.K., and 1 as Other.
Procedure
The procedure
was the same as in Study 1. Participants in Study 1 could not take
part in Study 2 (were defined as non-eligible in Prolific Academic).
Measurements
Study 2
controlled for participants' age, gender (0 = “Male,”
1 = “Female”),
education, ethnicity (0 = “Black”
or “Asian”
or “Other,”
1 = “White”),
and reported national group (0 = “English”
or “Welsh”
or “Scottish”
or “Irish,”
1 = “British”
or “U.K.”).
As in Study 1 all measures were randomly presented. Collective
narcissism,
(α = 0.88), right-wing
authoritarianism
(α = 0.80), social
dominance orientation
(α = 0.82), and the perceived
threat of immigrants in the U.K.
(α = 0.97) and a support
for the referendum's outcome
(α = 93) were measured as in Study 1.
National attachment
National
attachment was assessed by the ingroup satisfaction subscale of the
Ingroup Identity Scale which pertains to positive attachment to a
national group (α = 0.91; Leach
et al., 2008; e.g., “I
am glad to be a member of my national group”; “I think that
members of my national group have a lot to be proud of”; “It is
pleasant to be member of my national group”;
and “Being a member
of my national group gives me a good feeling”).
Items were answered on scales from “1” = “I
strongly disagree”
to “7” = “I
strongly agree.”
Results
Predictors of Prejudice and the Referendum Vote via the Perceived Threat of Immigrants
All continuous
variables were positively correlated (Table 4).
As in Study 1, to test whether collective narcissism, right wing
authoritarianism and social dominance orientation independently
predict the Brexit vote via the perceived threat of immigrants,
multiple mediation analyses in the multiple regression context with
the self-reported vote in the E.U. referendum as a binary outcome
variable were performed three times for each predictor separately,
and the other predictors as covariates. Next, national attachment and
demographic covariates were entered into the equation. Finally, as in
Study 2, we entered national attachment as a predictor instead of
collective narcissism and run the analyses without and with
collective narcissism as a covariate.
TABLE
4
Table
4. Descriptive
statistics and correlations for the measurements of Study 2, N
= 226.
The analyses for the first model
indicated that the whole model was significant, RCS2
= 0.28(0.40 Nagelkerke), χ2(1)
= 196.62, p
< 0.001. The analyses indicated that collective narcissism, right
wing authoritarianism and social dominance were independently related
the Brexit vote via the perceived threat of immigrants (Table 2,
Figure 2).
Overall the pattern of relationships remained unchanged after the
covariates were entered to the equation, with the exception of right
wing authoritarianism. The analyses with national attachment as a
predictor instead of collective narcissism produced a significant
model, RCS2
= 0.27(0.40 Nagelkerke), χ2(1)
= 196.92, p
< 0.001. The direct effect of national attachment on the
referendum vote was not significant, b
= 0.03, SE = 0.17, 95%CI [−0.30; 0.37], z
= 0.20, p
= 0.84. However, the indirect effect via the perceived threat of
immigrants was positive and significant, IE = 0.20, SE = 0.08, 95%CI
[0.07; 0.39], z
= 2.75, p
= 0.006. When collective narcissism was entered as a covariate this
effect became non-significant, IE = 0.08, SE = 0.07, 95%CI [−0.04;
0.21], z
= 1.16, p
= 0.24. This pattern remained unchanged after the demographic
covariates were also entered into the equation (Table 2).
FIGURE
2
Figure
2. Relationship
between variables in Study 2. Coefficients for the binary outcome
variable represent log odds [odd ratios] and standard errors are in
parentheses. Coefficients for the continuous variables represent
unstandardized regression weights. Numerals in italic font correspond
to analyses with covariates (national identification, age, gender,
education, ethnicity, and indicated national group). Numerals in bold
font correspond to unstandardized regression weights and standard
error in analyses predicting the continuous support for the outcome
of the referendum. ***p
< 0.001; **p
< 0.01.
Predictors of Prejudice and Support for the Referendum's Outcome via the Perceived Threat of Immigrants
Next, we
performed the same multiple mediation analysis using support for the
referendum outcome as a continuous outcome variable. Collective
narcissism, right wing authoritarianism, and social dominance
orientation were entered as predictors, the perceived threat of
immigrants as the mediator and a support for the referendum's outcome
as the outcome variable. The analyses were performed three times
using PROCESS (Model 4, Hayes,
2013). Next, the analyses were performed with national attachment
and demographic variables as covariates. Finally, the analyses were
performed with national attachment as a predictor instead of
collective narcissism, first without and then with collective
narcissism as a covariate.
The first set
of analyses produced a significant model, R2
= 0.40, F(4,
221) = 37.83, p
< 0.001. The analyses indicated significant, independent, indirect
effects of collective narcissism, right wing authoritarianism, and
social dominance orientation on support for the referendum's outcome
via the perceived threat of immigrants (Table 2,
Figure 2).
The analyses with national attachment as a predictor instead of
collective narcissism produced a significant model, R2
= 0.41, F(4,
221) = 37.90, p
< 0.001. The direct effect of national attachment on the
referendum vote was not significant, b
= 0.03, SE = 0.06, 95%CI [−0.08; 0.14], t
= 0.48, p
= 0.63. However, the indirect effect via the perceived threat of
immigrants was positive and significant, IE = 0.10, SE = 0.04, 95%CI
[0.04; 0.18], z
= 2.99, p
= 0.003. When collective narcissism was entered as a covariate this
effect became non-significant, IE = 0.04, SE = 0.03, 95%CI [−0.02;
0.10], z
= 1.19, p
= 0.23. This pattern remained unchanged after the demographic
covariates were entered into the equation (Table 2).
Relative Importance of All Predictors of Prejudice for the Perceived Threat of Immigrants and Support for the Referendum's Outcome
Again, the
relative importance indices analysis indicated an independent and
closely comparable contribution of collective narcissism, right wing
authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation to explaining the
variance in the perceived threat of immigrants and a positive
attitude toward the referendum's outcome. The relative role of
national attachment was negligible (Table 5).
TABLE
5
Table
5. Comparison of
relative importance of all variables in explaining variance in
support for the referendum's outcome, Study 2, N
= 226.
Discussion
The outcome of
the “European referendum” on June 23, 2016 was largely
unexpected. It has been explained by voter's age (i.e., older
voters), their economic situation (i.e., poorer voters), and
education (less educated voters especially in high-skilled areas)
suggesting that the Brexit vote reflected a broader societal division
between those who embraced modern globalized economy and groups that
were “left behind” by the economic growth in the U.K. (Goodwin
and Health, 2016). The analyses considering individual difference
predictors of the Brexit vote pointed to voters' cost-benefit and
risk calculations, susceptibility to influence of political elites
and low feelings of attachment to the wider international community
(Clarke
et al., 2016). While these explanations provided important
insights into factors that played a role in the Brexit vote, the role
of xenophobia, the fear of foreigners, was often alluded to, but
never systematically examined, as a psychological factor behind the
Brexit vote. However, before the referendum, the Leave campaign
mobilized anxiety over the national prosperity and sovereignty being
threatened by foreign immigration to the U.K. The Leave campaign
framed leaving the E.U. as resurrecting the national greatness
undermined by foreign forces: the E.U. and immigrants (Clarke
et al., 2016). The present results suggest that this framing
might have addressed the concerns of people already prone to
prejudice against foreigners.
All three
robust predictors of prejudice were related to the Brexit vote and
the support for the referendum's outcome via the perceived threat of
immigrants: collective narcissism, right wing authoritarianism, and
social dominance orientation. This suggests that, the Brexit vote was
motivated by different concerns instigating prejudice: the collective
narcissistic concern regarding the recognition of the national
group's uniqueness, authoritarian concern regarding protection of the
normative status quo, and the concern regarding protection of the
national group's elevated international status, relevant to people
high in social dominance orientation. The individual difference
predictors of xenophobia explained the variance in the Brexit vote
and the support for the referendum's outcome over and above
demographic predictors such as age, ethnicity or education
(frequently commented on factors that predicted the referendum vote,
Waugh,
2017).
Collective
narcissism was an independent and at least equally strong (if not
stronger) predictor of the perceived threat of immigrants and support
for the referendum's outcome as the other robust psychological
predictors of xenophobia: right wing authoritarianism and social
dominance orientation. The results of the dominance and relative
importance analyses suggested that the contribution of the three
variables to explaining the variance in the perceived threat of
immigrants and the support for the referendum's outcome was
independent and comparable in size. These results corroborate
previous findings indicating that collective narcissism, right wing
authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation explain negativity
toward other groups independently and for different reasons (Golec
de Zavala et al., 2009, 2013b,
2016).
Thus, the present results indicated that collective narcissism should
be considered as an equally important and stable individual
difference predictor of bigotry, as right wing authoritarianism and
social dominance orientation. The present results also suggested that
collective narcissism should be considered as a predictor of
political behavior at least as important as right wing
authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Previous studies
that considered this variable in the context of voting indicated that
it predicted voting for Donald Trump in the Presidential election in
the U.S. over and above right wing authoritarianism. This suggest
that predictor of prejudice play a role in another voting for a
candidate whose political campaign stirred anti-immigrant sentiments.
To the best of
our knowledge, the present results are the first to demonstrate that
all three predictors of xenophobia are related to the rejection of
the superordinate group that would undermine the strength of the
boundaries between the national ingroup and outgroups, i.e., citizens
of the E.U. These results corroborate previous findings pointing to
the limited enthusiasm for the E.U. among those who identify strongly
as British (e.g., Cinnirella,
1997; Cinnirella
and Hamilton, 2007). However, the current results qualify
previous findings indicating that it is collective narcissism that
predicts lower support for the E.U., rather than national
identification or national attachment. National identification (how
important it is for people to be members of the national group) and
national attachment (how attached and positive people feel about
their national groups) were not related to rejection of immigrants,
the Brexit vote or the support for the referendum's outcome after
their overlap with other three predictors was controlled for. The
results are especially interesting with reference to national
attachment, which predicted the perceived threat of immigrants when
analyses did not control for its overlap with collective narcissism.
This suggests that national attachment may explain the perceived
threat of immigrants but only in as much as it is related to
collective narcissism. These results corroborate previous findings
suggesting that collective narcissism is a distinct form of ingroup
positivity that systematically predicts intergroup hostility in the
context of intergroup threat (Golec
de Zavala, in press).
Specifically,
previous studies showed that in contrast to other forms of ingroup
positivity (such as collective self-esteem, positive ingroup
identification, or constructive patriotism) collective narcissism was
reliably related to negative attitudes and hostility toward
outgroups. In addition, controlling for the overlap between
collective narcissism and ingroup attachment allowed the latter to
emerge as a predictor of outgroup tolerance (Golec
de Zavala et al., 2013a). In previous studies, non-narcissistic
(statistically freed from the overlap with collective narcissism)
ingroup attachment did not predict hypersensitivity to intergroup
threat (Golec
de Zavala et al., 2016) and was not related to conspiracy beliefs
about Jews or siege mentality (Golec
de Zavala and Cichocka, 2012). The present results go beyond such
findings, indicating that only collective narcissism, but not
national identification or national attachment, was related to
rejection of immigrants to the U.K. and support for the Brexit vote.
In the present
research the common variance was removed from all relevant concepts:
collective narcissism, national identification, and national
attachment but also social dominance orientation and right wing
authoritarianism. Partialling out the common variance can create
problems with interpreting the residual variables (Lynam
et al., 2006). In order to prevent this problem we followed the
steps prescribed by the above mentioned authors. We used validated
and highly reliable scales (internal consistencies ranged from 0.78
to 0.97) and analyzed mediation relationships in our data. We used
variables that are theoretically differentiable and generally
well-understood as distinct constructs. Right wing authoritarianism
and social dominance orientation have been differentiated as
submissive vs. dominant facets of authoritarianism. They were related
to different outcomes and have different antecedents (Duckitt,
2006; Sibley
et al., 2007a,b).
They were also clearly differentiated from national attitudes (Osborn
et al., 2017). Similarly, previous research showed that feeling
proud and satisfied to be a member of a valuable group is
psychologically distinct from collective narcissism. While collective
narcissism and non-contingent in-group positivity may quite often
coexist, they seem to refer to different psychological realities
(Golec
de Zavala, in press). Non-narcissistic ingroup positivity was
related to high self-esteem, whereas collective narcissism was
associated with low self-esteem via vulnerable narcissism (Golec
de Zavala, in press). Ingroup positivity, with collective
narcissism partialled out, can be interpreted as a confident positive
evaluation of the ingroup, independent of external recognition and
resilient to threats and criticism. Collective narcissism, with
ingroup positivity partialled out, can be interpreted as group-based
entitlement without the comfort of the sense of belonging to a
valuable group (Golec
de Zavala, in press).
Our
interpretation of the present findings can be based on the raw
variables because partialling their common variance did not increase
or change the direction of their zero-sum associations with the
mediators and outcomes (except of the already discussed case of
national attachment). Finally, we used the dominance and relative
importance analyses to determine the relative contribution of
correlated predictors to explaining the variance in the mediator and
the outcome variables. Such an approach increases our confidence that
our results present distinct contributions of the predictors of
prejudice to explaining the variance in the perceived threat of
immigrants and support for the Brexit vote.
Limitations and Future Directions
Although, the
present studies provide novel insights into the individual level
variables related to support for the E.U. in the UK, they are not
without limitations. Although, the results were obtained on sample
that are large enough to reveal stable correlations, those results
are not representative. The sampling was opportunistic and resulted
in a sample with majority of voters who chose the “Remain”
option. However, the fact that the results were remarkably consistent
across two different samples of British adults increases our
confidence in generalizability of our findings. Another limitation
may be the fact that the mediator and the continuous variable were
quite strongly correlated. However, we performed similar mediation
analyses with a binary outcome variable (i.e., participants vote in
the referendum). The results of those analyses closely matched the
results obtained with the continuous outcome variable i.e., the
support for the referendum's outcome. Nevertheless, the results are
correlational and cross-sectional. They do not allow for firm causal
inferences or firm inferences regarding directionality of the
effects. However, we provide theoretical reasons to justify that it
is likely that psychological predictors of prejudice should be
related to the rejection of immigrants and political choices rather
than the other way around. In addition, most research in the social
sciences confirm the direction of causality assumed in the tested
model, suggesting that broader ideological orientations and basic
ingroup identification (such as right wing authoritarianism, social
dominance orientation, and collective narcissism) constrain specific
beliefs and actions, such as the perceived threat of immigrants, the
vote in the referendum and support for the referendum's outcome
(rather than vice versa; see e.g., De
Figueiredo and Elkins, 2003; Cohrs
et al., 2005; Duckitt,
2006).
Arguably,
different causation could also be plausible. Collective narcissism,
right wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation might
have predicted the Brexit vote and support for the referendum's
outcome that strengthen the perceived rejection of immigrants. We
tested such alternative mediation models (with the support for the
referendum's outcome entered as a continuous mediator and the
perceived threat of immigrants as the outcome variable). The fit to
the data was worse in comparisons to the models we proposed and
tested. In addition, the alternative models showed inconsistent
relationships in Study 1 and 2. In Study 1, the indirect effects via
the support for the referendum's outcome to the perceived threat of
immigrants were significant for collective narcissism and right wing
authoritarianism but not for social dominance orientation. Those
effects were weaker than the effects in the models we proposed. In
Study 2, the reverse indirect effect was not significant for
collective narcissism. Nevertheless, the cross-sectional nature of
the present data is not optimal for testing mediation models and
future studies would do well to examine collective narcissism, right
wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation as predictors
of political behavior in panel designs assessing predictors and
mediators at different times.
We argue that
our analyses offer a novel perspective on the Brexit vote and the
support for the referendum's outcome. They indicate that
psychological predictors of xenophobia were related to the rejection
of the U.K.'s membership in the European Union. Understanding whether
prejudice motivated the Brexit vote or the Brexit vote legitimized
and increased prejudice may be of lesser importance than
understanding that individual predictors of prejudice are related to
political choices that undermine diversity and harmonious intergroup
relations. The mobilization of xenophobic sentiments around Brexit
also suggests that, at least to some extent, this political choice
was motivated by affect rather than rational consideration of
collective costs and benefits. The present results suggest that at
least three categories of concerns that go beyond cost-benefit and
risk calculations are relevant to the Brexit process: undermined
national uniqueness (concern associated with collective narcissism),
the threatened traditional status quo (concern associated with right
wing authoritarianism), and threatened international status (concern
associated with social dominance orientation). Whether those concerns
should be given precedence over the country's welfare and internal
stability is the subject of ongoing political debates.
Jung’s 1930s-40s essays on the psychology of Trump, Brexit, et al
On the psychology of internet trolls, the alt-right, Brexiteers and Trump (from After The Catastrophe, 1945)
“all hysterical people are compelled to torment others, because they are unwilling to hurt themselves by admitting their own inferiority… All these pathological features — complete lack of insight into one’s own character, auto-erotic self-admiration and self-extenuation, denigration and terrorisation of one’s own fellow men… lying, falsification of reality, determination to impress by fair means or foul, bluffing and double-crossing…
“A more accurate diagnosis… would be pseudologia phantastica, that form of hysteria which is characterised by a peculiar talent for believing one’s own lies. For a short time, such people usually meet with astounding success, and for that reason are socially dangerous. Nothing has such a convincing effect as a lie one invents and believes oneself, or an evil deed or intention whose righteousness one regards as self-evident… Hitler’s theatrical, obviously hysterical gestures struck all foreigners (with a few amazing exceptions) as purely ridiculous… It is also difficult to understand how his ranting speeches… could have made such an impression. His gesticulations were all put on, devised by an hysterical mind intent only on making an impression. He behaved in public like a man living in his own biography”
On whether it’s worth engaging with individuals to try and change their minds (from Psychotherapy Today, 1941)
“Even if our voice is too weak to make itself heard above the tumult of political strife and fades away ineffectively, we may yet comfort ourselves with the saying of the Chinese master: ‘When the enlightened man is alone and thinks rightly, it can be heard a thousand miles away’.
“All beginnings are small. Therefore we must not mind doing tedious but conscientious work on obscure individuals, even though the goal towards which we strive seems unattainably far off… inasmuch as we are convinced that the individual is the carrier of life, we have served life’s purpose if one tree at least succeeds in bearing fruit, though a thousand others remain barren.”
On the appeal of nationalism (from The Fight With The Shadow, 1946)
“the tide that rose in the unconscious after the first World War was reflected in individual dreams, in the form of collective, mythological symbols which expressed primitivity, violence, cruelty… When such symbols occur in a large number of individuals and are not understood, they begin to draw the individuals together as if by magnetic force, and thus a mob is formed. Its leader will soon be found in the individual who has the least resistance, the least sense of responsibility and, because of his inferiority, the greatest will to power. He will let loose everything that is ready to burst forth, and the mob will follow with the irresistible force of an avalanche.
“The individual’s feeling of weakness, indeed of non-existence, was thus compensated by the eruption of hitherto unknown desires for power. It was the revolt of the powerless, the insatiable greed of the ‘have nots’.”
On collective guilt, individual responsibility for the actions of one’s group and leaders, and the trap of feeling righteous rage towards those you disagree with (from After The Catastrophe, 1945)
“Naturally no reasonable and conscientious person will lightly turn collective into individual guilt by holding the individual responsible without giving him a hearing. He will know enough to distinguish between the individually guilty and the merely collectively guilty. But how many people are either reasonable or conscientious, and how many take the time to be so?…If the German intends to live on good terms with Europe, he must be conscious that in the eyes of Europeans he is a guilty man… The German can hardly expect other Europeans to resort to such niceties as to enquire at every step whether the criminal’s name was Muller or Meier. Neither will he be deemed worthy of being treated as a gentleman until the contrary is proved. Unfortunately, for twelve long years it has been proved that the official German was no gentleman.
“It may be objected that the whole concept of psychological collective guilt is a prejudice and a sweepingly unfair condemnation. Of course it is… It is a psychic phenomenon, and it is therefore no condemnation of the German people to say that they are collectively guilty, but simply a statement of fact…
“Long before 1933 there was a smell of burning in the air, and people were passionately interested in discovering the locus of the fire and in tracking down the incendiary. And when denser clouds of smoke were seen over Germany, and the burning of the Reichstag gave the signal, then at last there was no mistake where the incendiary, evil in person, dwelt. Terrifying as this discovery was, in time it brought a sense of relief: now we knew for certain where all the unrighteousness was to be found, whereas we ourselves were securely entrenched in the opposite camp, among respectable people whose moral indignation could be trusted to rise higher and higher with every fresh sign of guilt on the other side. Even the call for mass executions no longer offended the ears of the righteous, and the saturation bombing of German cities was looked upon as the judgement of God. Hate had found respectable motives… And all the time the esteemed public had not the faintest idea how closely they themselves were living to evil.”
A warning for the ages (from After The Catastrophe, 1945)
“The man who promises everything is sure to fulfill nothing, and everyone who promises too much is in danger of using evil means in order to carry out his promises, and is already on the road to perdition.
What
is going on with Brexit? Some try to disentangle the issues. Only,
the truth is that they’re issues tied up in a Gordian knot. So,
instead, how about some psychological perceptions?
It
offers an alternative approach to the confusion, with the
psychodynamic insights of Wilfred Bion being particularly useful at
this time. Bion argued that much of the time we’re not actually
acting as individuals but as members of groups. When our groups are
functioning well, and doing what they are supposed to do, we tend not
to notice. It might be the group we call “twork”, the group we
call “our family”, the group we call “my team”, the group we
call “my church”. When all is well with them, all is more or less
well with us. They provide a sense of purpose, of agency, of
belonging.
But
when they go wrong, Bion argued, that functionality rapidly falls
apart. In fact, he observed that dysfunctional groups shift into
patterns of madness far more quickly than individuals are inclined to
do. It’s why wars and internecine spats readily kick off. And this
is what has happened with Brexit.
The
referendum has meant that most people do not feel the group called
“my country” is doing what it should. Remainers feel
disenfranchised. Brexiteers feel their vote is being compromised.
Others somewhere in the middle feel that the whole shebang only goes
to prove that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
It
is truly a risky time. If our democratic institutions were not robust
enough to contain the collective insanity, or the queen had not been
so long on the throne, there would have been violence on the streets,
and a sense not only of political drift but constitutional breakdown.
It could have been 1642, the start of the English Civil War, all over
again. So what, psychologically, is happening?
Bion
analysed groups as they cease to perform. He noticed that three
reactions tend to break out.A
first is that the group in crisis throws up leaders who promise that
they will lead everyone out of the chaos. They take on the aura of a
saviour or hero, and their followers feel strongly that this person
and this person alone is the one speaking the truth. You can think of
Nigel Farage in this way, which is why UKIP has fallen apart without
him. It never was a party. It always was a support system for him,
the liberator.
A
second is that the group panic produces sub-groups that try to work
out what to do. They feel themselves to be clear of the insanity,
capable of reasoning a way forward, and will speak to the masses with
words of calmness, clarity and apparent wisdom.
Don’t
believe them. They have no more ability to enforce their will than
anyone else. They’ll generate proposals, devise solutions, and
offer triple lock guarantees. It’s rot. The wider group is in
crisis and they’re no more capable of turning the tide than King
Canute. In the current Brexit situation, Keir Starmer’s sub-group
in Labour is a bit like this. They’ve pulled a customs union rabbit
out of the hat. Now watch as their enemies, within Labour and
without, rip off its ears, pull out its eyes, and disembowel its
innards. There’s no reasonable conversation, little rational
assessment of the proposal. Instead, people react. They love it or
hate it, period. We’re living in a dysfunctional group.
A
third possibility is fight or flight. This is a chaotic response.
Some people will leave the UK, and change nationalities given the
chance. Others will hunker down and abandon the democratic process
perhaps never to vote again, muttering, “They’re as bad as each
other.”
Others
again will become lone voices they will receive a lot of attention,
and talk as if they were sane, but they are not. They’re as much a
product of the turmoil as anyone else, which is why they will
regularly threaten resignation or call on others to go. Toys are
being thrown out of the pram.
So,
watch out when groups go wrong. It can happen in families and
workplaces, clubs and churches, as much as within nations and between
nations. Bion concluded that there’s little the individual can do
to resist the melee. The hope is to understand the psychology and
ride the storm. Does someone look like a saviour? Don’t trust them.
Is some sub-group saying they’ve got the answer? It’s unlikely to
stick. Do you want to flee and stuff the rest? It’s an
understandable response but no more sensible than any other.
In
an era of increasing ideological polarisation, many people are trying
– and struggling – to understand the minds of those holding
opposing views.
We
often look to age, gender or education to explain divisions. We
analyse campaign strategies and the language politicians use to win
our support. My colleagues and I at the University of Cambridge chose
to turn to cognitive
psychology for more answers.
In
a study of over 300 UK citizens, it was found participants’
tendencies towards “cognitive flexibility” – their ability to
adapt to change – and “cognitive persistence”, which reflects a
preference for stability and uniformity.
It
has been found that people who displayed higher cognitive flexibility
were less likely to support authoritarian and nationalistic
ideologies. They were also more likely to think the UK should remain
in the
Those
who exhibited tendencies towards cognitive persistence were more
likely to endorconservative and nationalistic attitudes. They, in
turn, were more likely to support Brexit.
Adapting to change
A
measured cognitive flexibility by asking participants to complete
tests which assessed their cognitive information processing styles.
These tests do not make any reference to politics or ideologies.
In
one test,
participants were presented with four cards featuring different
geometric figures of various colours and shapes. The participants
were asked to match a fifth card from a separate deck to one of these
four cards. There were multiple potential rules for matching the
cards. They could be matched according to the colour, number, or
shape of the geometric figures.
At
the start of the task, participants learnt an initial rule for
classifying the cards (for example, according to colour). But after
learning the rule, the classification rule suddenly changed (for
example, they now needed to match the cards according to shape). This
allows us to measure how easily individuals adapt to change. Do they
quickly change their responses to the new rule (which is indicative
of flexibility)? Or do they tend to persist with the
previously-learnt rule (which is a marker of persistence)?
Across
multiple behavioural measures, a link between mental flexibility and
nationalistic ideology. When participants were asked about their
support for immigration, the European Union, free movement of labour,
and access to the EU single market. It was discovered that cognitive
flexibility and tolerance for uncertainty were related to support for
flexible immigration and fluid national borders. Cognitive
persistence was linked to opposition to immigration and free movement
of labour.
A
similar pattern emerged when we asked participants about the extent
to which they agreed with the statement: “The government has a
right to remain in the EU if the costs of Brexit are too high.”
The belief that the UK government ought to be flexible in its
implementation of Brexit in light of potential costs was positively
correlated with cognitive flexibility. Psychologically flexible
individuals appear to evaluate policies in more flexible,
context-dependent ways.A persons deological stances may therefore be
tied to our general psychological adaptability to change.
Head and heart
These
findings suggest that we do not just vote with our hearts, we also
vote according to our cognitive style. In fact, the results imply a
parallel between our cognitive preferences and our ideological
preferences. The flexibility with which we process non-political and
non-emotional information reveals how flexibly we process ideological
arguments.
Our
study points to general trends and tendencies rather than the
psychological characteristics of any particular individual. It’s
important to remember that the reasons behind why
we vote the way we do are varied, idiosyncratic and complex.
Cognitive flexibility is only one piece of an intricate puzzle.
But
understanding the psychological processes that underpin our
ideologies and voting choices will help us to better understand each
other. That’s a crucial step towards bridging the echo chambers and
ideological gaps that often divide our families, our communities and
our world.
Psychologists
connect despair and hopelessness with a lack of control, a lack of
agency. One or two defeats are easy to cope with, but chronic defeats
make people give up hope. Consequent feelings of despair can make us
retreat into ourselves – they can shut us up and in. The urge to
give up is reinforced if we are unable to vocalise what has been lost
in a defeat, and if feelings are trampled upon by a jubilant other.
The press reaction to the Brexit
vote has been crucial here in shaping how we are allowed to think and
feel.
After
the Brexit vote there was a moment when a space for reflection
appeared possible. The right wing press initially focused on
Brexiteers
with a degree of sympathy; Boris Johnson was cast as having
some doubts. But this form of discourse, which could have led to
attempts to find common ground between Leave and Remain voters, to
repair
a rupture, to think what was best for the UK, was quickly shut
down by a new denigration of Remain voters, now cast as Remoaners.
Doubt was untenable and thus quickly expelled. Society was in what
some psychoanalysts call the paranoid
position where ambivalence and uncertainty are ridiculed.
The attacks and denigration which followed have been highly successful in selling newspapers, despite or actually because of causing ever increasing divisions between the angry and the scared. This is because dichotomisation plays to what the Brexit vote was actually about – a desire for certitude in the face of a backcloth of anxieties, a sense of belonging to a group ideal. Globalisation, the financial meltdown, primitive anxieties about whether we have enough to go around, and the projective object par excellence of the immigrant are all likely suspects here. These factors produced a terrain where Leave leaders were able to sell a narrative of unshackling ourselves from EU oppressors, to “take back control”.
The
counter argument – that the
EU was kind of rubbish, but better than nothing – stood little
chance given ambivalence can only be tolerated in a context where
individuals feel safe and valued. It is not, as the current discourse
goes, that Remain leaders failed to provide enough facts. It is that
they failed to produce a narrative that could make people feel
unified at an individual and national level, if only temporarily, at
a time of profound uncertainty.
Though
protests
remain crucial right now, so too is the need to keep this
motivator to human action in mind, and produce new narratives that
both acknowledge otherness and contain our primitive anxieties. But
to do this, Remain voters must be aware that we too are immersed in a
paranoiac culture of certitude. Remain voters have tended to focus on
why Leave voters acted as they did. Underlying this is an idea that
only Remain voters knew the facts and understood the role of the EU.
This smacks of the very certitude, the very superiority people voted
against, and shows a fundamental lack of interest in the
psychodynamics behind how people operate. Claims of “lack of
knowledge” are also a form of violence against the other’s
subjectivity, albeit one that more subtly masks liberal
sensibilities.
Rather
than project lack or hate onto the other, or retreat into despair,
Remain voters must offer something new by cultivating
a culture where curiosity and thinking are possible and safe for
both sides. To do this, to re-find energy in the face of disdain, we
must not presume an ongoing rightfulness, but unpack what it is that
has been lost in this defeat, why we valued it, and how to keep
something of it alive. We might ask at individual and group levels:
What does the EU mean for us? Why? How does that link to the
individual and group ideals we identify with? How might this connect
with the histories of migration, displacement in our own families?
Our beliefs about the need for a regulator outside the country/parent
state?
Freud
argued that pretending
a loss has not occurred, or becoming entombed with the lost ideal
– in this case of what the EU was for us – blocks progress and
deprives us of vitality. It inhibits the process of mourning, making
us at risk of falling into melancholic despair. We can only move
forward from defeat and loss if we engage instead in a constructive
rather than destructive process through taking small aspects of what
we have lost in recognition that it was always incomplete, and
building something anew. Whilst protests
against Article 50, right wing populism, and a Trump presidency are
important, we must offer, now, something alternative from the
fragments of what we believe we have lost. But to build this without
attending to what the other has also lost, and the anxieties
underlying this, would be yet another example of repetition rather
than renewal.
Can you sub this down to about 300 words please - otherwise no one will ever read it
ReplyDelete