The Complex Psychology of Partisan Identity

A new study recently published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology investigates the political psychology that underpins different forms of partisan identity among political candidates.

The researchers focused on teasing apart two fundamental constructs: partisan narcissism and partisan identification. Partisan narcissism is when someone believes their political party is superior and entitled to special treatment, but others do not sufficiently recognise this supposed greatness.

In contrast, partisan identification is a more secure form of attachment to a party, where the individual feels part of the group and evaluates it positively. Both concepts draw on the broader research in political psychology that examineshow social identity processes shape political attitudes and behaviours.

Past studies suggest that collective narcissism tends to be associated with hypersensitivity to criticism, conspiratorial thinking about perceived threats, and hostility toward outgroups. These findings contrast with organisational identification, which has been associated with more positive workplace outcomes such as job satisfaction, performance, and loyalty.

Implications arise from partisan narcissism compared to partisan identification among ambitious political candidates. Do these distinct forms of partisan identity help explain a meaningful variation in skills, integrity, and dedication to the party within samples of politicians striving for power?

To investigate this question, the researchers surveyed over 200 candidates running for parliament and local offices under Iceland's Left-Greens party. This rare insider access allowed the collection of self-report data on the politicians' psychological characteristics and work-related attitudes.

The findings indicate that partisan narcissism predicts more stereotypical "devious" politician behaviours. These behaviours include deception, secrecy, and willingness to engage in political "blood sport" against opponents when necessary.

In contrast, partisan identification was positively related to political skill, intentions to remain loyal to the party, and volunteering for it. These outcomes are likely beneficial for the functioning of a political party.

The divergent results align with theoretical perspectives of political psychology. The preoccupation with external validation and intergroup competition in partisan narcissism manifests in conflicts and underhanded tactics. In contrast, partisan identification's basis in deeper social ties and secure group attachment enables healthier intraparty cooperation and sincere political work.

Elite Groups Through the Lens of Political Psychology

Probing the social psychology of elite groups like politicians provides rare insight into political behaviour, often intentionally hidden from the public eye.

For instance, these findings indicate that partisan narcissism versus identification has tangible implications for whether candidates engage productively or unethically in office.

The authors acknowledge that the cross-sectional design limits causal inference about the relationships. However, the study demonstrates the value of applying political psychology to elucidate the cognitive-affective bases of intraparty dynamics.

Differentiating between precise forms of partisan social identity helps explain a meaningful variation in skills, integrity, and dedication among ambitious candidates striving for power.

This research highlights the psychological forces driving observable political behaviour, which can profoundly shape parties and policies. The results suggest that collective narcissism versus identification meaningfully impactswhether politicians navigate politics through cooperation or conflict.

Understanding these psychological forces provides opportunities for reflection on one's partisan mindsets. Are our party loyalties grounded in security and sincere values or precarious hubris and thirst for external validation?

Such questions also affect party leadership seeking to cultivate a healthy partisan culture. Promoting secure identification over narcissism may foster greater integrity, skill, and dedication among emerging political candidates.

These findings provide interesting initial evidence that distinct forms of partisanship can steer politicians down divergent paths toward either cooperation or conflict. Attention to the psychological forces underlying partisan identity is crucial for understanding political behaviour and its impacts.

The Social Psychology of Partisan Identity

Theoretically, this work helps integrate perspectives on organisational identification from social psychology with emerging research on collective narcissism.

Past studies have linked organisational identification with positive workplace outcomes, while collective narcissism tends to predict more hostile intragroup dynamics. This study extends these insights to the political context, showing that partisan identification correlates with productive actions such as building skills and dedication. In contrast, partisan narcissism relates to self-serving behaviours such as deception.

Considering partisan identity through this social-psychological lens elucidates how politicians' deep-seated mindsets guide their conduct in office with real policy consequences.

It also underscores significant parallels between how social identification operates similarly in different contexts, whether in politics, the workplace, sports teams, or civic organisations.

Factors such as ideology and norms shape the expression of core psychological needs for identity, belonging, and esteem in the political environment. Conversely, fundamental sociocognitive tendencies like ingroup favouritism have downstream effects on partisan culture and conduct when activated in the political sphere.

Neither a purely social nor a political focus alone would offer such multi-layered insight into the roots of partisan behaviour and its impacts.

Opportunities for Future Political Psychology Research

For example, are certain ideologies more vulnerable to partisan narcissism than others? Do individual differences in factors like the need for closure exacerbate partisan divides? How do evolving partisan identities over the political career correlate with shifts in skill versus unethical behaviour? Do reminders of morality mitigate the toxic effects ofpartisan narcissism?

Studying elected representatives also provides only one angle on mass political psychology. The spread of partisan narcissism within the electorate could profoundly impact democratic discourse.

Surveys capturing large-scale trends in citizens' partisan mindsets may illuminate patterns for societies navigating political polarisation.

Overall, this research highlights the value of asking what partisans think and why. Unpacking the psychological forces shaping partisan identity promises to deepen our understanding of political behaviour and its motivations.

With the growing affective polarisation, such insights are needed now more than ever.

You can read the paper here.