Collective narcissism [2016]

A Politico-Psychological Analysis

Report generated

March 23, 2026

1 Study Characteristics

1.1 Items: Collective narcissism

1.2 Sample

N=1500

To conduct a exploratory and a confirmatory large surveys during the general election, we hired a professional survey firm (SSI, a US-based market research company that recruits participants from a panel of 7,139,027 American citizens; more information can be found at www.surveysampling.com (now https://www.dynata.com/) to recruit a nationally representative sample of 1,500 Americans (50.7% women) who completed study materials during the general election from August 16-September 9, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). The age distribution was as follows: 18-24 (12.9%), 25-34 (17.6%), 35-44 (17.5%), 45-54 (19.5%), 55-65 (15.6%) and older than 65 (16.9%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (82.5%), Black/African American (7.7%), Latino (5.9%) and “Other” (4.0%). Concerning religion, 67.6% identified as Christian, 17.1% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 15.3% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to education 35.1% indicated “high school only or lower,” 31.4 % indicated “some college,” and 33.6% indicated having received a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. 2424 participants were directed to the survey, 1885 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22%).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies. Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 385 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 1500 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 67 minutes on average (MD: 51min).

2 Descriptives

2.1 Means, SD, Range, & SE

Table 1: Descriptives

Descriptives for Collective narcissism Items
	mean	sd	median
CN1	6.57	2.32	7.0
CN2	5.43	2.35	5.0
CN3	4.76	2.45	5.0
CN4	4.90	2.33	5.0
CN5	5.63	2.29	5.0
Mean	5.46	1.87	5.2
Note:
All items: n = 1500, min = 1, max = 9, se = 0.06. Mean: min = 1, max = 9, se = 0.05

2.2 Response Distribution

Figure 1: Proportion of each response categories for Collective narcissism Items

Figure 2: Distribution of reponses for Collective narcissism Items

2.3 Correlations

Figure 3: Bivariate Spearman’s correlations for Collective narcissism

Note. Upper triangle shows Spearman’s rank-order correlations. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

Figure 4: Bivariate Spearman’s correlations for Collective narcissism

Note. Upper triangle shows Spearman’s rank-order correlations by party identity. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

Figure 5: Correlation Matrix of Collective narcissism items, Spearman’s rank correlations

3 Demographics

3.1 Social Class

Figure 6: Collective narcissism as grouped by SES

Note on the Raincloud Plots

Statistical summary (top): Welch’s t-test (or ANOVA) results, effect size, confidence intervals, p-values, and sample sizes are shown above each plot.
Bayesian analysis (bottom): Log Bayes factor and credible intervals are reported below each plot.

Table 2: Collective narcissism as grouped by SES

SES	N	Mean	SD
Poor	38	-0.09	1.18
Lower Middle Class	298	-0.06	1.05
Middle Middle Class	679	-0.03	0.99
Upper Middle Class	395	0.08	0.97
Rich	90	0.12	0.94

3.2 Gender

Figure 8: Collective narcissism as grouped by Gender

Figure 9: Raincloud Plots showing Collective narcissism grouped by Gender

Table 3: Collective narcissism as grouped by Gender

Collective narcissism as grouped by Gender
Gender	N	Mean	SD
Male	740	-0.05	0.96
Female	760	0.04	1.03

3.3 Age

Figure 10: Collective narcissism as grouped by Age

Figure 11: Raincloud Plots showing Collective narcissism grouped by Age

Table 4: Collective narcissism as grouped by Age

Collective narcissism as grouped by Age
Age	N	Mean	SD
18-24 years	193	-0.03	1.02
25-34 years	264	0.01	1.06
35-44 years	263	-0.03	1.11
45-54 years	292	0.01	1.04
55-64 years	234	0.09	0.94
65+	254	-0.04	0.78

3.4 Education

Figure 12: Collective narcissism as grouped by Education

Figure 13: Raincloud Plots showing Collective narcissism grouped by Education

Table 5: Collective narcissism as grouped by Education

Education	N	Mean	SD
Less than High School	51	-0.18	1.05
High School	475	-0.09	1.03
Some College	471	0.01	1.00
Bachelor	310	0.10	0.96
Graduate	193	0.10	0.96

3.5 Income Levels

Figure 14: Collective narcissism as grouped by Income Levels

Figure 15: Raincloud Plots showing Collective narcissism grouped by Income Levels

Table 6: Collective narcissism as grouped by Income Levels

Collective narcissism as grouped by Income Levels
Income Levels	N	Mean	SD
$15,000-$24,999	180	-0.16	1.00
$25,000-$34,999	176	-0.08	1.08
Less than $15,000	178	-0.03	1.04
$50,000-$74,999	292	0.01	0.96
$35,000-$49,999	227	0.03	0.99
$100,000-$149,999	160	0.03	1.02
$75,000-$99,999	192	0.09	0.99
$150,000 +	95	0.18	0.89

3.6 Ethnicity

Figure 16: Collective narcissism as grouped by Ethnicity

Note on the Okabe-Ito color palette. The Okabe-Ito color palette (seen above) is a set of colorblind-friendly categorical colors available in R. We are using this palette for graphs with non-ordered variables (e.g., groups, categories) for accessibility.

Figure 17: Raincloud Plots showing Collective narcissism grouped by Ethnicity

Table 7: Collective narcissism as grouped by Ethnicity

Collective narcissism as grouped by Ethnicity
Ethnicity	N	Mean	SD
Caucasian/European origin	1237	0.14	0.95
Black/African American	115	-0.94	0.87
Latino	88	-0.41	0.95
Asian/Pacific Islander	29	-0.44	0.92
Native American	13	-0.89	1.02
Other	18	-0.24	1.19

3.7 Occupation

Figure 18: Collective narcissism as grouped by Occupation

Figure 19: Raincloud Plots showing Collective narcissism grouped by Occupation

Table 8: Collective narcissism as grouped by Occupation

Collective narcissism as grouped by Occupation
Occupation	N	Mean	SD
Employed	768	0.01	1.02
Retired	268	0.00	0.86
Unemployed	146	0.01	1.02
Parent	104	0.00	0.97
Disabled	98	-0.16	1.10
Student	85	-0.01	1.18
Full-time caregiver	31	0.18	0.88

3.8 Area

Figure 20: Collective narcissism as grouped by Area

Figure 21: Raincloud Plots showing Collective narcissism grouped by Area

Table 9: Collective narcissism as grouped by Area

Collective narcissism as grouped by Area
Area	N	Mean	SD
Urban	955	-0.02	1.01
Rural	545	0.04	0.98

3.9 Religious Affiliation

Figure 22: Collective narcissism as grouped by Religious Affiliation

Figure 23: Raincloud Plots showing Collective narcissism grouped by Religious Affiliation

Table 10: Collective narcissism as grouped by Religion

Collective narcissism as grouped by Religious Affiliation
Religious Affiliation	N	Mean	SD
Christian	1014	-0.04	0.95
Muslim	9	-0.36	1.13
Jewish	52	0.00	0.96
Atheist/Agnostic	230	0.28	1.11
Not listed, No religion	195	-0.09	1.06

3.10 Section Summary

	Collective narcissism
Predictors	Estimates	CI	p
(Intercept)	5.26	4.86 – 5.67	<.001
Age	-0.01	-0.07 – 0.06	.869
Income	0.04	-0.02 – 0.09	.188
Education	0.12	0.02 – 0.22	.023
Gender (Male)	-0.20	-0.39 – -0.01	.042
Observations	1500
R² / R² adjusted	.010 / .008

4 Political Behavior

4.1 Political Orientation

Figure 25: Political Orientation (Controlled for Demographics)

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

Figure 26: Correlation Matrix - Political Orientation

Table 11: Models of Political Orientation (SPRI) & Collective narcissism

	Political Orientation			Social Political Orientation			Economic Political Orientation			Composite Political Orientation
Predictors	Estimates	CI	p	Estimates	CI	p	Estimates	CI	p	Estimates	CI	p
(Intercept)	5.31	5.18 – 5.43	<.001	4.93	4.79 – 5.07	<.001	5.48	5.35 – 5.61	<.001	5.24	5.12 – 5.36	<.001
Collective narcissism	-0.10	-0.22 – 0.02	.117	-0.25	-0.39 – -0.11	<.001	-0.00	-0.14 – 0.13	.971	-0.12	-0.24 – 0.01	.061
Observations	1500			1500			1500			1500
R² / R² adjusted	.002 / .001			.008 / .008			0.000 / -0.001			.002 / .002

Table 12: Models of Ideology and Collective narcissism with Controls

	Political Orientation			Social Political Orientation			Economic Political Orientation			Composite Political Orientation
Predictors	Estimates	CI	p	Estimates	CI	p	Estimates	CI	p	Estimates	CI	p
(Intercept)	3.60	2.99 – 4.21	<.001	3.94	3.25 – 4.62	<.001	2.87	2.21 – 3.52	<.001	3.47	2.87 – 4.07	<.001
Collective narcissism	-0.04	-0.11 – 0.02	.179	-0.12	-0.19 – -0.04	.002	-0.00	-0.07 – 0.07	.936	-0.05	-0.12 – 0.01	.092
Age	0.32	0.24 – 0.39	<.001	0.35	0.27 – 0.44	<.001	0.30	0.22 – 0.39	<.001	0.32	0.25 – 0.40	<.001
Income	0.08	0.01 – 0.14	.024	-0.01	-0.09 – 0.06	.766	0.13	0.05 – 0.20	.001	0.06	-0.00 – 0.13	.058
Education	-0.18	-0.31 – -0.06	.005	-0.23	-0.37 – -0.09	.002	-0.02	-0.16 – 0.11	.732	-0.15	-0.27 – -0.02	.022
Gender (Male)	0.70	0.46 – 0.95	<.001	0.75	0.48 – 1.03	<.001	0.72	0.46 – 0.98	<.001	0.72	0.48 – 0.96	<.001
Observations	1500			1500			1500			1500
R² / R² adjusted	.083 / .080			.079 / .076			.084 / .081			.089 / .086

4.2 Partisanship

Table 13: Mean Collective narcissism by Party Identity

Mean Collective narcissism by Party Identity (raw means)
Party Identity	N	Mean	SD
Strong Democrat	351	5.47	2.28
Democrat	223	5.40	1.82
Leaning Democrat	124	5.62	1.94
Independent	84	5.35	1.77
Leaning Republican	111	5.28	1.56
Republican	255	5.55	1.68
Strong Republican	318	5.41	1.66

Table 14: Model of Collective narcissism & Party Identity (7-point)

	Collective narcissism
Predictors	Estimates	CI	p
(Intercept)	5.47	5.28 – 5.65	<.001
Party Identity (7-point)	-0.00	-0.04 – 0.04	.865
Observations	1466
R² / R² adjusted	0.000 / -0.001

Table 15: Model of Collective narcissism & Party Identity with Controls

	Collective narcissism
Predictors	Estimates	CI	p
(Intercept)	5.23	4.81 – 5.65	<.001
Party Identity (7-point)	0.00	-0.04 – 0.04	.948
Age	-0.00	-0.06 – 0.06	.987
Income	0.03	-0.02 – 0.09	.214
Education	0.12	0.01 – 0.22	.027
Gender (Male)	-0.19	-0.39 – 0.01	.062
Observations	1466
R² / R² adjusted	.010 / .006

4.3 Religiosity

Figure 29: Religiosity (Controlled for Demographics)

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

Figure 30: Religiosity - Correlation Matrix

4.4 Candidate Preferences

Table 16: Candidate Preferences (centered)

Candidate Preferences and Collective narcissism [centered]
Candidate Preference	N	Mean	SD
Donald Trump	444	-0.14	0.86
Hillary Clinton	371	-0.08	1.08
Bernie Sanders	362	0.09	1.16
Ted Cruz	122	0.24	0.86
Jeb Bush	83	0.22	0.83
Gary Johnson	68	0.18	0.92
Rand Paul	44	0.00	0.74

Table 17: Candidate Preferences (raw means)

Candidate Preferences and Collective narcissism [raw means]
Candidate Preferences	N	Mean	SD	Range
Donald Trump	444	5.20	1.62	1-9
Hillary Clinton	371	5.30	2.02	1-9
Bernie Sanders	362	5.62	2.17	1-9
Ted Cruz	122	5.91	1.61	1-9
Jeb Bush	83	5.87	1.55	1-9
Gary Johnson	68	5.79	1.73	1-9
Rand Paul	44	5.45	1.40	1-9

4.5 Party Preferences

Table 18: Party Preferences (centered)

Party Preferences and Collective narcissism [centered]
Party Preference	N	Mean	SD
Democratic Party	560	-0.04	1.13
Republican Party	508	-0.02	0.86
Tea Party	68	-0.02	0.88
Don't know	90	0.00	0.94
Libertarian Party	100	0.07	0.87
None	120	0.09	0.98
Constitution Party	14	0.17	1.27
Green Party	40	0.36	1.27

Table 19: Party Preferences (raw means)

Party Preferences and Collective narcissism [raw means]
Party Preferences	N	Mean	SD	Range
Democratic Party	560	5.39	2.11	1-9
Republican Party	508	5.41	1.62	1-9
Tea Party	68	5.43	1.65	1-9
Don't know	90	5.46	1.76	1-9
Libertarian Party	100	5.59	1.62	1-9
None	120	5.63	1.85	1-9
Constitution Party	14	5.79	2.39	1-9
Green Party	40	6.12	2.39	1-9

4.6 Voting Preferences

Table 20: Voting Preferences

	2016 [Trump vs. Clinton]			2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters			2012 [Romney vs. Obama]			2008 [McCain vs. Obama]
Predictors	Odds Ratios	CI	p	Odds Ratios	CI	p	Odds Ratios	CI	p	Odds Ratios	CI	p
(Intercept)	0.88	0.61 – 1.25	.468	0.85	0.60 – 1.21	.366	1.29	0.92 – 1.82	.142	1.56	1.10 – 2.21	.013
Collective narcissism	1.03	0.97 – 1.09	.376	1.03	0.97 – 1.10	.328	0.98	0.92 – 1.04	.464	0.95	0.89 – 1.01	.091
Observations	1103			1148			1236			1206
R² Tjur	.001			.001			.000			.002

Figure 33: Logistic Regression, Collective narcissism & Voting Preferences

4.7 Voting & Party Identity

Table 21: Party Identity & Voting

	Donald Trump	Hilary Clinton
Strong Republican	282	7
Republican	166	24
Leaning Republican	58	7
Independent	17	16
Leaning Democrat	10	65
Democrat	27	129
Strong Democrat	4	323

Figure 35: Predicted, Voting & Party Identity

Table 22: Supporters

	2016 [Clinton vs. Trump]			2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters
Predictors	Odds Ratios	CI	p	Odds Ratios	CI	p
(Intercept)	10.15	5.02 – 21.58	<.001	9.57	4.92 – 19.41	<.001
Party Identity (dichotomous)	0.01	0.00 – 0.01	<.001
Party Identity (dichotomous)	1.06	0.94 – 1.20	.339	1.04	0.93 – 1.17	.501
Collective narcissism				0.01	0.00 – 0.01	<.001
Observations	1103			1148
R² Tjur	.747			.720

4.8 Likeability

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.