Individual self &gt; relational self &gt; collective self—But why? Processes driving the self‐hierarchy in self‐ and person perception

Nehrlich, Andreas D.; Gebauer, Jochen E.; Sedikides, Constantine; Abele, Andrea E.

doi:10.1111/jopy.12384

Cited by 29 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…West & Kenny, 2011). Nonetheless, our self-enhancement results are telling, given that subjective prosociality is almost always higher than objective prosociality (Alicke & Sedikides, 2009;Nehrlich, Gebauer, Sedikides, Schrade, et al, 2018;Sedikides, Gaertner, & Cai, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Agentic narcissism, communal narcissism, and prosociality.

Nehrlich¹,

Gebauer²,

Sedikides³

et al. 2019

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grandiose narcissism and prosociality are important topics in personality and social psychology, but research on their interplay is lacking. We present a first large-scale, systematic, and multimethod investigation linking the two. In 2 studies (N 1 ϭ 688, N 2 ϭ 336), we assessed grandiose narcissism comprehensively (i.e., agentic and communal narcissism) and examined its relations with instantiations of prosociality, namely, objective prosociality (actual behavior in Study 1; round-robin informant-reports in a real-life setting in Study 2) and subjective prosociality (self-perceptions in Studies 1 and 2). We obtained a consistent set of results. Agentic narcissism was related to lower objective prosociality and lower subjective prosociality. Communal narcissism, by contrast, was unrelated to objective prosociality, but was related to higher subjective prosociality. Additionally, we tested for prosociality selfenhancement among agentic and communal narcissists. Agentic narcissists evinced the same (and modest) level of prosociality self-enhancement as their non-narcissistic counterparts. Communal narcissists, by contrast, evinced substantial levels of prosociality self-enhancement, whereas their nonnarcissistic counterparts did not enhance their prosociality at all. We discuss implications of the findings for the literature on narcissism and antisociality, and for the concept of prosocial personality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Agentic narcissism, communal narcissism, and prosociality.

Nehrlich¹,

Gebauer²,

Sedikides³

et al. 2019

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One line of research examines the motivational significance of three forms of identity: the personal self, which reflects a person's subjective uniqueness; the relational self, which reflects attachments to close others; and the collective self, which reflects memberships in valued groups. Primary experiments (Gaertner et al 1999;Nehrlich et al 2018), meta-analysis (Gaertner et al 2002), and cross-cultural comparisons (Gaertner et al 2012) constitute evidence of a motivational hierarchy topped by the personal self, followed by the relational self, and tailed by the collective self (Sedikides et al 2013). Relative to their other selves, for example, people respond more intensely to threat and enhancement of their personal self, attribute more of who they are to their personal self, associate more future goals with their personal self, and accredit greater worth to their personal self.…”

Section: Motivational (Con)fusion: Identity Fusion Does Not Quell Permentioning

confidence: 99%

Dying for the group: Towards a general theory of extreme self-sacrifice

Whitehouse¹

2018

Behav Brain Sci

154

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether upheld as heroic or reviled as terrorism, throughout history people have been willing to lay down their lives for the sake of their groups. Why? Previous theories of extreme self-sacrifice have highlighted a range of seemingly disparate factors such as collective identity, outgroup hostility, and kin psychology. This paper attempts to integrate many of these factors into a single overarching theory based on several decades of collaborative research with a range of special populations, from tribes in Papua New Guinea to Libyan insurgents, and from Muslim fundamentalists in Indonesia to Brazilian football hooligans. These studies suggest that extreme self-sacrifice is motivated by 'identity fusion', a visceral sense of oneness with the group resulting from intense collective experiences (e.g. painful rituals or the horrors of frontline combat) or from perceptions of shared biology. In ancient foraging societies, fusion would have enabled warlike bands to stand united despite strong temptations to scatter and flee. The fusion mechanism has often been exploited in cultural rituals, not only by tribal societies but also in specialized cells embedded in armies, cults, and terrorist organizations. With the rise of social complexity and the spread of states and empires, fusion has also been extended to much larger groups, including doctrinal religions, ethnicities, and ideological movements. Explaining extreme self-sacrifice is not only a scientific priority but also a practical challenge as we seek a collective response to suicide terrorism and other extreme expressions of outgroup hostility that continue to bedevil humanity today.

show abstract

“…Couple identity reflects being part of a specific relationship (i.e., the liaison with one's romantic partner) rather than any relationship with a close other (e.g., relational self; Andersen & Chen, ) or a general inclination toward viewing the self in terms of relationships with close others (i.e., relational‐interdependent self‐construal; Cross, Bacon, & Morris, ). Being rooted in one's specific relationship, couple identity is a relationship asset, strenuously defended in the presence of perceived threat (Martz et al, ; Nehrlich, Gebauer, & Sedikides, ; Rusbult, Van Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich, & Verette, ). It is appropriate that couple identity is considered a relationship asset: It predicts relationship satisfaction (Acitelli, ; Acitelli & Young, ; Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, ; Aron & Aron, ; Lewandowski et al, ; Parise et al, ; Wiedler & Clark, ), relationship commitment (Lewandowski et al, ), and relationship stability (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐concept clarity and relationship satisfaction at the dyadic level

Parise

Pagani

Donato

et al. 2019

Personal Relationships

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self‐concept clarity is an individual resource that is associated with couple relationship well‐being. In two dyadic studies, the authors investigated whether and how self‐concept clarity has implications for both partners' relationship satisfaction. Study 1 tested and supported the hypothesis that self‐concept clarity concurrently predicts own and partner's relationship satisfaction through couple identity in a sample of 202 dating couples. Study 2 tested and supported the hypothesis that self‐concept clarity predicts longitudinal change in own and partner's relationship satisfaction through positive (i.e., supportive and common) dyadic coping behaviors in a sample of 97 married couples. The findings clarify and expand the benefits of self‐concept clarity for partners' relational well‐being.

show abstract

Individual self > relational self > collective self—But why? Processes driving the self‐hierarchy in self‐ and person perception

Abstract: This research pioneers process-driven explanations for the self-hierarchy, establishing why people prefer different self-parts in themselves than in others.

Cited by 29 publications

References 62 publications

Agentic narcissism, communal narcissism, and prosociality.

Agentic narcissism, communal narcissism, and prosociality.

Dying for the group: Towards a general theory of extreme self-sacrifice

Self‐concept clarity and relationship satisfaction at the dyadic level

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About