Skip to Main Content

Experimental Psychology (Russia)
2025. Vol. 18, no. 3, 136–149
doi:10.17759/exppsy.2025180309
ISSN: 2072-7593 / 2311-7036 (online)

Russian identity and attitudes toward political leaders: The role of secure national identification and national narcissism

 
Audio is AI-generated
37

,

PDF (RUS)
Online translation in english
GS
Information
in Google Scholar
Metrics

Abstract

Context and relevance. For several decades, psychologists have been studying the factors that influence attitudes toward political leaders. Studies have shown that such factors can be characteristics of the leader, followers, and the situation. However, it can be assumed that these variables interact with each other. Objective. This study aimed to analyze the relationship between national identity and attitudes toward political leaders with different interaction styles. Hypothesis. We assumed that Russian respondents would express a more positive attitude towards a democratic leader than towards an authoritarian one. However, the influence of the leader's behavior style on attitudes towards them would depend on national identity. Methods and materials. Russian respondents (N = 2008) took part in the study. They completed questionnaires to measure two forms of Russian identity — secure national identification and national narcissism. They then read a description of a hypothetical political leader and rated their effectiveness at solving several problems. The descriptions differed by gender (male vs. female) and the style of leadership (authoritarian vs. democratic), as well as by the characteristics of the problems (requiring “soft” vs. “hard” actions). Results. The results showed that respondents perceived a political leader with a democratic style as more effective than an authoritarian one. This pattern was manifested by Russians with different levels of national identity, in attitudes towards men and women who perform as the president, and in situations requiring “hard” vs. “soft” actions. However, individuals with low levels of national narcissism expressed this pattern more strongly than individuals with high levels. Conclusions. Overall, Russian respondents consider a political leader who involves them in decision-making as more effective. However, national narcissism, but not a secure national identification, increases faith in political leaders who give orders and expect them to be followed.

General Information

Keywords: political leadership, leadership style, democratic and authoritarian leader, national identity, secure national identification, national narcissism

Journal rubric: Social Psychology

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2025180309

Funding. HSE University Basic Research Program, 2025.

Supplemental data. Dataset and appendix available from https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W8GH4

Received 04.09.2024

Revised 07.02.2025

Accepted

Published

For citation: Gulevich, O.A., Gnezdilov, A.N. (2025). Russian identity and attitudes toward political leaders: The role of secure national identification and national narcissism. Experimental Psychology (Russia), 18(3), 136–149. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2025180309

© Gulevich O.A., Gnezdilov A.N., 2025

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

References

  1. ​​Гулевич, О.А. (2023). Процедурная справедливость как фактор отношения к политической системе: роль экономического положения страны. Социальная психология и общество, 14(4), 105—119. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2023140407
    Gulevich, O.A. (2023). Procedural Justice as a Factor of Attitudes Toward the Political System: The Role of the Country's Economic Situation. Social Psychology and Society, 14(4), 105—119. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2023140407
  2. Романова, М.О., Иванов, А.А., Богатырева, Н.И., Терскова, М.А., Быков, А.О., Анкушев, В.В. (2022). Адаптация шкалы коллективного нарциссизма на российской выборке. Социальная психология и общество, 13(3), 201—220. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2022130312
    Romanova, M.O., Ivanov, A.A., Bogatyrieva, N.I., Terskova, M.A., Bykov, A.O., Ankushev, V.V. (2022). Collective Narcissism Scale Adaptation on a Russian Sample. Social Psychology and Society, 13(3), 201—220. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2022130312
  3. Biddlestone, M., Cichocka, A., Główczewski, M., Cislak, A. (2022). Their own worst enemy? Collective narcissists are willing to conspire against their in-group. British Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 894—916. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12569
  4. Caillier, J.G. (2020). Testing the influence of autocratic leadership, democratic leadership, and public service motivation on citizen ratings of an agency head’s performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(4), 918—941.
  5. Chemers, M.M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In: M.A. Hogg, R.S. Tindale (Ed.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes (pp. 376—399). Blackwell Publishers Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470998458.ch16
  6. Chen, X.-P., Eberly, M.B., Chiang, T.-J., Farh, J.-L., Cheng, B.-S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 796—819. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410604
  7. Cichocka, A. (2016). Understanding defensive and secure in-group positivity: The role of collective narcissism. European Review of Social Psychology, 27(1), 283—317. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2016.1252530
  8. Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O., Ng, K.Y. (2001). Justice at the Millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425—445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
  9. Eker, I., Cichocka, A., Cislak, A. (2022). Collective narcissism: How being narcissistic about your groups shapes politics, group processes, and intergroup relations. In: D. Osborne, C. Sibley (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 214—227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108779104.015
  10. Ellemers, N., Haslam, S.A. (2012). Social Identity Theory. In: P.A.M. van Lange, A.W. Kruglanski, E.T. Higgins (Ed.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 379—398). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n46
  11. Federico, C., Golec de Zavala, A. (2018). Collective narcissism and the 2016 US presidential vote. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(1), 110—121. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx048
  12. Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R., Jayawickreme, N. (2009). Collective narcissism and its social consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1074—1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016904
  13. Golec de Zavala, A., Lantos, D. (2020). Collective narcissism and its social consequences: The bad and the ugly. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 273—278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420917703
  14. Golec de Zavala, A., Peker, M., Guerra, R., Baran, T. (2016). Collective narcissism predicts hypersensitivity to in-group insult and direct and indirect retaliatory intergroup hostility. European Journal of Personality, 30(6), 532—551. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2067
  15. Gronfeldt, B., Cislak, A., Sternisko, A., Eker, I., Cichocka, A. (2023). A small price to pay: National narcissism predicts readiness to sacrifice in-group members to defend the in-group’s image. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(4), 612—626. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221074790
  16. Gulevich, O., Borovikova, J., Rodionova, M. (2024). The relationship between political procedural justice and attitudes toward the political system: A meta-analysis. Political Psychology, 45(3), 537—557. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12936
  17. Gulevich, O., Gnezdilov, A. (2025). Russian identity and Attitudes toward Political Leaders. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W8GH4
  18. Gulevich, O., Sarieva, I. (2015). Just world belief and the image of the perfect political leader: The role of national identification. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 12(3), 30—40.
  19. Hall, C.C., Goren, A., Chaiken, S., Todorov, A. (2010). Shallow cues with deep effects: Trait judgments from faces and voting decisions. In: E. Borgida, C.M. Federico, J.L. Sullivan (Ed.), The Political Psychology of Democratic Citizenship (pp. 409—414). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  20. Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S.D., Platow, M.J. (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice. In: M. Mikulincer, P.R. Shaver, J.F. Dovidio, J.A. Simpson (Ed.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Group Processes (pp. 67—94). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14342-003
  21. Laustsen, L. (2021). Candidate evaluations through the lens of adaptive followership psychology: How and why voters prefer leaders based on character traits. Advances in Political Psychology, 42, 109—147. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12738
  22. Leach, C.W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M.L.W., Pennekamp, S.F., Doosje, B., Ouwerkerk, J.W., Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144—165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
  23. Legood, A., van der Werff, L., Lee, A., Den Hartog, D. (2021). A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership-performance relationship. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(1), 1—22.
  24. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 269—299.
  25. Lovakov, A.V., Agadullina, E.R., Osin, E.N. (2015). A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification: Examining in Russian samples. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 18, Article E32. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2015.37
  26. Luca, C., Kevin, O.C., Chiara, B. (2021). Do superordinate identification and temporal/social comparisons independently predict citizens’ system trust? Evidence From a 40-Nation Survey. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
  27. Marchlewska, M., Cichocka, A., Panayiotou, O., Cattellanos, K., Batayneh, J. (2017). Populism as identity politics: Perceived in-group disadvantage, collective narcissism, and support for populism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(2), 151—162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617732393
  28. Petersen, M.B., Laustsen, L. (2020). Dominant leaders and the political psychology of followership. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 136—141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.005
  29. Pizzolitto, E., Verna, I., Venditti, M. (2023). Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Management Review Quarterly, 73(2), 841—871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00263-y
  30. Sainz Martinez, M., Moreno-Bella, E., Torres-Vega, L.C. (2021). A more competent, warm, feminine, and human leader: perceptions and effectiveness of democratic versus authoritarian political leaders. International Review of Social Psychology, 34(1), 1—16. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.452
  31. Tyler, T.R. (2011). Justice theory. In: P.V.A.M. Lange, A.W. Kruglanski, T.E. Higgins (Ed.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 2 (pp. 344—361). SAGE Publications Ltd.
  32. Tyler, T.R., van der Toorn, J. (2013). Social justice. In: L. Huddy, D.O. Sears, J.S. Levy (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 627—661). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199760107.001.0001
  33. Vargas-Salfate, S., Paez, D., Liu, J.H., Pratto, F., Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2018). A comparison of social dominance theory and system justification: The role of social status in 19 nations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(7), 1060—1076. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218757455
  34. Van Bavel, J.J., Cichocka, A., Capraro, V., et al. (2022). National identity predicts public health support during a global pandemic. Nature Communication, 13(1), Article 517. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27668-9
  35. Williams, M.J., Tiedens, L.Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 165—197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000039

Information About the Authors

Olga A. Gulevich, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Head of Politics & Psychology Research Laboratory, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3806-5064, e-mail: goulevitch@mail.ru

Aleksandr N. Gnezdilov, Student, Research Assistant, Politics & Psychology Research Laboratory, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5396-9177, e-mail: agnezdilov@hse.ru

Contribution of the authors

Olga A. Gulevich — ideas; annotation, writing and design of the manuscript; planning of the research; control over the research.

Alexander N. Gnezdilov — application of statistical methods for data analysis; writing and design of the manuscript.

Both authors participated in the discussion of the results and approved the final text of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Metrics

 Web Views

Whole time: 112
Previous month: 60
Current month: 5

 PDF Downloads

Whole time: 37
Previous month: 22
Current month: 1

 Total

Whole time: 149
Previous month: 82
Current month: 6