Exploring the Role of Collective Narcissism and Ideology in Support for Reparations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Many societies with colonial histories have begun to grapple with their legacy of historical injustices and their ongoing consequences, leading to national apologies and sometimes consideration of reparations. In this context, it is important to understand the factors enhancing or impeding public support for reparations. This dissertation focused on the role of beliefs (ideology) and identity (collective narcissism) as predictors of support for reparations addressing historical injustices. Drawing from existing research, we expected that those higher in conservatism – and those higher in collective narcissism - would oppose reparations more strongly. We also examined the interaction between ideology and collective narcissism, which has not been investigated in past research. Notably, a pilot study preceding the three main dissertation studies revealed a surprising pattern: higher collective narcissism predicted lower reparation support among liberals, but unexpectedly, higher collective narcissism predicted greater reparations support among conservatives. This discovery became the starting point of the dissertation studies aiming to replicate and explain this intriguing finding. In the main dissertation, three studies examined the relation between collective narcissism, political ideology and reparation support in different contexts. Study 1 (N = 785) used a pre-registered correlational design with Canadians examining Indigenous reparations support. Study 2 (N = 245) employed a two-wave design with White Americans examining Black reparations support. Studies 1 and 2 replicated this unexpected interaction across Canadian and American contexts – those who are high in conservatism and collective narcissism reported higher support for reparations, whereas the opposite tendency was observed among liberals. Study 3 (N = 1,047) experimentally tested a possible explanation for the observed pattern in the pilot and Studies 1 and 2. Specifically, we examined whether White conservative collective narcissists might support reparations particularly when it makes their group appear more moral, by framing the leaders of a described reparation effort as either White (ingroup) or Black (outgroup). However, the hypotheses tested in Study 3 were not supported, and this study also failed to detect the originally observed effect, with collective narcissism consistently predicting lower support in both conditions. Therefore, the current dissertation has identified an intriguing and potentially important pattern, but has not yet illuminated the underlying mechanism. These findings challenge existing theoretical understandings of collective narcissism by revealing that collective narcissism's relationship with outgroup attitudes is not uniform but varies systematically with political ideology at least in some contexts. Further, examining patterns another way, we see that traditional ideological divides disappear at high levels of collective narcissism, suggesting that psychological factors related to group identity may be more fundamental than conventional political categories in shaping reconciliation attitudes. The research opens new possibilities for understanding how defensive group identification can facilitate rather than impede support for addressing historical injustices.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».