Social judgement of defensive and secure social identities among advantaged and disadvantaged groups

Abstract

This research integrates social judgement and social identity theories to examine evaluations of defensive (narcissistic) and secure social identity (vs. lack of identification) expressed by targets with varying group statuses (advantaged vs. disadvantaged). Across three studies (total N = 2,915), we manipulated target group status and forms of identity. In socioeconomic groups (Study 1), an advantaged target with a defensive identity was deemed assertive, while a disadvantaged counterpart was perceived as moral. Unexpectedly, in ethnocultural groups (Studies 2–3), the disadvantaged target expressing a defensive identity was judged equally or more assertive than the advantaged target. Notably, defensive identity from a disadvantaged target consistently garnered higher moral judgement than from an advantaged target. These results highlight that defensive identity can receive positive evaluations and confer elevated status. Nonetheless, we observed differential evaluation strategies depending on intergroup settings, suggesting system justification in socioeconomic groups versus ingroup favouritism in U.S. ethnic groups.