![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/angry-man-750x375.jpg)
New research suggests that when people believe their social group is treated as unimportant by others, they tend to report more anger about their group’s treatment and more anxiety about its future. These feelings were in turn linked to involvement in collective action, support for strong leadership, and, among White Americans, support for punitive policies. The findings were published in European Journal of Social Psychology.
The research examines a psychological concept known as collective anti-mattering. This is the belief that one’s specific social group does not count, is ignored, or is viewed as disposable by other groups or by society at large. It expands on the idea of personal anti-mattering, which describes the painful experience of feeling personally unnoticed or unvalued by other people. Research into personal feelings of unimportance, such as a 2021 study of adolescents and young adults, indicated that feeling like one does not matter to others is a unique form of distress that predicts loneliness and depression.
“The idea grew out of research on mattering, the basic psychological need to feel that we are noticed, valued, and significant to other people,” Nassim Tabri, an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at Carleton University, told PsyPost. “More recent work has examined anti-mattering, which is the belief that other people actively regard you as unimportant or insignificant.”
“We examined whether people can experience something analogous at the group level: not simply ‘I don’t matter,’ but ‘people like us don’t matter,'” he explained. “Historically marginalized groups may feel that their concerns or suffering are ignored by more advantaged groups or institutions, whereas members of historically advantaged groups may sometimes feel that their group is increasingly being overlooked or displaced.”
Tabri and colleagues proposed that this same feeling can occur at the group level and influence political life. When groups feel that they are morally invisible, they may experience two distinct emotional responses: group-based anger and collective angst. Group-based anger is a reaction to perceived unfairness in the present moment. It is the feeling that one’s group is being illegitimately devalued, which often motivates people to confront the source of the injustice.
Collective angst, on the other hand, is an anxiety focused on the future. It occurs when people fear that their group’s vitality, culture, or very existence might be in jeopardy. Previous work on group dynamics, such as a 2021 set of experiments, indicated that White people reminded of demographic changes, particularly those who saw race relations as zero-sum, felt more anxiety about their group’s future, which was linked to less support for progressive social movements and more anti-immigrant sentiment.
By studying collective anti-mattering, the authors sought to understand how feeling disregarded acts as a starting point for both anger and angst. They theorized that this single feeling could push marginalized groups to demand recognition and push advantaged groups to defend their status.
To test these ideas, the researchers conducted three separate studies using data from online panels, meaning the samples were not nationally representative. In the first study, they recruited 368 Black American adults who completed questionnaires measuring their sense of collective anti-mattering, individual anti-mattering, perceived injustice toward their group, group-based anger toward White Americans, and collective angst. Finally, participants reported how often they take part in collective action on behalf of Black Americans, such as demonstrations, and how much they agreed that their group needs a strong leader who will do whatever it takes to get things done for it.
The researchers found that collective anti-mattering was distinct from personal anti-mattering and strongly predicted both group-based anger and collective angst. It was also strongly correlated with perceived injustice, but statistical analyses showed the two were separate concepts.
The two emotions, however, predicted different outcomes. Higher levels of collective angst were associated with more frequent involvement in collective action, while anger did not predict collective action. Both collective angst and group-based anger predicted greater support for a strong leader, though the items measured broad support rather than specific authoritarian actions. Across the three studies, the statistical models explained only 6% to 12% of the differences in collective action, compared to 13% to 55% for strong-leader support.
For the second study, the researchers surveyed 552 Black British citizens living in the United Kingdom to see if the patterns would hold true in a different national context. The participants completed similar measures, focusing on their perceptions of how Black British people are viewed by White British people. They also answered questions about whether they felt White British people tried to control their group’s identity, a concept known as collective autonomy restriction.
The results of the second study showed that collective anti-mattering on its own was essentially unrelated to collective action, but it was again linked to both group-based anger and collective angst. Just as with the American participants, collective angst was the emotion linked to collective action. Both anger and angst were associated with support for strong leadership. The study also showed that feeling collectively disregarded is a separate experience from feeling that one’s group is being explicitly controlled or treated as less than human.
The third study shifted focus to a historically advantaged majority group. The researchers surveyed 399 White American adults, balancing the sample between Democrats and Republicans. This time, the collective anti-mattering questions asked participants how much they felt White Americans were disregarded by other Americans or by society in general. Along with measuring anger, angst, collective action, and strong-leader support, the researchers asked participants about their political attitudes, including their support for government bans on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, as well as their support for persecuting undocumented immigrants, measured with statements ranging from praising the work of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to supporting the use of physical force and even executions.
Believing that White Americans no longer matter to society predicted higher levels of both group-based anger and collective angst, although average levels of collective anti-mattering were much lower among White Americans (about 2.1 on a 1-to-7 scale) than among Black Americans (about 4.0) or Black British participants (about 3.5). Collective angst was again linked to more involvement in collective action and stronger support for a strong leader. Unlike in the first two studies, anger was not linked to strong-leader support.
Group-based anger, however, was linked to different outcomes. Higher levels of anger were associated with stronger support for banning diversity initiatives and a greater willingness to support punitive measures against undocumented immigrants, while collective angst was not. These effects remained consistent even when the researchers adjusted their statistical models to account for whether the participant was a Democrat or a Republican. This differs from the 2021 experiments described earlier, in which anxiety about the group’s future, rather than anger, was linked to anti-immigrant sentiment.
“What struck me most was the consistency of the basic psychological pattern across groups who occupy very different structural positions in society,” Tabri said. “I was also struck by what we found when we expanded the range of political outcomes examined among White Americans. In this group, anger associated with perceived disregard was, in turn, associated with greater support for punitive and exclusionary political responses, including opposition to DEI initiatives and support for punitive treatment of undocumented immigrants. This suggests that the consequences of believing that one’s group does not matter may depend on the emotion involved and the broader social and political context.”
“I would characterize the findings as meaningful but not deterministic,” he added. “Collective anti-mattering showed moderate-to-large associations with the emotional processes we examined, particularly group-based anger and collective angst, but political attitudes and behavior obviously have many causes. The practical significance, in my view, comes less from any single effect size than from the consistency of the pattern across three samples and two countries. Perceiving that one’s group is disregarded appears to capture a psychologically meaningful form of group grievance.”
There are a few things to keep in mind when interpreting these findings. All three studies relied on cross-sectional survey data, meaning the researchers measured all variables at a single point in time. Because of this, it is not possible to establish a strict chain of cause and effect between feelings of disregard, specific emotions, and political behaviors.
“We found that collective anti-mattering was associated with particular emotions and political responses in theoretically meaningful ways, but we cannot conclude from these studies alone that making people feel that their group does not matter will cause those responses,” Tabri noted. “I would also caution against interpreting the findings as equating the experiences of advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Black Americans and Black British people may perceive disregard in the context of longstanding discrimination and structural inequality, whereas perceptions of disregard among White Americans can arise despite their group’s continued structural advantage.”
The researchers also emphasized how to view the study’s leadership questions. “Support for a ‘strong leader’ in our measures should not automatically be interpreted as support for authoritarianism,” Tabri said. “A strong leader can be understood as someone who protects or advances the group’s interests without necessarily rejecting democratic norms. This is one reason we distinguish strong-leader support from the more explicitly punitive and exclusionary outcomes we examined among White Americans.”
Additionally, the focus of the collective anti-mattering questions varied between the studies. In the first two studies, participants were asked about disregard from a specific majority group, while the third study asked about disregard from society more broadly. Future research could investigate whether feeling ignored by a specific group produces different political reactions than feeling ignored by social institutions as a whole.
Looking ahead, Tabri outlined plans to further investigate these dynamics. “An important next step is to establish whether collective anti-mattering actually has a causal influence on group-based emotions and behavior,” he said. “Experimental studies that manipulate perceptions of collective disregard, along with longitudinal studies that follow these processes over time, will help establish whether changes in collective anti-mattering precede changes in anger, anxiety about the group’s future, and political behavior.”
“One aspect of the concept that I think is especially important is the distinction between being treated unfairly and feeling that your group simply does not count,” Tabri said. “Injustice is about what is being done to a group; collective anti-mattering is about what people believe their group means to others—whether its concerns, welfare, and future are regarded as consequential. That distinction may help us understand some contemporary political grievances that are difficult to capture solely in terms of material interests or explicit discrimination. People and groups want not only fair outcomes but recognition that they matter.”
The study, “Collective Anti-Mattering: Belief That One’s Group Is Being Disregarded Fuels Collective Action and Authoritarian Leadership Support Among Both Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups,” was authored by Nassim Tabri, Isabelle Boutros, and Michael J. A. Wohl.