New research provides evidence that political partisans in the United States who perceive their group as a primary victim of injustice are more likely to support policies that undermine democratic norms. The study suggests that this phenomenon, known as competitive victimhood, fuels hostility by encouraging partisans to view their opponents as less than human. These findings were published in The Journal of Social Psychology.
The events of January 6, 2020, highlighted a deep divide in the American political landscape. While many Democrats viewed the storming of the U.S. Capitol as an attack on democracy, many of the insurrectionists believed they were the victims of a stolen election.
Chloe M. Nguyen and her colleagues sought to understand the psychological processes that turn these competing narratives of victimization into toxic polarization. The researchers, affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania, Duke University, University College Dublin, The University of Utah, and Tel Aviv University, aimed to determine if competing for victim status predicts support for anti-democratic actions.
To investigate this, the research team conducted a large-scale survey involving 2,000 participants. They recruited a sample that was evenly split between self-identified Republicans and Democrats. The researchers weighted the data to ensure it was nationally representative regarding age, gender, race, education, and other demographic factors.
Participants completed a series of measures designed to assess their psychological attitudes toward their political group and their opponents. First, they completed a scale measuring competitive victimhood. This involved rating their agreement with statements such as the idea that their group has experienced more injustice throughout history than the opposing group.
The researchers also measured dehumanization and prejudice. To assess dehumanization, participants rated how much they believed the opposing party possessed certain traits. These traits included negative descriptions like “savage” or “lacking morals,” as well as reverse-coded positive traits.
Prejudice was measured using feeling thermometers. Participants indicated their warmth or coldness toward the opposing political party on a sliding scale. Finally, the study assessed support for anti-democratic policies using a measure coined “outgroup spite.”
This measure asked participants to rate their agreement with aggressive political tactics. For instance, items asked if their party should do everything possible to hurt the opposing party, even at the short-term expense of the country. Other items asked about redrawing districts to maximize electoral wins or restricting news organizations associated with the opposing party.
The results indicated that both Democrats and Republicans exhibited high levels of competitive victimhood. There was no significant difference between the two parties in the intensity of their belief that they were the “true” victims. For both groups, higher levels of competitive victimhood were significantly correlated with greater support for anti-democratic policies.
The researchers then used statistical modeling to understand the psychological pathways driving this relationship. They found that the link between competitive victimhood and anti-democratic support was mediated by dehumanization. Partisans who felt their group was the victim were more likely to view the other side as lacking essential human qualities.
This process of dehumanization, in turn, predicted a willingness to support policies that would harm the opposing party and subvert democratic processes. For Democrats, dehumanization was the primary mediator explaining this relationship. Prejudice did not play a significant role in the pathway for Democrats when controlling for other factors.
For Republicans, the psychological process was slightly different. Both dehumanization and prejudice mediated the relationship between competitive victimhood and support for anti-democratic policies. This suggests that for Republican participants, both viewing the opponent as less human and holding negative emotional feelings toward them contributed to the endorsement of hostile policies.
These findings build upon a growing body of literature regarding the psychology of victimhood. Previous research led by Boaz Hameiri, a co-author of the current study, established a link between a personality trait known as the “Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood” and support for political violence. Hameiri’s earlier work suggested that individuals who persistently perceive themselves as victims in their daily lives are more likely to endorse violent political actions.
The current study expands this concept from the individual level to the group level. It demonstrates that when entire political groups adopt a victim mindset, it can justify aggressive actions against opponents. This aligns with the “Significance Quest Theory,” which posits that people may turn to extremism to restore a sense of personal or group significance that they feel has been lost or threatened.
The results also resonate with research on the motivations behind victimhood claims. A study by Nurit Shnabel and colleagues found that both advantaged and disadvantaged groups engage in competitive victimhood. They do so to protect their group’s moral reputation and to gain social power.
Shnabel’s work highlighted that victim status is often associated with innocence and entitlement to resources. The current study by Nguyen and colleagues provides evidence that this desire for moral superiority can have dangerous consequences for democratic stability. It suggests that the fight for the moral high ground can lead partisans to strip their opponents of their humanity.
Additionally, the findings align with research on the “dark” aspects of victim signaling. Researchers such as Karl Aquino and Ekin Ok have investigated how individuals use signals of victimhood and virtue to gain resources. Their work indicates that some people deploy victimhood claims as a strategy to manipulate others and acquire status.
Aquino’s research has shown that observers can sometimes detect these strategic motives. When people engage in “virtuous victim signaling,” they may be perceived as possessing dark personality traits like narcissism and Machiavellianism. The current study adds a political dimension to this, showing that group-level victimhood is not just a plea for help but a predictor of hostility.
Timothy Bates and colleagues have also explored the link between dark personality traits and victim signaling. Their research confirmed that traits like narcissism and Machiavellianism are strong predictors of virtuous victim signaling. They found that individuals with these traits often use claims of victimhood as a resource transfer strategy.
While the current study focused on group dynamics rather than individual personality traits, the parallels are clear. In both contexts, the claim of victimhood serves as a justification for behavior that might otherwise be seen as unacceptable. By casting the ingroup as the victim, partisans can rationalize anti-democratic behavior as a necessary defense against a villainous opponent.
The connection to conspiracy beliefs is another area where this study fits into the broader scientific context. Daniel Toribio-Flórez and his team found that individuals with high “victim justice sensitivity” are more likely to endorse conspiracy theories. People who feel they are constantly treated unfairly tend to be suspicious of powerful groups and hidden plots.
This suspicion likely fuels the dehumanization observed in the current study. If a group believes they are the victims of a rigged system or a malevolent conspiracy, it becomes easier to view the alleged perpetrators as monsters rather than political rivals. This mindset reduces the psychological barrier to supporting policies that violate democratic norms.
Nguyen and her colleagues acknowledged some limitations to their study. The data were cross-sectional, which means the study cannot prove that competitive victimhood causes anti-democratic attitudes. It is possible that the relationship works in the opposite direction or is bidirectional.
For example, individuals who hold anti-democratic views might adopt a victim narrative to justify their hostility. Additionally, the study was restricted to the United States. The specific dynamics of American polarization may not apply to other countries with different political systems or histories of conflict.
The researchers also noted that while competitive victimhood was high, the overall support for anti-democratic policies was relatively low. Most Americans still claimed to reject policies that would explicitly harm the country. However, the strong correlation suggests that as feelings of victimhood rise, the resistance to such policies may weaken.
Future research could explore interventions designed to reduce feelings of competitive victimhood. If partisans can be encouraged to acknowledge the suffering of the opposing group, it might reduce dehumanization. The authors emphasize that political discourse focused on winning the title of “victim” may be actively harming democratic health.
The study, “When victimhood threatens democracy: competitive victimhood predicts anti-democratic policy support through dehumanization for Republicans and Democrats,” was authored by Chloe M. Nguyen, Samantha L. Moore-Berg, and Boaz Hameiri.
