["Political Psychology, Volume 47, Issue 3, June 2026. ", "\nAbstract\nBelonging is a fundamental need, and nations remain potent bases of affiliation. We report a preregistered, cross‐national study testing how national identity (secure attachment) and national narcissism (defensive, recognition‐seeking attachment) relate to social belonging, and whether these links vary with individualism–collectivism. Using data from 57 countries/regions, we estimated multilevel models (individuals nested within countries) and adjusted for standard individual and national covariates. Cultural context was indexed with both the Minkov–Hofstede individualism scores and the Global Collectivism Index, and the comparative effect of national identity versus national narcissism was evaluated with relative weight analysis. Two main conclusions emerge. First, both forms of national attachment are positively associated with social belonging, but national identity is the comparatively stronger correlate when both are considered simultaneously, consistent with the view that secure identification is associated with a generalizable pattern of everyday inclusion. Second, cultural moderation is asymmetric: The narcissism–belonging association varies with cultural value orientations—attenuated in more individualistic and amplified in more collectivistic contexts—whereas the identity–belonging link is comparatively stable across cultures. These findings refine the conceptual distinction between secure and defensive ties to the nation and clarify when national attachment supports felt connection. Implications for theory, civic communication, and belonging interventions are discussed.\n"]