I’d rather… Get Ahead Versus Get Along: Do Interpersonal Goals Separate Narcissism and Self-Esteem?
Masha Gouliaeva
Pedagogical Sciences, University of Amsterdam Youth at Risk
Maud Hensums Eddie Brummelman
Abstract
Although narcissism and self-esteem have some overlap, a growing body of research tell us they are distinctive constructs. Do interpersonal goals contribute to this distinction? In light of research on narcissism and self-esteem, the aim of the current study was to examine adolescents’ social motivations regarding their levels of narcissism and self-esteem. Participants (N = 119, 12-16 years, 44% female adolescents) filled in self-report
questionnaires, regarding narcissism, self-esteem and interpersonal goals. I used two Multiple Regression Analyses to examine to what extent either agentic goals or communal goals can be predicted by adolescents’ degree of narcissism and self-esteem. Findings indicated that individuals high in narcissism are high in agentic goals and are low in communal goals. In contrast, high self-esteemers are low in agentic goals, but high in communal goals. These results suggests that narcissists and high self-esteemers differ in their profile regarding their social motives. This is an addition to our current knowledge on this topic in adolescence and might help us further in the development of healthy self-views. The findings are discussed in light of theoretical and practical implications for future research and interventions.
I’d rather… Get Ahead Versus Get Along: Do Interpersonal Goals Separate Narcissism and Self-Esteem?
“I don’t care what you think unless it is about me.” – Kurt Cobain. Knowing that he is one of the most iconic musicians in history of rock, it is easier to turn a blind eye to such a comment. We can presume that because of all of his success, he probably just built up a lot of self-esteem. While it is easier to justify a phrase like that, coming from an icon like Cobain, would we still tolerate it if it came from a friend? Would we still think he just had a lot of self-esteem? Or could it be something else?
For a long time, both psychologists and the media have treated narcissism as a form of inflated self-esteem (Brummelman, Gürel, Thomaes, & Sedikides, 2018). However, a
growing body of research tells us otherwise. Not only are narcissism and self-esteem modestly correlated at best (Thomaes & Brummelman, 2016), but narcissists1 and high self-esteemers2 also differ on several domains, such as in their development (Thomaes, Bushman, De Castro, & Stegge, 2009), beliefs (Brummelman et al., 2018), and outcomes (Konrath & Bonadonna, 2014). On the one hand, narcissists come of as confident, successful individuals with great charisma. They report greater happiness (Konrath & Bonadonna, 2014) and life satisfaction (Rose, 2002; Sedikes, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004). However, taking a closer look, it uncovers the less favourable story. Narcissists show lower life
satisfaction and well-being over the long term (Cramer & Jones, 2008; Edelstein, Newton, & Stewart, 2012; Zuckerman & O’Loughlin, 2009) and interpersonal impairments
(Ogrodniczuk, Piper, Joyce, Steinberg, & Duggal, 2009), such as reduced likeability and relationship discontinuation (Campbell & Campbell, 2009). This contrasts with high self-esteemers who are well-liked by others (Gruenenfelder-Steiger, Harris, & Fend, 2016) and report positive well-being (Orth, Robin, & Widaman, 2012). Adding to that, the earlier
1 Individuals high in normal narcissism 2 Individuals high in global self-esteem 2 Individuals high in global self-esteem
mentioned narcissists’ reports of higher levels of personal well-being, were fully mediated by high self-esteem (Rosenthal & Hooley, 2010; Sedikes et al., 2004). This suggests that the two self-concepts differ in how they affect important life outcomes (Thomaes & Brummelman, 2016). What contributes to this distinction? Could these differences also be explained by their social motives? Recognizing their distinction, is essential for academic efforts in helping individuals to develop healthy views of themselves (Brummelman et al., 2018). In this study I will examine to which interpersonal goals adolescents regarding their degree of narcissism and self-esteem strive for.
Developmental perspective
From the age of 8, children start to develop the ability to form self-esteem, now that self-reflection and abstract reasoning unfold (Brummelman, 2018; Thomaes et al., 2009). Furthermore, in early adolescence, children become able to view the self from the perspective of the other, as well as to make global negative evaluations of the self (Brummelman, 2018; Thomaes et al., 2009). More specifically, children now become more self-conscious and concerned about how they are viewed by others (Thomaes et al., 2009). It is not surprising then that early adolescence is a time where children become increasingly motivated to
achieve status, respect and social acceptance (Thomaes et al., 2009). Adolescence is therefore an essential period to get more insight in the development of differences between narcissists and high self-esteemers.
How to tell the two apart
In this study, I focus on normal narcissism (Miller & Campbell, 2010) and global self-esteem (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). Both refer to continuous constructs that are normally distributed throughout the population, in which individuals differ in the extent to which individuals display the trait. Normal narcissism is characterized by an inflated grandiose self-image (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Narcissists find themselves better
than others, higher in status and power (Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikes, 2002), better looking and more intelligent (Grijalva & Zhang, 2016). Not only do they find themselves superior, they disregard other people’s feelings (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Just like Cobain’s quote might imply; this indifference applies, until it involves them. That is, narcissists are overly concerned with how they are evaluated by others and attach great importance on recognition and admiration (Campbell, Bush, Brunell, & Shelton, 2005). In this way, narcissists are dependent on other people’s admiration to maintain their grandiose self (Baumeister & Vohs, 2001; Thomaes & Brummelman, 2016).
Similarly, individuals with high global self-esteem hold a favorable evaluation of the self (Baumeister et al., 2003). However, high self-esteemers find themselves intrinsically worthy, reflecting an affective evaluation about the self and not necessarily in relation to others (Thomaes, Stegge, Bushman, Olthof, & Denissen, 2008). That is, a high self-esteem reflects a feeling of being good enough, without necessarily being better or above anyone else. Furthermore, high esteemers find their foundation in acceptance and self-respect (Ackerman et al., 2011). It makes the self less dependent on and resistant towards evaluations of others. Here I refer to global self-esteem which reflects feelings of how one feels about one’s worth, as opposed to a fragmented self-esteem, involving thoughts about the self and specific facets (Baumeister et al., 2003).
The further distinction between the two individuals might also be explained through the dynamic self-regulatory processing model (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). In this model, narcissism develops in the context of the individual’s social environment. The individual is driven by the goal to obtain and maintain their grandiose self, which can be shaped through intrapersonal processes, as well as interpersonal processes. These processes can involve cognitive adjustment to situations in order to protect the enhanced self (intrapersonal), but also via behavior, such as surrounding with high-status peers (interpersonal) (Morf &
Rhodewalt, 2001). Given that high self-esteemers are less concerned with the evaluation of others, but rather carry a feeling of being good enough and worthy (Thomaes et al., 2008), they are not preoccupied with constructing one’s enhanced self.
To make it more practical; one of these processes might involve interpersonal goals. Interpersonal goals are directed to attain, maintain or avoid certain outcomes for oneself in relation to peers (Ojanen, Grönroos, & Salmivalli, 2005). These reflect social motives that represent two clusters: one involves motives towards agency (striving for dominance, status and getting admiration versus submissively going along with others expectations) or
communion (striving for closeness and affiliation with peers versus concealing one's thoughts and feelings) (Ojanen et al., 2005). In line with the regulatory model, individuals actively operate in their social environments, and structure their social world to bring them in line with their goals (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001).
Both narcissists and high self-esteemers find agency important. As mentioned, narcissists are mainly driven by the desire to gain admiration and self-enhancement (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Their desire prompts narcissists to behave in an agentic manner, such as displaying dominance and self-assurance (Leckelt, Küfner, Nestler, & Back, 2015).
Specifically, this includes behaviors like talking, expressive gestures and facial expressions, displaying confidence and being a strong presence (Leckelt et al., 2015) and associating with high status individuals (Campbell, 1999). Given that narcissists are preoccupied with how they are evaluated, it seems that they operate in order to achieve social status (Grapsas, Brummelman, Back, & Denissen, 2020).
High self-esteemers just like narcissists, value themselves on agentic traits, such as intelligence and openness (Campbell et al., 2002), but they are not necessarily focused with how they are evaluated solely. For instance, whereas narcissists want to be specifically admired, high self-esteemers want to be popular (Campbell et al., 2002). Furthermore, status
and respect become more important for adolescents (Ojanen et al., 2005). Accordingly, adolescents become more sensitive for being seen and respected as an autonomous individual (Yeager, Dahl, Dweck, 2018). Therefore high self-esteemers are more likely to display initiative behaviors and speak up (Baumeister et al., 2003).
Where narcissists seem to differentiate from high self-esteemers more strongly is on communal goals. Rather than investing in their existing close relationships and emotional connections, narcissists are more interested in gaining new partners (Wurst et al., 2017) to enhance their status and other short-term benefits (Campbell & Campbell, 2009). These short-term benefits include positive self-views, affect, successful date life and high likability (Campbell & Campbell 2009). Although their insensitiveness and exploitation of others, comes at the cost of their relations, the benefits on the short-term to enhance their self, wins. Therefore narcissists use others for their own gain and hold others in low regard (Baumeister & Vohs, 2001).
In contrast, high self-esteemers place value on getting along with others. Firstly, feelings of belongingness are a basic human need (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008). Accordingly, having close relations with parents and peers is an important source of self-esteem (Laible, Carlo, & Roesch, 2004). These bonds contribute to a feeling of belongingness, competence and being valued for who they are, and serve as building blocks for a high self-esteem (Brummelman et al., 2015; Brummelman, 2018). Furthermore, the other is seen as equally worthy (Brummelman, 2018). In turn, high self-esteemers appreciate having close relations with others and want to get along and fit in (Brummelman et al., 2018).
Together these findings imply that narcissists and high self-esteemers both are agentic oriented (Leckelt et al., 2015; Ojanen et al., 2005; Salmivalli et al., 2005), but might differ in their social profile when it comes to communal goals. Whereas narcissists seem to lack in communal goals (Campbell & Campbell, 2009; Brummelman et al., 2018; Wurst et al.,
2017), high self-esteemers attach importance to them (Thomaes et al., 2008). This goes not without consequences, as an agentic orientation has been linked to aggression and peer rejection, while a communal orientation is associated with prosocial behaviors and peer acceptance (Caravita & Cilessen, 2012; Salmivalli et al., 2005). Consequently narcissists experience more interpersonal difficulties, such as difficulties in relations, inability to maintain relations and decrease in likeability (Campbell & Campbell, 2009). Accordingly, both narcissism and self-esteem, need to be understood in relation to individual interpersonal goals, to get more insight into adolescents’ social context. In turn this might provide more meaning to how self-views develop and are maintained (in relation to peers).
The present study
The aim of this study is to investigate interpersonal goals in adolescents and how these goals differ for high self-esteemers and narcissists. Of particular interest of this study is to study this in young adolescents. Given that adolescence is a critical developmental period when motivations to develop and maintain favorable self-views, avoid unfavorable ones, social acceptance and use of techniques to create a favorable self-view become more
important (Thomaes et al., 2009). Additionaly, interpersonal goals are salient in adolescence (Ojanen et al., 2005). Although earlier research has suggested that adolescents high in narcissism are solely agentic oriented and high self-esteemers are agentic as well as
communal (Thomaes et al., 2008; Salmivalli et al., 2005), replication is needed to make more accurate and convincing statements.
This raises the following research question: to what extent do adolescents high in narcissism and high in self-esteem predict interpersonal goals? Therefore, I hypothesize the following. Firstly, I hypothesize that narcissism and self-esteem would correlate within the range of small to moderate. Secondly, I hypothesize that adolescents high in narcissism would be higher in agentic goals. Furthermore, I hypothesize that the higher adolescents are
in narcissism the lower they will be in communal goals. Fourthly, adolescents high in self-esteem, will be high in agentic goals. Last but not least, adolescents high in self-esteem will also be high in communal goals.
Methods Participants
Participants were 119 young adolescents (44% adolescent females) from a public school in the Netherlands. Participants ranged in age from 12 to 16 years (M = 13.98, SD = 0.98). Most participants were Caucasian (58%), and 42% had other cultural ethnic
backgrounds. The latter groups were pupils whom were born in another country and/or with at least one parent originating from Turkey, Morocco, Surinam, or another (European) country. To participate, adolescents received informed parental consent and gave their own assent before assessment. Adolescents could withdraw from the study at any time. In total 330 students received informed parental consent, of which 149 parents gave assent, and 120 adolescents gave their own. During inspection of data, one case was excluded due to invalid data. Beforehand we obtained approval from the ethical commission and permission from the school. The school was contacted through a newsletter within a school community.
This school offers preparatory secondary vocational education divided into 4 different levels, in each a different combination of theory and practical vocational training is combined (e.g. “vmbo- basis”, “vmbo-kader”, “vmbo-gemengd” and “vmbo-theoretisch"). Specifically, most of the adolescents were following the basis” program (35%) and the “vmbo-kader” program (33%).
Measures Narcissism
Narcissism was assessed with the Childhood Narcissism Scale (CNS), (Dutch
feigns of superiority and entitlement and exploitative interpersonal attitudes (Thomaes et al., 2008). Sample items include “I am a great example for other kids to follow,” and “I often succeed in getting admiration”. Items are rated along a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not all true) to 3 (completely true). In the present study, the alpha coefficient for the scale was good (Cronbach’s α = 0.77). CNS is a reliable, one-dimensional measure of stable individual differences in childhood narcissism (Thomaes et al., 2008). The internal consistency and the test-retest stability of the instrument are good (Thomaes et al. 2008). Responses were
summed, with higher scores indicating higher levels of narcissism.
Self-esteem
Self-esteem was measured using the 4-item Lifespan Self-Esteem Scale (LSE) (Dutch version) (Harris, Donnellan, & Trzesniewski, 2018). The LSE assesses global self-esteem administered on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (really sad) to 5 (really happy). LSE is found to be an useful, unidimensional scale with good internally consistency, and is relatively stable across a 1-year period in childhood and early adolescence (Harris et. al, 2018). Furthermore it is a useful instrument in large-scale studies assessing multiple constructs, and with
populations with shorter attention spans and limited vocabulary skills (such as children) (Harris et. al, 2018). Sample items include “How do you feel about yourself?,” and “How do you feel about the kind of person you are?”. The Cronbach’s alpha in this study was 0.92. Responses were averaged to create an indicator of self-esteem, such that higher scores indicated higher levels of self-esteem.
Social goals
Adolescent social goals in the peer context were assessed with the Interpersonal Goals Inventory for Children, (IGI-C) (Dutch version) (Ojanen et al., 2005). With the frame “When with your age-mates, how important is it for you that…”, participants rated the subjective importance of various interpersonal outcomes on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 (not
important for me at all) to 3 (very important to me). The measurement is a validated, useful scale with adequate internal consistency and reliability (Ojanen et al., 2005). The IGI-C consists of the following 8 scales: agentic (e.g. “The others respect and admire me”),
submissive and separate (e.g. “You don’t do anything foolish”), communal goals (e.g. “I feel close to the others”), agentic and separate (e.g. “The group does as I say”), submissive and communal (e.g., “The others accept you”), separate (e.g., “You don’t let your peers know how you feel”), agentic and communal (e.g., “The others listen to what you have to say”), and submissive (e.g. “The others do not get angry with you”). Cronbach’s alphas for this study were satisfactory and ranged from 0.56 to 0.77. Reliabilities of the goal scales are consistent with other research (Caravita & Cillessen, 2012). These scales represent different blends of agentic goals (striving for power and getting admiration vs. submissively going along with others expectations) and communal goals (striving for closeness and affiliation with peers vs. concealing one's thoughts and feelings). Therefore, following Ojanen et al., (2005), I computed agentic and communal vector scores. First, the scales were ipsatized; scores were expressed as deviations from their mean (see Fischer & Milfont, 2010, for more). Second, I computed vector scores for the dimensions of agency and communion from these ipsatized scores, as follows:
Agentic vector = Agentic − Submissive + (0.707(Agentic and Communal + Agentic and Separate – Submissive and Communal − Submissive and Separate)
Communal vector = Communal − Separate + (0.707(Agentic and Communal + Submissive and Communal −Agentic and Separate − Submissive and Separate).
These vectors should then correlate weakly (Ojanen et al., 2005), which was confirmed by the non-significant correlation between the two vectors (r = -.06).
I used agentic and communal vector scores rather than the separate scales of the IGI-C, considering the circumplex model does not treat the separate goals as mutually exclusive, given that agentic and communal goals take on dimensional properties to different extents
(Ojanen et al., 2005; Ojanen, Aunola, & Salmivalli, 2007). Therefore, this way the two vectors allow for a parsimonious examination of the two fundamental social motives, agency and communion, regarding their self-esteem and narcissism in children (Ojanen et al., 2007).
Procedure
Participants were tested in two days during school hours in their classrooms, using pen and pencil questionnaires. Children were placed with enough space between them and other classmates to ensure they would not cheat off. Only the children who had parental informed consent could participate. The ones who did not, were instructed by the teachers or our research team to do a school-related task, separately from the participants. Before starting we gave out information and instructions that was needed before and during the assessment. We told the children the purpose of the study (improving high school climate), that it was not a test, and made rules to ensure anonymity. Furthermore it was told that children could
withdraw from the study at any time, for any reason. Before starting children had to give their assent by writing down their names and class. This study is part of a larger project (Project INFLUENCE), but only CNS (Thomaes et al., 2008), LSE (Harris et al., 2018) and IGI-C (Ojanen et al., 2005) scales were used for this study. When children were finished with the questionnaire we asked them to check if they had filled in all of the questions, before handing them in. All in all, this took approximately 30 minutes of the participants’ time.
Analysis strategy
To compute the statistical analyses I used IBM Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS), version 26. Before testing the hypotheses, I performed reliability analyses for each scale. To examine the associations between the variables I used Pearson correlations and nonparametric correlation Kendall’s tau-b. First the assumptions of normality (each variable should be normally distributed), linearity (there should be a linear relationship between the variables) and homoscedasticity (the error variance is assumed to be the same at
all points along the linear relationship) were assessed. I computed a Pearson correlation for the variables for which the assumptions were met and a nonparamatic correlation for the ones that were not normally distributed. The correlation coefficient (r and τ) were used to assess the correlation and the strength of the relationship, effect sizes were interpreted as small (r/τ > .200), medium (r/τ > .500) and large (r/τ > .800) (Ferguson, 2016).
To examine whether and to what extent agentic and communal goals can be predicted by narcissism and self-esteem, I ran two multiple regression analyses (MRA). In the first regression analysis the dependent variable was agentic goals and in the second one communal goals. For both regressions the main effects for narcissism and self-esteem were tested, which were the independent variables in both analyses. With this approach, either self-esteem was controlled for narcissism, or narcissism for self-esteem. This way, I can be confident that narcissism results are not spurious due to self-esteem and vice versa. Regression analyses on both measures are essential to bring the distinction between these overlapping (but
distinctive) constructs to light (Paulhus, 1998).
Before conducting the main effects, I tested the assumptions of normality of residuals (residuals of the regression follow a normal distribution), homoscedasticity of residuals (there is no underlying relationship between the residuals and the fitted values) and absence of multicollinearity (there should be no strong relationship between the predictors). I also inspected the normal distribution of the data, but only the normality of residuals is necessary and therefore checked to meet the assumptions (Kéry & Hotfield, 2003).
Standard multiple linear regression—the enter method—was used. The standard method enters all independent variables (predictors) simultaneously into the model. Unless theory sufficiently supports a different method, enter is standard method of variable entry. Narcissism and self-esteem were evaluated by what they add to the prediction of the agentic goals and communal goals, which is different from the predictability afforded by the other
predictor in the model. The F-test was used to assess whether narcissism and self-esteem collectively predict either the agentic goals or communal goals. R2, the multiple correlation coefficient of determination, was used to determine how much variance in the dependent variables were accounted by the set of predictors. In this study, effect sizes were interpreted as small (R2 > .02), medium (R2 > .13) and large (R2 > .26). The t-test was used to determine the significance of each predictor and beta coefficients were used to determine the magnitude of prediction for each independent variable. For significant predictors, every one unit
increase in the predictor, the dependent variable will increase or decrease by the magnitude of the unstandardized beta coefficient. Furthermore, the semi-partial correlation (sr) was used. The sr is considered as a useful statistic, as when it is squared, it gives the proportion of the variance that is uniquely explained by the predictor. It therefore, is the amount by which R2 would decrease, if the predictor were to be removed from the model (Allen & Bennett, 2012).
After the main analyses, exploratory, additional analyses were performed for the eight individual sub-scales of the IGI-C scale, in the same way as reported above for the main analyses.
Results Preliminary analysis
Descriptives
Means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 1. After testing for normality of the study variables (skewness and kurtosis indices, normal Q-Q plots and Shapiro-Wilks test), a Pearson correlation was computed for the variables narcissism and communal goals. For the variables self-esteem and agentic goals the assumption of normality was violated and therefore Kendall’s tau-b correlations were
computed for these variables. Kendall’s tau-b is generally preferred over Spearman’s rho (the other option), as it tends to provide a better estimate of the true population correlation and is
not artificially inflated by multiple tied ranks (Allen & Bennett, 2012). As seen in Table 1, narcissism and self-esteem were weakly positively associated with each other. In addition, narcissism was positively, but weakly associated with agentic goals and self-esteem was weakly positively associated with communal goals. Mean-level comparisons between agentic goals and communal goals indicated that, on average, students scored higher in communal goals than in agentic goals, t(118) = -15.30, p < .001.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations for Narcissism, Self-esteem, Agentic and Communal Goals
M (SD) Min Max Narcissism
(CNS) Self-esteem (LSE) Agentic goals (IGI-C) Narcissism (CNS) 11.27 (4.94) .00 24.00 Self-esteem (LSE) 2.82 (.80) .00 4.00 .22**b Agentic goals (IGI-C) -.58 (1.02) -3.89 3.16 .29***b .07b Communal goals 1.72 (1.18) -.84 4.28 -.12a .22**b -.06b (IGI-C) aPearson’s correlation. b Kendall’s tau-b correlation.
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
Assumptions
Prior to interpreting the results of the MRA, several assumptions were evaluated. First, stem-and-leaf plots and box plots indicated that narcissism and communal goals were normally distributed. As mentioned before, this was not the case for agentic goals and self-esteem and several outliers were detected. Using the Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)
method (see Leys, Ley, Klein, Bernard, & Licata, 2013, for more), 3 significant outliers were detected. Inspection of the outliers indicated that no errors were found. Furthermore, I
compared the 5% trim mean and mean values and no great difference was found, suggesting that the MRA would not be affected by keeping the outliers (Mat Roni, 2014). Although keeping outliers is mostly preferred (Bakker & Wicherts, 2014; Leys, Declare, Mora, Lakens, & Ley, 2019), to make sure data was not influenced by the outliers, the analysis was run twice (with and without the cases). In line with inspection, analyses showed that results did not differ from each other and outliers belonged to the distribution of interest, and therefore outliers were kept (Leys, et al., 2019).
Second, inspection of the normal probability plot of standardized residuals as well as the scatterplot of standardized residuals against standards predicted values indicated that the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity of residuals were met. Third,
Maximum Mahalanobis Distance (12.70) did not exceed the critical χ2 for df = 2 (at α = .001) of 13.82 for any cases in the data file, indicating that multivariate outliers were not of
concern (Allen & Bennett, 2012). Fourth, relatively high tolerances for both predictors in the regression model indicated that multicollinearity would not interfere with the ability to interpret the outcome of the MRA. A maximum variance inflation factor (VIF) greater than 10 indicates that multicollinearity may be unduly influencing the least squares estimates (Allen & Bennett, 2012). The maximum VIF in the regression analysis was 1.14, indicating that multicollinearity was not a problem. This is in line with the positive and small
correlation (τ = .22) between narcissism and self-esteem falling below the cutoff point of 0.5 (Vatcheva, Lee, McCormick, & Rahbar, 2016). Therefore, I concluded that the assumptions were met and I could continue with the main analyses.
Main analyses
In combination, narcissism and self-esteem accounted for a significant 18% of the variability in agentic goals, which was a moderate effect size (Allen & Bennett, 2012), R2 = .18, adjusted R2 = .17, F(2,116) = 12.63, p < .001. Using α = .05 as criterion for significance, I rejected the null hypothesis that narcissism had no effect when controlling for self-esteem, t(116) = 4.83, p < .001, and concluded that given their self-esteem, the higher students were in narcissism, the more agentic goals they possessed. However, I failed to reject the null hypothesis that self-esteem had no effect when controlling for narcissism, t(116) = -.42, p = .678, and concluded that there is no significant difference in agentic goals for students who are either high or low in self-esteem. Unstandardized (B) and standardized (β) regression coefficients, and squared semi-partial correlations (sr2) for each predictor on agentic goals are reported in Table 2.
Table 2
Unstandardised (B) and Standardised (β) Regression Coefficients, and Squared Semi- Partial Correlations (sr2) For Narcissism and Self-esteem in a Regression Model Predicting Agentic Goals
Predictor B [95% CI] β sr2
Narcissism .09 [.05, .13]*** .44 .17
Self-esteem -.05 [.01, .06] -.04 -.00
Note. N = 119. CI = confidence interval. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001
To What Extent Can Communal Goals Be Predicted by Narcissism and Self-Esteem?
variability in communal goals, which was a moderate effect size (Allen & Bennett, 2012), R2 = .15, adjusted R2 = .14, F(2,116) = 10.55, p < .001. Using α = .05 as criterion for
significance, I rejected the null hypothesis that narcissism had no effect when controlling for self-esteem, t(116) = -2.87, p = .005, and concluded that given their self-esteem, the higher students were in narcissism the less communal goals they possessed. I also rejected the null hypothesis that self-esteem had no effect when controlling for narcissism, t(116) = 4.37, p < .001, and concluded that given their narcissism, students with higher self-esteem tented to possess more communal goals compared to students with lower self-esteem, Unstandardized (B) and standardized (β) regression coefficients, and squared semi-partial correlations (sr2) for each predictor on communal goals are reported in Table 3.
Table 3
Unstandardised (B) and Standardised (β) Regression Coefficients, and Squared Semi- Partial Correlations (sr2) For Narcissism and Self-esteem in a Regression Model Predicting Communal Goals
Predictor B [95% CI] β sr2
Narcissism -.06 [-.11, -.02]** -.26 .06
Self-esteem 59 [.32, .86]*** .40 .14
Note. N = 119. CI = confidence interval. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001
Additional analyses
In addition to the main analyses, I used a standard multiple regression by following the same steps as for the main analyses, only now for the individual sub-scales of the IGI-C. The following results were found: narcissism and self-esteem accounted for a significant
11.0% of the variability in agentic sub-scale, which was a small to moderate effect size (Allen & Bennett, 2012), R2 = .13, adjusted R2 = .11, F(2,116) = 8.55, p < .001. Narcissism and self-esteem accounted for a significant 8.0% of the variability in submissive sub-scale, representing a small to moderate effect size (Allen & Bennett, 2012), R2 = .08, adjusted R2 = .06, F(2,116) = 4.94, p = .009. For the agentic and communal sub-scale, narcissism and self-esteem accounted for a significant 11.0% of the variability, which was a small to moderate effect size (Allen & Bennett, 2012), R2 = .11, adjusted R2= .09, F(2,116) = 7.02, p = .001. Narcissism and self-esteem accounted for a non-significant 3.0% of the variability in agentic and separate sub-scale, R2 = .03, adjusted R2 = .02, F(2,116) = 1.88, p = .158. Narcissism and self-esteem accounted for a significant 10.0% of the variability in submissive and communal sub-scale, which was a small to moderate effect size (Allen & Bennett, 2012), R2 = .10, adjusted R2 = .08, F(2,116) = 6.14, p = .003. Narcissism and self-esteem accounted for a non-significant 4.0% of the variability in submissive and separate sub-scale, R2 = .04, adjusted R2 = .03, F(2,116) = 2.54, p = .083. For the communal sub-scale, narcissism and self-esteem accounted for a significant 9.0%, representing a small to moderate effect size (Allen & Bennett, 2012), R2 = .09, adjusted R2 = .08, F(2,116) = 5.81, p = .004. Narcissism and self-esteem accounted for a non-significant 2.0% of the variability in submissive and separate sub-scale, R2 = .02, adjusted R2 = .00 F(2,116) = 1.07, p = .346. The unstandardized (B) and standardized (β) regression coefficients, and squared semi-partial correlations (sr2) for each predictor on every sub scale are reported in Table 4.
Table 4
Unstandardised (B) and Standardised (β) Regression Coefficients, and Squared Semi- Partial Correlations (sr2) For Narcissism and Self-esteem in a Regression Model Predicting Subscales of the IGI-C Scale
Predictor B [95% CI] β sr2
Agentic sub-scale: appearing self-confident and being admired by others
Narcissism .03 [.01, .06]* .24 .05
Self-esteem .16 [.01, .31]* .20 .03
Agentic and Communal sub-scale: expressing oneself openly, being heard
Narcissism -.02 [-.05, .01] -.13 -.02
Self-esteem .35 [.17, .54]*** .35 .11
Communal sub-scale: feeling closeness to the others and developing true friendships with them
Narcissism -.03 [-.06, -.00]* -.21 -.04
Self-esteem .30 [.11, .48]** .30 .08
Submissive and Communal sub-scale: seeking others’ approval by complying with
Narcissism -.03 [-.05, 0.01]** -.25 -.05
Self-esteem .23 [.08, .37]** .29 .08
Submissive sub-scale: avoiding making others angry by pleasing them
Narcissism -.03 [-.06, -.01]* -.23 -.05
Self-esteem .23 [.06, .40]** .26 .06
Submissive and Separate sub-scale: avoiding social embarrassment
Narcissism -.02 [-.04, .01] -.12 -.01
Self-esteem .19 [.02, .36]* .22 .04
Separate sub-scale: appearing detached, without revealing one’s thoughts and feelings
Narcissism -.00 [-.03, .02] -.03 -.00
Self-esteem -.08 [-.22, .05] -.12 -.01
Agentic and Separate sub-scale: being in control, having no interest in others’ opinions
Narcissism .01 [-.01, .03] .09 .01
Note. N = 119. CI = confidence interval. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
Discussion
In light of research on narcissism and self-esteem, the aim of the current study was to see whether and to what extent narcissism and self-esteem predicted interpersonal agency and communion in adolescents. Findings of the study indicated that adolescents higher in
narcissism tended to possess more agentic goals and less communal goals than adolescents lower in narcissism. In addition, adolescents high in self-esteem tended to possess more communal goals, than adolescents low in self-esteem.
As expected, narcissism and self-esteem were weakly correlated, which is in agreement with existing findings (in early adolescence: Thomaes et al., 2008; in adults: Campbell et al., 2002; Myers & Zeigler-Hill, 2012). These findings imply, that in contrary to conventional wisdom and the media, narcissists do not just simply have an inflated form of self-esteem. Although some of the overlap can be explained by sharing a positive view of the self (Campbell et al., 2002), as earlier said narcissists and high self-esteemers differ on many domains (e.g. development, beliefs and outcomes (Brummelman et al., 2018; Konrath & Bonadonna, 2014; Thomaes et al., 2009)), which makes the two, distinctive constructs from each other.
Narcissism and interpersonal goals
In line with the premise, adolescents high in narcissism tended to possess more agentic goals, than adolescents who were low in narcissism. This finding is consistent with earlier research, in which narcissistic children (Thomaes et al., 2008), as well as adults (Ojanen, Findley, & Fuller, 2012), were agentic oriented. It appears that narcissists strive for
dominance in their interpersonal interactions and are motivated by the desire to gain admiration (Leckelt et al., 2015) and status (Grapsas et al., 2020).
An additional, exploratory inspection of the individual sub-scales seemed to add to this view and some interesting observations were found. For one, in the present study, the higher adolescents were in narcissism the more they wanted to be respected and admired by others (“agentic” sub-scale). This is especially true for traits in relation to appearance, such as intelligence and self-confidence, as a way to impress others, which is also found in earlier research (Campbell et al., 2002). However, no associations were found with the “agentic and communal” and “agentic and separate” sub-scales. This is noteworthy, given the level of narcissism explained a reasonable amount of the variance in the overall agentic goals. For instance, considering the “agentic and separate" sub-scale represents being in control and having no interest in others’ opinions, it could be expected that adolescents high in narcissism would relate to this sub-scale. However, the difference between the "agentic" sub-scale and the other agentic sub-scales is that the former relies more on evaluation, than do the other scales. As we know, narcissists’ main priority and goal is to achieve admiration and strongly concerned with how they are evaluated (Leckelt et al., 2015; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). This they can achieve through agentic means, even if it is at the expense of others (Campbell, Bush, Brunell, & Shelton, 2005).
The latter brings us to the next finding in the present study; the higher adolescents were in narcissism, the less communal goals they possessed. Again, this finding adds to existing research on narcissists inversely relating to communal goals (Thomaes het al., 2008) and valuing agency over communion (Campbell et al., 2002). It might be speculated that narcissists seem to be preoccupied with their own self, that there is no room for compliance or consideration for others, which could explain why narcissistic adolescents do not seek others approval (submissive and communal sub-scale), do not avoid negative reactions from
others, such as anger (submissive sub-scale) and social embarrassment (submissive and separate sub-scale). Therefore, indeed, they rather get ahead, than along (Brummelman et al., 2018).
All together, it seems that there is a pronounced focus on the self, with an exceptional thirst for self-enhancement, that has to be achieved no matter what, no matter who. “The “others exists for me” illusion” (Sedikides, Campbell, Reeder, Elliot, & Gregg, 2002). While it seems solid that narcissistic individuals are agentic oriented, what makes them specifically not communal? What is really underneath the extreme thirst for self-enhancement, does it mask something else?
On the surface, narcissists seem to be socially confident and comfortable in their lack of interest in meaningful relationships. Yet, narcissists are characterized with interpersonal difficulties, such as conflicts in romantic relationships (Campbell & Foster, 2002), inability to maintain relationships (Campbell, Foster, & Finkel, 2002), reduced likeability and negative evaluation in the long-term (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland, 2008; Campbell & Campbell 2009). Given that narcissist are sensitive to the evaluation of the others, it brings suspiciousness to what they actually might be feeling behind all the confidence. While narcissists generally do not worry about being rejected by others, they do experience feelings of anger anxiety when facing a possibility to rejection (De Panfilis et al., 2019). Similarly, narcissists show greater physiological stress in socially threatening situations (Edelstein, Yim, & Quas, 2010), as well as neutral ones (Reinhard, Konrath, Lopez, & Cameron, 2012). This might reveal
sensitiveness to social rejection in narcissistic individuals.
Indeed, when narcissists were socially excluded, increased activity in the social-pain area of the brain was found (Cascio, Konrath, & Falk, 2015). In other words, their lack of interest for others and interpersonal difficulties might be a defence mechanism, to mask their hypersensitivity for social exclusion (Cascio et al., 2015). If this is the case, narcissists might
then be low in communion, to avoid social rejection, due to an exaggerated hypersensitivity for social exclusion. Therefore, they will maintain their low communion profile, to avoid the consequences of social rejection. This might then also explain their defensiveness when one’s self is threatened, and why they can socially withdraw when they perceive others as detached (Roche, Pincus, Conroy, Hyde, & Ram, 2013). This might therefore be an exciting direction for future research. Given that narcissists more often hide their vulnerabilities (Thomaes, Brummelman, & Sedikes, 2017), the use of implicit measurements might help reveal their true underlying feelings concerning self-worth and feelings towards others (Cascio et al., 2015; Zeigler-Hill, 2006).
Self-esteem and interpersonal goals
Although agency is part of the normative development in adolescence, it was expected to be of bigger importance in adolescence high in self-esteem, compared to adolescents low in self-esteem. That is, given the more positive view you hold of yourself, the more initiative taking and confident actions you will take (Baumeister et al., 2003), such as being heard, respected, and admired. Furthermore, previous research has shown that adolescence high in self-esteem are also agentic oriented (Salmivalli et al., 2005). However, the present study could not confirm the expectation.
Even so, taking a closer look at the additional analyses, the agentic orientation for high self-esteemers becomes more apparent. For instance, adolescents high in self-esteem tended to appear self-confident and being admired by others (agentic sub-scale), than
adolescents low in self-esteem. Furthermore, they expressed oneself openly and wanted to be heard (agentic and communal sub-scale). Although there seem to be subtle differences in agentic orientation between high and low self-esteemers, zooming in on the individual subscales, the overall difference in agentic orientation was not found in the present study.
However, failing to find the overall difference in agentic orientation, might be otherwise explained. Self-esteem can be distinguished in many ways. One conception is that self-esteem ranges along a continuum from true self-esteem to contingent self-esteem
(Patrick, Neighbors, & Knee, 2004). The former represents feelings of self-worth that are
well-anchored and independent of successes or failures. Contingent self-esteem, on the other hand, reflects self-worth that is based on certain expectations and attainment of related goals (Patrick et al., 2004). Therefore, when people fail to meet their goals, self-esteem might be threatened (Bongers, Dijksterhuis, & Spears, 2009). In relation to the present study, this could mean that if an individual bases his or her self-esteem on agentic values, such as competence and dominance, but fails to meet the related goals (e.g. popularity or perceived social dominance), a low self-esteem might be the result. The influence can be strengthened by how one views others (Salmivalli et al., 2005) or how important peer acceptance is for the individual. For instance, if you believe that acceptance will be met if you win a game, but you lose, your self-esteem will depend on meeting to those expectations (Patrick et al., 2004). Furthermore, if you view others as negative, you might adjust your behavior (Salmivalli et al., 2005), which can result in not attaining your contingent related goals. Future research could benefit from using true self-esteem to contingent self-esteem measurements and related contingencies (e.g. internal, such as peer acceptance, and external, such as behavioral
outcomes in agency and communion).
In the present study, in contrast to narcissists, the higher adolescents were in self-esteem, the more communal goals they possessed. Again, these findings are in agreement with previous research, in which individuals with high self-esteem are communal oriented (in adolescence: Thomaes et al., 2008; Ojanen et al., 2005; in adults: Campbell et al., 2002). Having healthy relationships with others is an important contributor to global self-esteem (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). More specifically, feelings of belongingness are fundamental
needs (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008), of which relationships with peers are an important source of (Laible et al., 2004). Given that communal goals reflect achieving and maintaining
positive relationships with others, it therefore makes sense that a person with a high feeling of self-worth is communal oriented and therefore rather gets along than ahead (Thomaes et al., 2008; Brummelman et al., 2018).
Limitations, strengths and future directions
As no exception, the present research is not without its limitations. Firstly, given its cross-sectional nature, no conclusions can be made regarding causal inferences. For instance, based on this research, we can not make conclusions regarding the direction of the findings. To draw conclusions on causality and direction, longitudinal research is needed. Furthermore, this study was limited to self-report measurements, on the conscious level. As previously mentioned, implicit measurements might reveal the underlying mechanisms or other data than solely based on the conscious level (Cascio et al., 2015). Accordingly, future research might benefit from use of implicit measurements for self-esteem, narcissism, as well as for interpersonal goals. To further discover underlying mechanisms, adding relational schemas into research might be helpful. These schemas include self-perceptions, peer-perceptions and interpersonal scripts (which include expectations, goals, and feelings in relation to the self and other in interaction) (for further information see Baldwin, 1992). This addition might give insight into how differences between narcissists and high self-esteemers, might also lead to different goals and eventually behaviors. In the present study, I did not examine to which behaviors the differences in narcissism, self-esteem and interpersonal goals might lead. In the future, adding a behavioral outcome and behavioral strategies might add to the understanding of the development and maintenance of narcissism and self-esteem.
All mentioned limitations with accompanied future directions might help answering questions such as: how are narcissism and self-esteem developed and maintained in the social
context? Which behaviors and strategies are involved? What are the underlying mechanisms and implicit beliefs of narcissism and self-esteem and are the observable traits and behaviors a cover up?
Despite its limitations, the present study replicated earlier findings of the role of narcissism and self-esteem in relation to interpersonal goals in adolescents (Thomaes et al., 2008), with an addition in age range for adolescents from 12 to 16 years old. Therefore, this study provided an extension to the research on narcissism and the distinction from self-esteem. Furthermore the additional analyses on the interpersonal goals provided a more in-depth view and insight on the individual interpersonal goals sub-scales.
Practical implications
The findings of the present study, together with previous findings might have implications for interventions in the school context. Recently it has been suggested that middle adolescents (± 13 to 17 years) have a greater sensitivity to status and being respected and therefore status and respect should be components of interventions to capture attention and motivation to change (see Yeager et al., 2018, for more). The findings of this study imply that these methods have potential to address narcissists, by capturing their attention by
eliciting feelings of admiration, while also encouraging healthy agency, such as competence and autonomy (instead of solely the focus on admiration). Simultaneously this could also address low self-esteemers who might find it difficult to practice agency, but in this way get an opportunity to do so.
Furthermore, it might also be of importance to create more opportunities for communal growth – because this might induce high self-esteem (via feedback loops) and could be more stimulated in narcissists who seem to lack communal goals. This can be done by inviting adolescents to think about similarities with others and how they are connected with others (Giacomin & Jordan, 2014), organizing communal activities, using descriptive
social norms, autonomy-supportive practices, and self-persuasion (see Yeager, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2013 for more). Similarly, high self-esteemers could be reached by setting them as social agents, to stimulate communion (see Paluck, Shepherd, & Aronow, 2016 for more). As a result, healthy views might be (in)directly fostered through stimulating connectedness, while also maintaining important agentic needs (Herrera-López, Romera, Gómez-Ortiz, & Ortega-Ruiz, 2016; (Romera, Rabanillo, Gómez-Ortiz, Ortega-Ruiz, & Casas-Bolaños, 2017; Salmivalli et al., 2005). When we know what and which goals individuals find important, we can use this knowledge to align with their needs and reach them appropriately.
These implications are in relation to the findings of the present study and school context. Further implications that address the underlying and implicit beliefs, and directly address narcissism and self-esteem should also be a focus for future research.
Conclusion
The present research highlights the role of narcissism and self-esteem in different social motivations. As expected, narcissistic adolescents were high in agency, and low in communion. Furthermore high self-esteemers were more communal, but in contrast to expectation were not especially agentic oriented. Although I can not make inferences on causality, the present study suggests that the degree of narcissism and self-esteem in adolescents play a small to moderate role in the interpersonal goals adolescents strive for. Given that interpersonal goals and self-esteem are meaningfully related to personal, social and academic adjustment in early adolescents, the findings here lead to further questions regarding narcissism and self-esteem and its development and maintenance (in social context). Several important avenues of future research and practical implications have been suggested. Especially the implicit and underlying mechanisms are exciting directions for future research. It might help us unravel the further truth and add to our understanding of the development and maintenance of self-views.
References
Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the narcissistic personality inventory really measure?. Assessment, 18, 67–87. doi:10.1177/1073191110382845
Allen, P., & Bennett, K. (2012). SPSS Statistics-A Practical Guide. Cengage Learning Australia Pty Ltd.
American Psychiatric Association (2014). Beknopt overzicht van de criteria (DSM-5). Nederlandse vertaling van de Desk Reference to the Diagnostic Criteria from DSM-5®. Amsterdam: Boom.
Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2014). Outlier removal, sum scores, and the inflation of the Type I error rate in independent samples t-tests: The power of alternatives and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 19, 409–427. doi:10.1037/met0000014 Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.461
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self- esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1–44. doi:10.1111/1529- 1006.01431
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Narcissism as addiction to esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 206–210.
Blair, C. A., Hoffman, B. J., & Helland, K. R. (2008). Narcissism in organizations: A multisource appraisal reflects different perspectives. Human Performance, 21, 254– 276. doi:10.1080/08959280802137705
Bongers, K. C., Dijksterhuis, A., & Spears, R. (2009). Self-esteem regulation after success and failure to attain unconsciously activated goals. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45, 468–477. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.007Get
Brummelman, E. (2018). The emergence of narcissism and self-esteem: A social-cognitive approach. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15, 756–767. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2017.1419953
Brummelman, E., Gürel, C., Thomaes, S., & Sedikides, C. (2018). What separates narcissism from self-esteem? A social-cognitive perspective. In A. D. Hermann, A. B. Brunell, & J. D. Foster (Eds.), The handbook of trait narcissism: Key advances, research
methods, and controversies. New York, NY: Springer.
Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Nelemans, S. A., De Castro, B. O., Overbeek, G., & Bushman, B. J. (2015). Origins of narcissism in children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 3659–3662. doi:10.1073/pnas.1420870112 Cacioppo, J.T., Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for
Social Connection. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology,77, 1254–1270. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1254
Campbell, W. K., Bush, C. P., Brunell, A. B., & Shelton, J. (2005). Understanding the social costs of narcissism: The case of the tragedy of the commons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1358–1364. doi:10.1177/0146167205274855
Campbell, W. K., & Campbell, S. M. (2009). On the self-regulatory dynamics created by the peculiar benefits and costs of narcissism: A contextual reinforcement model and examination of leadership. Self and Identity, 8, 214–232.
doi:10.1080/15298860802505129
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2002). Narcissism and commitment in romantic relationships: An investment model analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 484–495. doi:10.1177/0146167202287006
Campbell, W. K., Foster, C. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2002). Does self-love lead to love for others? A story of narcissistic game playing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 340–354. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.340
Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 358–368. doi:10.1177/0146167202286007
Caravita, S. C., & Cillessen, A. H. (2012). Agentic or communal? Associations between interpersonal goals, popularity, and bullying in middle childhood and early adolescence. Social Development, 21, 376–395.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00632.x
Cascio, C. N., Konrath, S. H., & Falk, E. B. (2015). Narcissists’ social pain seen only in the brain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10, 335–341.
doi:10.1093/scan/nsu072
Cramer, P., & Jones, C. J. (2008). Narcissism, identification, and longitudinal change in psychological health: Dynamic predictions. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1148–1159. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.02.008
De Panfilis, C., Antonucci, C., Meehan, K. B., Cain, N. M., Soliani, A., Marchesi, C.,
Clarkin, J. F. & Sambataro, F. (2019). Facial emotion recognition and social-cognitive correlates of narcissistic features. Journal of Personality Disorders, 33, 433–449. doi:/10.1521pedi_2018_32_350
Edelstein, R. S., Newton, N. J., & Stewart, A. J. (2012). Narcissism in midlife: Longitudinal changes in and correlates of women's narcissistic personality traits. Journal of Personality, 80, 1179–1204. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00755.x
Edelstein, R. S., Yim, I. S., & Quas, J. A. (2010). Narcissism predicts heightened cortisol reactivity to a psychosocial stressor in men. Journal of Research in Personality, 44,
565–572. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.008
Ferguson, C. J. (2016). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532-538. doi: 0.1037/a0015808 Fischer, R., & Milfont, T. L. (2010). Standardization in psychological research. International
Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 88–96. doi:10.21500/20112084.852
Giacomin, M., & Jordan, C. H. (2014). Down-regulating narcissistic tendencies: Communal focus reduces state narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 3–24. doi:10.1177/0146167213516635
Grapsas, S., Brummelman, E., Back, M. D., & Denissen, J. J. (2020). The “why” and “how” of narcissism: A process model of narcissistic status pursuit. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 15, 150–172. doi: 10.1177/1745691619873350
Grijalva, E., & Zhang, L. (2016). Narcissism and self-insight: A review and meta-analysis of narcissists’ self-enhancement tendencies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 3–24. doi:10.1177/0146167215611636
Gruenenfelder-Steiger, A. E., Harris, M. A., & Fend, H. A. (2016). Subjective and objective peer approval evaluations and self-esteem development: A test of reciprocal,
prospective, and long-term effects. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1563–1577. doi:10.1037/dev0000147
Harris, M. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2018). The Lifespan Self-Esteem Scale: Initial validation of a new measure of global self-esteem. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 100, 84–95. doi:10.1080/00223891.2016.1278380 Herrera-López, M., Romera, F., Ortega-Ruiz, R. & Gómez-Ortiz, O. (2016). Influence of
social motivation, self-perception of social efficacy and normative adjustment in the peer setting. Psicothema, 28, 32–39.
widespread myth in statistics. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 4, 92– 94. doi:10.1890/0012-9623(2003)84[92:NORDIG]2.0.CO;2
Konrath, S. & *Bonadonna, J.P. (2014, in press) Physiological and health-related correlates of the narcissistic personality. In Besser, A. (Ed.) Psychology of Narcissism. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Laible, D. J., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S. C. (2004). Pathways to self-esteem in late adolescence: The role of parent and peer attachment, empathy, and social behaviours. Journal of adolescence, 27, 703–716. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.05.005
Leary, M.R., & Baumeister, R.F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1–62. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80003-9
Leckelt, M., Küfner, A. C. P., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2015). Behavioral processes underlying the decline of narcissists’ popularity over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 856–871. doi:10.1037/pspp0000057
Leys, C., Delacre, M., Mora, Y. L., Lakens, D., & Ley, C. (2019). How to classify, detect, and manage univariate and multivariate outliers, with emphasis on
pre-registration. International Review of Social Psychology, 32, 1–10. doi:10.5334/irsp.289
Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the
median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 764–766. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013
Mat Roni, S. (2014). Introduction to SPSS, School of Business, Edith Cowan University, Australia. Retrieved [25th april 2020] from www.researchgate.net/publication/ 262151892_Introduction_to_SPSS.
Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). The case for using research on trait narcissism as a building block for understanding narcissistic personality disorder.
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1, 180–191. doi:10.1037/a0018229
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196. doi:10.1207/ S15327965PLI1204_1
Myers, E. M., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2012). How much do narcissists really like themselves? Using the bogus pipeline procedure to better understand the self-esteem of
narcissists. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 102–105. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.09.00
Ogrodniczuk, J. S., Piper, W. E., Joyce, A. S., Steinberg, P. I., & Duggal, S. (2009). Interpersonal problems associated with narcissism among psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 837–842. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.12.005 Ojanen, T., Aunola, K., & Salmivalli, C. (2007). Situation-specificity of children's social
goals: Changing goals according to changing situations?. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 232–241. doi:10.1177/0165025407074636
Ojanen, T., Grönroos, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2005). An interpersonal circumplex model of children’s social goals: Links with peer-reported behavior and sociometric
status. Developmental Psychology, 41, 699–710. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.5.699 Ojanen, T., Findley, D., & Fuller, S. (2012). Physical and relational aggression in early
adolescence: Associations with narcissism, temperament, and social goals. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 99–107. doi:10.1002/ab.21413
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2012). Life-span development of self-esteem and its effects on important life outcomes. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 102, 1271–1288. doi:10.1037/a0025558
Paluck, E. L., Shepherd, H., & Aronow, P.M. (2016). Changing climates of conflict: A social network experiment in 56 schools. PNAS, 113, 566–571.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1514483113
Patrick, H., Neighbors, C., & Knee, C. R. (2004). Appearance-related social comparisons: The role of contingent self-esteem and self-perceptions of attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 501–514. doi:10.1177/0146167203261891 Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement:
A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197–1208. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1197
Reinhard, D.A., Konrath, S., Lopez, W.D., Cameron, H.G. (2012). Expensive egos: narcissistic males have higher cortisol. PloS One,7, e30858.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030858
Roche, M. J., Pincus, A. L., Conroy, D. E., Hyde, A. L., & Ram, N. (2013). Pathological narcissism and interpersonal behavior. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research and Treatment, 4, 315–323. doi:10.1037/a0030798
Romera, E. M., Rabanillo, J. L. F., Gómez-Ortiz, O. G., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Casas-Bolaños, J. A. (2017). Construct, measurement and assessment of social competence in early adolescence. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 17, 337–348.
Rose, P. (2002). The happy and unhappy faces of narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 379–391. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00162-3
Rosenthal, S. A., & Hooley, J. M. (2010). Narcissism assessment in social–personality research: Does the association between narcissism and psychological health result from a confound with self-esteem?. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 453–465.
doi:10.1016/j.jrp2010.05.008
Salmivalli, C., Ojanen, T., Haanpää, J., & Peets, K. (2005). "I'm OK but You're Not" and Other Peer-Relational Schemas: Explaining Individual Differences in Children's Social Goals. Developmental Psychology, 41, 363–375. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.363
Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G., Elliot, A. J., & Gregg, A. P. (2002). Do others bring out the worst in narcissists? The “others exist for me” illusion. In Y. Kashima, M. Foddy, & M. Platow (Eds.), Self and identity: Personal, social, and symbolic (pp. 103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sedikides, C., Rudich, E. A., Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004). Are normal narcissists psychologically healthy?: Self-esteem matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 400–416. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.400
Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., De Castro, B. O., & Stegge, H. (2009). What makes narcissists bloom? A framework for research on the etiology and development of narcissism. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 1233–1247.
doi:10.1017/S0954579409990137
Thomaes, S., Brummelman, E. (2016). Narcissism. In Cicchetti, D. (Ed.), Developmental Psychopathology (3rd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 679–725). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Thomaes, S., Brummelman, E., & Sedikides, C. (2017). Why most children think well of themselves. Child Development, 88, 1873–1884. doi:10.1111/cdev.12937
Thomaes, S., Stegge, H., Bushman, B. J., Olthof, T., & Denissen, J. (2008). Development and validation of the childhood narcissism scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 382–391. doi:10.1080/00223890802108162
Vatcheva, K. P., Lee, M., McCormick, J. B., & Rahbar, M. H. (2016). Multicollinearity in regression analyses conducted in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology (Sunnyvale), 6.
doi:10.4172/2161-1165.1000227
Wurst, S. N., Gerlach, T. M., Dufner, M., Rauthmann, J. F., Grosz, M. P., Küfner, A. C. P., Denissen, J. J. A., & Back, M. D. (2017). Narcissism and romantic relationships: The differential impact of narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 280–306. doi:10.1037/pspp0000113
Yeager, D. S., Dahl, R. E., & Dweck, C. S. (2018). Why interventions to influence adolescent behavior often fail but could succeed. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 101–122. doi:10.1177/1745691617722620
Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2013). An implicit theories of
personality intervention reduces adolescent aggression in response to victimization and exclusion. Child Development, 84, 970–988. doi:10.1111/cdev.12003
Myers, E. M., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2012). How much do narcissists really like themselves? Using the bogus pipeline procedure to better understand the self-esteem of narcissists. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 102–105. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.09.006 Zuckerman, M., & O'Loughlin, R. E. (2009). Narcissism and well-being: A longitudinal
perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 957–972. doi:10.1002/ejsp.594
