Focus on the Gains? Narcissists and Performing Under Pressure in Sports Dave R. van Schie and Svenja A. Wolf
University of Amsterdam
To be submitted to the International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology (maximum manuscript length: 7500 incl. tables, figure captions, references)
Abstract: 210 words Manuscript: 6276 words
Abstract
The aim of our thesis is to investigate the relationship between narcissism and performance under pressure, exploring the possible mediating role of regulatory focus. Narcissists are known for excelling under pressure (Roberts et al., 2017). Regulatory focus is related to both performing under pressure and narcissism (Ju et al., 2016; Kutzner et al., 2013), and we hypothesized it to mediate the effect between these constructs. As part of an experimental design, 104 skilled handball players (57% male) filled in personality questionnaires and performed a penalty-shooting task under conditions of low- and high-pressure. We executed linear regression analyses to investigate if narcissism was positively related to performance under pressure, and to investigate if regulatory focus was associated with both narcissism and performance under pressure. Mediation analyses were conducted to explore the mediating role of regulatory focus. Results did not confirm our expectations, except for individuals higher on narcissism being more promotion-focused and less prevention-focused than individuals lower on narcissism. Thus, there is a link between narcissism and regulatory focus, but the
mechanism for narcissists to excel under pressure is still uncertain. Our findings can help further studies in investigating what makes athletes perform well under pressure and consultants/coaches/athletes with achieving optimal performances in sports.
Focus on the Gains? Narcissists and Performing Under Pressure in Sports High-stakes situations generally invoke the desire within people to deliver a high-level performance. The desire to perform as well as possible elicits performance pressure
(Baumeister, 1984). In sports context, athletes are often confronted with performing under high pressure. Some athletes perform better under pressure (i.e., clutch performance; Otten, 2009) and others show suboptimal performance under pressure (i.e., choking; Mesagno & Hill, 2013). Our objectives in this research were to better understand the relationship between personality and performing under pressure, and to find a possible explanation for the
differences in performance.
Clutch performance is defined as “any performance increment or superior
performance that occurs under pressure circumstances” (Otten, 2009, p. 584). In contrast, choking in sports is defined as “an acute and considerable decrease in skill execution and performance when self-expected standards are normally achievable, which is the result of increased anxiety under perceived pressure” (Mesagno & Hill, 2013, p. 9). Choking under pressure has been explained by several theories, like reinvestment theory (Masters &
Maxwell, 2008), attentional control theory (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007) and processing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992). All theories suggest that an increase in anxiety, which characterizes high-pressure situations, has a detrimental effect on attentional processes, leading to a decrease in performance. The experience of choking however, does not only affect the athlete’s performance. Choking can also threaten the athlete’s ego
(Baumeister, 1997), decrease levels of enjoyment (Wang, Marchant, Morris, & Gibbs, 2004), and lower the subjective well-being of the athlete (Hill, Hanton, Matthews, & Fleming, 2011). Choking under pressure is a precarious phenomenon, which needs to be investigated. Then, trainers and coaches can adjust the way they approach athletes and consequently reduce the severe consequences, or even prevent choking from happening.
The above theories, already propose an explanation for choking. They do not however, elaborate on why not all people experience a detrimental effect on attentional processes, whereas this knowledge is really important. Possibly, there exist certain safeguards against choking that athletes could learn or implement in their training. This begs the question, which people choke under pressure. Current research validates the view that in sports, an athlete’s proneness to choking (or giving a clutch performance) partially depends on personality variables (Otten, 2009). Personality is an important predictor of performing under pressure, and should be taken into account when investigating sport performance (Allen, Greenlees, & Jones, 2013).
Geukes, Mesagno, Hanrahan, and Kellmann (2013) investigated the relationship between personality traits and performing under pressure in sports. They found that athletes with a tendency to focus attention inwards (i.e., high private self-consciousness), showed decreases in performance in high-pressure situations. Additionally, Geukes et al. (2013) found that athletes with a constant awareness of being evaluated (i.e., high public
self-consciousness) performed better in a high-pressure situation that was defined by a large audience. Geukes, Mesagno, Hanrahan, and Kellmann (2012b) found that the presence of a large audience especially improves the performance of athletes scoring high on narcissism. The positive relationship between high-pressure performance and narcissism has come forward in numerous studies (e.g., Roberts, Woodman, Hardy, Davis, & Wallace, 2013; Roberts, Woodman, & Sedikides, 2017; Wallace & Baumeister, 2002; Woodman, Roberts, Hardy, Callow, & Rogers, 2011). It is unknown, however, why, narcissists excel in these situations.
Campbell’s agency model of narcissism (Campbell & Foster, 2006) provides a possible explanation for the link between performance under pressure and narcissism. According to the model, narcissism is composed of three defining features: (1) a positive
view, (2) a lack of interest in warm and caring interpersonal relationships, and (3)
self-regulatory strategies to appear and feel positive, special, successful, and important (Campbell & Foster, 2006). As a consequence of their self-regulatory strategies, narcissists regularly engage in situations that have an evaluative and daring nature (e.g., high-pressure situations; Foster & Trimm, 2008) and strategically seek out these situations to obtain attention and a sense of success and importance. In other words, narcissists probably have an approach orientation (i.e., behavior towards desired outcomes; Scholer & Higgins, 2013), towards high-pressure situations and potentially follow a promotion rather than a prevention focus.
Promotion and prevention foci are part of regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1998) and important factors with regard to goal pursuit. According to the theory, there is a promotion motivational system and a prevention motivational system. The prevention motivational system is concerned with protection, responsibility, and safety (Higgins, 1998). In contrast, the promotion motivational system is concerned with advancement, growth and
accomplishment (Higgins, 1998). Promotion-focused individuals tend to interpret situations as a challenge, whereas prevention-focused individuals tend to interpret them as a threat (Higgins, 1997). In other words, promotion-focused individuals have a more facilitative appraisal than prevention-focused individuals. As a result, the emotional state of promotion-focused individuals often is more adaptive. They tend to experience emotions associated with happiness, whereas prevention-focused individuals tend to experience emotions indicating agitation (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Consequently, promotion-focused individuals are more likely to have a better performance than prevention-focused individuals (Crowe & Higgins, 1997), and probably perform better under pressure.
Both narcissism and promotion focus are associated with optimal performance. As mentioned, narcissists have the tendency to approach desirable outcomes and frequently engage in evaluative situations to achieve their goals (Foster & Trimm, 2008). Because of
their approach-orientated behavior, they could be more accustomed to these situations (e.g., Elliot & Thrash, 2001), and as consequence will be less prone to choking while performing under pressure (e.g., Owens, Stewart, & Huebner, 2016). Additionally, being promotion-focused also seems to be beneficial to performance under pressure due to having a facilitative appraisal and adaptive emotions (Crowe & Higgins, 1997).
Current research appears to validate the view of existing relationships between
narcissism and being promotion-focused, and regulatory focus and performing under pressure. Foster, Shenesey, and Goff (2009) showed that narcissists experience heightened perceptions of possible gains, indicating a relationship between narcissism and a promotion focus.
Moreover, Ju, Ji, Lan, and You (2016) conducted a study with flight cadets and analysed whether cadets high in narcissism were high in promotion focus as well. Their findings showed a positive and significant relationship between narcissism and promotion focus, indicating that narcissistic flight cadets tend to be more promotion-focused. Furthermore, in sports context, Kutzner, Förderer, and Plessner (2013) found that sport performance in professional golfers increased when regulatory focus matched the task. Plessner, Unkelbach, Memmert, Baltes, and Kolb (2009) demonstrated the same effect with soccer players. Hence, available evidence seems to point that regulatory focus is associated with narcissism and with sport performance. It seems probable that regulatory focus may be an important factor of the mechanism causing narcissists to perform well under pressure. However, the interaction between regulatory focus, narcissism and performing under pressure has not yet been investigated in one study.
In sum, previous research has shown that pressure has an influence on performance outcome (Geukes, Mesagno, Hanrahan, & Kellmann, 2012a). Personality has been found to be an important predictor of performance under pressure (Allen et al., 2013). Narcissism has come forward as one the main examples of a personality type that performs well under
pressure (Geukes et al., 2012b). Ju et al. (2016) showed that narcissistic people often are more promotion-focused, and being promotion-focused has been associated with optimal
performance (Crowe & Higgins, 1997).
Based on this, we expected the following for our study (see Figure 1): (H1) the higher the level of narcissism, the better athletes will perform under pressure; (H2.1) the higher the level of narcissism, the stronger the athletes’ promotion focus and (H2.2) the weaker their prevention focus will be; (H3.1) the stronger the athletes' promotion focus and (H3.2) the weaker their prevention focus, the better they will perform under pressure. Finally, we expected regulatory focus to explain the relationship between narcissism and performing under pressure, and hence, (H4) regulatory focus will mediate the relationship between narcissism and performance under pressure.
Figure 1. Regulatory focus as mediator between narcissism and performance under high-pressure.
Method Design
This study followed a 2 (pressure condition) x 1 within-subjects field experiment that replicated previously used procedures (Geukes et al., 2012b; 2013). Following this design, skilled handball players performed a penalty-shooting task under conditions of low- and high-pressure and provided responses to personality questionnaires.
Participants
Data for this study was collected with 59 male and 45 female handball players (N = 104), who were on average 24.07 years (SD = 6.00) old. All athletes played minimally at an intermediate level in Dutch clubs and had an average of 14.77 years (SD = 7.19) of handball-playing experience. This way, it was ensured that athletes were generally skilled enough to execute in the experimental shooting task.
Materials
Narcissism. To assess narcissism, participants completed the Dutch translation of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Barelds & Dijkstra, 2010). This is a 40-item
questionnaire developed by Raskin and Hall (1988), based on Raskin and Hall (1979). In our study, an internal consistency of Cronbach’s α = 0.83 was found, which is considered good (George & Mallery, 2003). Each of the 40 items contains two self-descriptive statements, one statement indicating narcissism (e.g., “I have a natural talent for influencing people”), and one neutral statement (e.g., “I am not good in influencing people”). Participants chose one of the statements and one point was given every time the participant chose a statement indicating narcissism. Hence, a minimum score of 0 points and a maximum score of 40 points was possible with higher scores indicating greater narcissism.
Regulatory focus. To determine chronic regulatory focus, participants completed the
Dutch version of the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) created by Lockwood et al. (2002). The questionnaire consists of two subscales to measure both promotion and
prevention focus. In our study, the internal consistency for the promotion focus subscale was Cronbach’s α = .84 and for the prevention focus subscale Cronbach’s α = .79, which are considered good and acceptable internal consistencies, respectively (George & Mallery, 2003). Both subscales contain nine items with statements indicating a promotion focus (e.g., “I frequently imagine how I will achieve my hopes and aspirations”), or a prevention focus
(e.g., “I am more oriented toward preventing losses than I am toward achieving gains”), respectively. All items were rated on a 9-point scale with endpoints labelled 1 (Not at all true of me) and 9 (Very true of me). Consequently, both subscales have a minimum score of 9 points and a maximum score of 81 points with higher values indicating a greater promotion and prevention focus, respectively.
Performance. Performance was recorded via a camera. Figure 2 displays point
allocation determined by contact with the tarpaulin. A maximum of five points per throw was possible and overall performance per condition was measured by the sum of points across eight throws. Therefore, a performance score ranged between 0 and 40 points per condition with higher values indicating a better performance.
Manipulation check. To assess if participants experienced more pressure in the
high-pressure condition compared to the low-high-pressure condition, athletes rated their experienced amount of pressure on a 9-point scale with endpoints labelled 1 (Not at all true) and 9 (Very true) with higher values indicating more experienced pressure.
Demographics. To assess participant’s age, sex, and handball experience (i.e., how
many years they had been playing, if they often took penalty shots, on what level they played or used to play), athletes completed additional questionnaire items.
Figure 2. Schematic display of the tarpaulin attached to the goal with explaining scoring system. Dark grey area is the
circular target hole. (adapted from Geukes, Mesagno, Hanrahan, & Kellmann, 2012a).
Procedure
After ethics approval, we recruited handball teams using e-mail and Facebook. For every data collection, two experimenters visited the usual training sites of the teams. We then introduced ourselves to the coach(es) and the team and explained the aim of the study, the procedure, and asked athletes to provide informed consents. After that, we randomly divided athletes into pairs and determined the random sequence of performance, both between and within pairs. Subsequently, based on previously used procedures (Geukes et al., 2012b; 2013), athletes performed a penalty-shooting task that entailed them throwing eight balls
successively from the seven-meter line at the goal. The aim was to throw the balls into a circular target hole (diameter 40 cm) of a tarpaulin that was hung in the centre of a standard handball goal (see Figure 2). Before shooting, athletes answered the manipulation check and when they did not have to perform, they filled in the personality questionnaires. Pairs
performed the penalty-shooting task in both a low- and high-pressure condition. The order of conditions was counterbalanced across participating teams to control for possible influences of condition sequences. With regard to the personality data, we did not expect order of completion to have an effect, because personality traits are relatively stable (Larsen & Buss, 2008).
Low-pressure condition. In the low-pressure condition, we kept the pressure as low
as possible. Only we as experimenters and the performing dyad were present in the gym and the camera that was used was focused on the goal to record the athletes’ performance. We as experimenters first gave a brief condition-specific instruction according to protocol and then tried to look as indifferent as possible during task execution. After task completion, the dyad returned to the locker-room (or another separated part of the building) where the rest of the team was waiting and completing the questionnaire measures.
High-pressure condition. In the high-pressure condition, we as experimenters also
started with a condition-specific instruction according to protocol and pairs also performed the shooting task. In this condition, however, the whole team including the coach(es) was present and watching the performance. Furthermore, we installed a second camera and focussed it on the athletes. We gave a bogus explanation, indicating that these records would be used for coaching and referee courses, which can then be analysed with regard to technique and biomechanical parameters. To amplify the pressure even further, we told the team that the athlete who scores the most points in this round obtained a monetary reward of five euros.
Results Preliminary Analyses
Data preparation. Initially, we examined our data for missing values and outliers
was removed due to being 3.39 standard deviations below the mean performance under low pressure. Descriptive statistics of all scores (including pressure scores) and correlations between narcissism, regulatory focus (promotion focus, prevention focus), and performance (low pressure, high pressure) are provided in Table 1.
Effectiveness of the pressure manipulation. To test whether participants experienced
more pressure during the high-pressure condition as compared to the low-pressure condition, we conducted a one-tailed paired samples t-test. Results and examination of the mean values (Table 1) showed that this was the case, t(99) = 7.83, p < .001, d = .78.
Order effects. To investigate whether condition-order had any effects on our
independent variables (i.e., performance, regulatory focus), we calculated independent samples t-tests (with Bonferroni corrections to account for multiple comparisons; Stevens, 2012). The tests revealed that athletes starting under low pressure performed better under pressure (M = 3.97, SD = .37) than athletes starting under high pressure (M = 3.68, SD = .54; t(89.53) = 3.26, p = .001, d = .64). Furthermore, athletes starting under low pressure were more promotion-focused (M = 6.51, SD= 1.02) than athletes starting under high pressure (M = 5.79, SD = 1.22; t(102) = 3.24, p = .002, d = .64). This indicates that condition-order explains some of the variance regarding high-pressure performance and promotion focus scores.1 Consequently, we controlled for condition-order in our regression analyses regarding high-pressure performance and promotion focus.
1We also tested for effects of sex, age, and handball experience but found these to be
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and Correlations for Narcissism, Regulatory Focus, and Performance Scores
Range M SD Narcissism Pro Pre Per LP Per HP Narcissism 0 – 40 15.05 6.51 - .23* -.23* .23* .12 Pro 9 – 81 55.21 10.53 .23* - .21* .09 .07 Pre 9 – 81 38.57 11.89 -.23* .21* - .08 .02 Per LP 0 – 40 30.14 5.03 .23* .09 .08 - .59*** Per HP 0 – 40 30.53 3.90 .12 .07 .02 .59*** - MC LP 1 – 9 2.83 1.61 MC HP 1 – 9 4.27 1.86
Note. Pro = promotion focus; Pre = prevention focus; Per LP = performance low-pressure condition; Per HP = performance
high-pressure condition; MC LP = manipulation check low-pressure condition; MC HP = manipulation check high-pressure condition, N = 104 (Narcissism, Pro, Pre), N = 103 (Per LP, Per HP), N = 102 (MC LP), N = 100 (MC HP).
*p < .05. ***p < .001. Main Analyses
H1: Narcissism and performance under pressure. To test our first hypothesis, we
regressed performance under high pressure on narcissism while controlling for performance under low pressure (i.e., baseline ability) and condition-order. Results showed that athletes’ levels of narcissism did not predict their performance under pressure, β = -.03, t(102) = .41, p = .685 (for the full results, including estimates for the control variables of these and the analyses below, see the Appendix).
H2: Narcissism and regulatory focus. We tested our second hypothesis by regressing
promotion and prevention focus on narcissism while controlling for condition-order when regressing promotion focus.2 Analyses showed that athletes’ levels of narcissism weakly and
positively predicted their promotion focus, β = .21, p = .025, and weakly and inversely predicted their prevention focus, β = -.23, p = .022.
2We corrected for an inflated type I error using the Bonferroni correction when performing
H3: Regulatory focus and performance under pressure. To test our third
hypothesis, we regressed performance under high pressure on promotion and prevention focus while controlling for performance under low pressure (i.e., baseline ability) and condition-order (see Footnote 2). Results showed that athletes who were more promotion-focused did not perform better under pressure than athletes who were less promotion-focused, β = -.07, p = .397. Similarly, more prevention-focused athletes did not perform worse under pressure than athletes who were less prevention-focused, β = -.04, p = .568.
H4: Narcissism, regulatory focus, and performance under pressure. Even though,
we did not find a direct effect of narcissism on performance under pressure, we proceeded with our mediation analyses to explore potential changes in the results. We utilized Haye’s PROCESS tool (Hayes, 2013), using 5000 bootstrapped samples and calculating indirect effects based on 95% confidence intervals. When ‘0’ was within the confidence interval, mediation effects were not significant (Hayes, 2013). Not surprisingly, neither promotion focus nor prevention focus mediated the relationship between narcissism and high-pressure performance, β = -.03, CI [-.20, .04] and β = .04, CI [-.06, .17], respectively. Moreover, when including regulatory focus, effects of narcissism on high-pressure performance remained unchanged, Δβ = -.02 and Δβ = -.10, respectively.
Exploratory Analyses
The lack of relations between personality variables and performance under pressure might be the result of limited variance in performance scores and a lack of differences in performance between low and high pressure (Vogt & Johnson, 2011) Therefore, we examined performance scores more thoroughly. First, we calculated a paired samples t-test to examine if there was a difference in performance scores between pressure conditions. Results showed no significant differences in performance between conditions, t(102) = -.69, p = .490, d = .07. In
line with this, Table 1 indicates that the variability in performance scores is fairly low, especially for high-pressure performance.
Second, we repeated the main analyses without taking low-pressure performance (i.e., base-line ability) into account. However, as displayed in more detail in the appendix, the results showed no relevant differences.
Third, along the same lines, we investigated if narcissism and regulatory focus predicted low-pressure performance (i.e., baseline ability). Results showed that athletes who were higher on narcissism performed better in the low-pressure condition β = .23, p = .021. Yet, neither dimensions of regulatory focus significantly predicted low-pressure performance, promotion focus, β = .09, p = .347, prevention focus, β = .08, p = .431.
Discussion
The aim of our study was to investigate the relationship between narcissism and performance under pressure, exploring the possible mediating role of regulatory focus. Results did not confirm our first hypothesis because individuals scoring higher on narcissism did not perform better under pressure than individuals scoring lower on narcissism. Results did confirm our second hypothesis because individuals scoring higher on narcissism were more promotion-focused and less prevention-focused than individuals scoring lower on narcissism. Furthermore, neither promotion nor prevention focus was related to performance under pressure and hence, did not function as a mediator between narcissism and
performance, therefore our third and fourth hypotheses were not confirmed. Exploratory examination showed a positive relationship between narcissism and low-pressure
performance. With this, our findings do not confirm previous research which states that narcissism and regulatory focus are important predictors of performance under pressure, but do confirm work that states a relationship between narcissism and regulatory focus.
Narcissism and Performance
Our study does not provide evidence for the claim that individuals higher on narcissism perform better under pressure than individuals lower on narcissism, as found in other research (e.g., Geukes et al., 2012b; Roberts et al., 2017). A reason for the divergence of our findings might be that our experimental task was not interpreted by narcissistic individuals as enough of an opportunity to obtain attention and success.
Stated in Roberts et al. (2017), the performance of narcissistic individuals is context-specific. Narcissistic individuals excel in situations where there is opportunity for glory (e.g., high-pressure situations; Geukes et al., 2012b), and underperform in situations where this is absent (e.g., training settings; Wallace & Baumeister, 2002). In the study of Geukes et al. (2012b), the high-pressure condition entailed athletes to perform the penalty-shooting task during halftime breaks of professional handball games, with a minimum of 1500 spectators per game. Furthermore, the athlete with the best individual score could win 50 euros and the best team could win 150 euros. In comparison, in our study athletes could only win 5 euros, the team was their only audience, and the experiment was in a training setting. Although our pressure manipulation was successful, it did not result in any changes in actual performance. Thus, the amount of pressure we induced might not have been high enough. Similarly, our high-pressure condition perhaps provided insufficient opportunity for glory for narcissistic athletes. As a consequence, they might not have been motivated enough to perform well.
The possible lack of motivation to perform well could also be related to not really having very narcissistic individuals in our sample (see Table 1). According to psychodynamic theory narcissism consists of two components: grandiosity and vulnerability (Ronningstam, 2011). As stated in Roberts et al. (2017), it is likely that performance under pressure will be optimal if both grandiosity and vulnerability in individuals are high. If that is the case, narcissists are strongly motivated to make themselves look and feel good, enabling them to create a buffer to
protect their vulnerable side (Manley, Roberts, Beattie, and Woodman, 2016). In our study we only measured grandiose narcissism (NPI; Barelds & Dijkstra, 2010; Raskin & Hall, 1979), which was low, and the vulnerability component of narcissism was missing entirely.
Therefore the interaction between the components and the influence on motivation is unknown, possibly explaining why no relationship was found (Roberts et al., 2017).
Not really having very narcissistic individuals in our sample could also explain the positive relationship between narcissism and low-pressure performance. Narcissism is positively related to self-esteem (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2010) and sometimes seen as an exaggerated form of self-esteem (Pulver, 1970). Perhaps the low mean scores on narcissism partially indicated an athletes’ level of self-esteem. Consequently, individuals higher on narcissism probably are more confident than individuals lower on narcissism, enabling them to perform better in low-pressure situations, confirming research of Otten (2009).
Narcissism and Regulatory Focus
Our results provide evidence that narcissism is positively associated with being promotion-focused, confirming previous research (Ju et al., 2016), and negatively associated with being prevention-focused. This indicates that individuals higher on narcissism are more focused on gains and rewards, and are less focused on avoiding risks and negative outcomes than individuals lower on narcissism. Therefore, they are more likely to employ behavior strategies focussed on approaching situations that match with their goals. However, it should be noted that these effects were marginally significant.
Regulatory Focus and Performance
In our study, we found no evidence for either promotion focus or prevention focus being associated with performance. With this, our findings differ from previous research that showed an improvement in sport performance when there was a match between athletes’ chronic regulatory focus and task (Kutzner et al., 2013; Plessner et al., 2009). Again, this
could be a consequence of our research design offering too little opportunity for glory, and therefore gains, to motivate athletes. Specifically, contrary to Kutzner et al. (2013) and
Plessner et al. (2009) we did not frame the instructions in our experimental task in a particular way to activate either a promotion or a prevention focus. Perhaps, the explicit framing of the task as an opportunity for gains (i.e., promotion frame) vs. a chance for losses (i.e., prevention frame) is needed to activate athletes' regulatory focus and consequently find an effect on their performance.
Further, the differences between our results and previous work could be because athletes’ measured regulatory focus (RFQ; Lockwood et al., 2002) was unrelated to the handball
context. Whereas previous studies adapted the questionnaire to measure athletes’ regulatory focus related to sports (Kutzner et al., 2013; Plessner et al., 2009), did we measure athletes’ chronic and context-unspecific regulatory focus. It could be that athletes who are normally prevention-focused, are more promotion-focused in a handball context, or the other way around. This corresponds to the view that people have both a chronic regulatory focus and situation-specific regulatory foci (Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998).
Implications
The findings of our study suggest that narcissistic traits maybe are not the cause,
whereupon people give a clutch performance. However, given the amount of evidence for the positive relationship between narcissism and high-pressure performance (e.g., Roberts et al., 2013; Woodman et al., 2011), this seems improbable. It seems more likely that narcissists in general do excel in high-pressure situations, however opportunity for glory is essential to motivate them (Roberts et al., 2017). If that is the case, they are provided a possibility to protect their vulnerable self (Manley et al., 2016). Furthermore, evidence confirms that individuals higher on narcissism are more focused on gains and less on avoiding risks than individuals lower on narcissism. Our findings do not confirm that being promotion-focused or
prevention-focused influences sport performance. However, opportunity for glory, and framing of instructions, could bear significant consequences in the relationship between regulatory focus and performance (Kutzner et al., 2013; Plessner et al., 2009; Roberts et al., 2017).
This information can be used for further directions in research and if confirmed, hold important implications for coaches and trainers. It is important to promise narcissists certain rewards for establishing predetermined outcomes. Hence, they will be more motivated due to feeling there is more to gain when they perform well. Also depending on athletes’ regulatory focus in sports, instructions should be framed in accordance with the regulatory focus, so either focused on obtaining gains (i.e., promotion focus) or on avoiding risks (i.e., prevention focus). Furthermore, it is important to prepare prevention-focused individuals for high-pressure situations because they probably are more prone to choking under high-pressure. We therefore recommend letting them train more frequently in situations with a mild level of anxiety because this helps athletes to maintain their performance in situations with a high level of anxiety (Oudejans & Pijpers, 2010).
Limitations and Future Research Directions
A number of caveats need to be noted regarding our study and considerably more work has to be done to fully comprehend the relationship between narcissism, regulatory focus, and performance under pressure. To start, we had a relatively small sample size and limited variability in narcissism. Similar studies (e.g., Geukes, 2012a; 2012b), however, had even smaller samples (N = 59; N = 55). Nonetheless, future research should seek out samples with higher narcissism for example by recruiting at professional handball games and tournaments.
A second limiting factor was our pressure manipulation. As mentioned, even though the pressure manipulation was successful, it likely contained insufficient opportunity for glory or risk for failure in the high-pressure condition. Consequently, our manipulation might not have
triggered the motivation within narcissistic and promotion-focused athletes to perform well or the pressure necessary to induce changes in performance. Future research should strive for larger audiences and higher monetary incentives (cf. Geukes et al., 2012b) to create a high-pressure condition with greater opportunity for glory. We also advocate measuring the vulnerability component of narcissism and utilizing a sport-adjusted RFQ (Kutzner et al., 2013; Plessner et al., 2009) to measure the athletes’ regulatory focus. Furthermore, with regards to the experimental design we suggest creating multiple conditions in which
instructions are differently framed. This way it can be determined if it necessary to match the instructions with athletes’ regulatory focus to increase their performance under pressure.
Conclusion
Our study did not provide evidence for narcissistic or promotion-focused individuals to excel under pressure. We learned opportunity for glory is probably essential in motivating narcissistic and promotion-focused athletes to perform well. Individuals higher on narcissism do are more promotion-focused and less prevention-focused than individuals lower on
narcissism. Thus, there is a link between narcissism and regulatory focus, but the mechanism for narcissists to excel under pressure is still uncertain. The findings of our study can help further studies in investigating what makes athletes perform well under pressure and consultants/coaches/athletes with achieving optimal performances in sports.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Svenja A. Wolf (UvA) for her positive, and motivating
supervising style during the master thesis. Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to all teams and coaches cooperating to this study. Especially, I would like to thank Doug Junior van Leeuwen for his substantial help during data collection.
References
Allen, M. S., Greenlees, I., & Jones, M. (2013). Personality in sport: A comprehensive review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 184-208.
Barelds, D. P. H., & Dijkstra, P. (2010). Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Structure of the adapted Dutch version. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 132-138.
Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 46, 610.
Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Esteem threat, self-regulatory breakdown, and emotional distress as factors in self-defeating behavior. Review of General Psychology, 1, 145.
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure?. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 130, 701. Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of
emotions at work. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86, 35-66. Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2006). The Narcissistic Self: Background, an Extended
Agency Model, and Ongoing Controversies 6, (2007).
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 168-188. Chaloner, K., & Brant, R. (1988). A Bayesian approach to outlier detection and residual
analysis. Biometrika, 651-659.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 69, 117-132.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Narcissism and motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 216-219.
Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition & Emotion, 6, 409-434.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336.
Foster, J. D., Shenesey, J. W., & Goff, J. S. (2009). Why do narcissists take more risks? Testing the roles of perceived risks and benefits of risky behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 885-889.
Foster, J. D., & Trimm, R. F. (2008). On being eager and uninhibited: Narcissism and approach–avoidance motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1004-1017.
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference.
Geukes, K., Mesagno, C., Hanrahan, S.J., & Kellmann, M. (2012a). Performing under pressure in private: Activation of self-focus traits. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology.
Geukes, K., Mesagno, C., Hanrahan, S. J., & Kellmann, M. (2012b). Testing an interactionist perspective on the relationship between personality traits and performance under public pressure. Psychology of sport and exercise, 13, 243-250.
Geukes, K., Mesagno, C., Hanrahan, S. J., & Kellmann, M. (2013). Activation of Self-Focus and Self-Presentation Traits Under Private , Mixed , and Public Pressure, 50–59. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American psychologist, 52, 1280. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational
Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (2010). A qualitative exploration of choking in elite golf. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 4, 221.
Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (2011). Alleviation of choking under pressure in elite golf: An action research study. Sport psychologist, 25, 465.
Hill, D. M., & Shaw, G. (2013). A qualitative examination of choking under pressure in team sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 103-110.
Ju, C., Ji, M., Lan, J., & You, X. (2016). Narcissistic personality and risk perception among Chinese aviators: The mediating role of promotion focus. International journal of psychology.
Kutzner, F. L., Förderer, S., & Plessner, H. (2013). Regulatory fit improves putting in top golfers. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 2, 130.
Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Personality psychology. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap, 269-71.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83, 854.
Maddox, W. T., Baldwin, G. C., & Markman, A. B. (2006). A test of the regulatory fit hypothesis in perceptual classification learning. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1377-1397. Manley, H., Roberts, R., Beattie, S., & Woodman, T. (2016). I’ll get there because I’m great,
or am I? Narcissistic vulnerability moderates the narcissistic grandiosity – goal persistence relationship. Manuscript in preparation.
Masters, R., & Maxwell, J. (2008). The theory of reinvestment. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 160-183.
Mesagno, C., & Hill, D. M. (2013). Definition of choking in sport: re-conceptualization and debate. International journal of sport psychology, 44, 267-277.
Otten, M. (2009). Choking vs. clutch performance: a study of sport performance under pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 583–601.
Oudejans, R. R., & Pijpers, J. R. (2010). Training with mild anxiety may prevent choking under higher levels of anxiety. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 44-50.
Owens, L., Stewart, C., & Huebner, E. (2016). The clutch athlete, choking and personality. Sports Coaching Review, 1-16.
Plessner, H., Unkelbach, C., Memmert, D., Baltes, A., & Kolb, A. (2009). Regulatory fit as a determinant of sport performance: How to succeed in a soccer
penalty-shooting. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 108-115.
Pulver, S. E. (1970). Narcissism: The term and the concept. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 18, 319-341.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological reports. 45, 590.
Raskin, R. N., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54, 890.
Roberts, R., Callow, N., Hardy, L., Woodman, T., & Thomas, L. (2010). Interactive effects of different visual imagery perspectives and narcissism on motor performance. Journal of sport & exercise psychology, 32, 499.
Roberts, R., Woodman, T., Hardy, L., Davis, L., & Wallace, H. M. (2013). Psychological skills do not always help performance: The moderating role of narcissism. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25, 316-325.
Roberts, R., Woodman, T., & Sedikides, C. (2017). Pass me the ball: narcissism in performance settings. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1-24.
Ronningstam, E. (2011). Psychoanalytic theories on narcissism and narcissistic personality. The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments, 41-55.
Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2013). Dodging monsters and dancing with dreams: Success and failure at different levels of approach and avoidance. Emotion Review, 5, 254-258. Shah, J., Higgins, T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: how
regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74, 285.
Stevens, J. P. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Routledge. Vogt, W. P., & Johnson, R. B. (2011). Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology: A
Nontechnical Guide for the Social Sciences: A Nontechnical Guide for the Social Sciences. Sage.
Wallace, H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). The performance of narcissists rises and falls with perceived opportunity for glory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82, 819.
Wang, J., Marchant, D., Morris, T., & Gibbs, P. (2004). Self-consciousness and trait anxiety as predictors of choking in sport. Journal of science and medicine in sport, 7, 174-185. Woodman, T., Roberts, R., Hardy, L., Callow, N., & Rogers, C. H. (2011). There is an “I” in
TEAM: Narcissism and social loafing. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 82, 285-290.
Zeigler Hill, V., Clark, C. B., & Pickard, J. D. (2008). Narcissistic Subtypes and Contingent Self Esteem: Do All Narcissists Base Their Self Esteem on the Same
Appendix
Additional Results Regarding the Preliminary Analyses and the Main Analyses
Preliminary Analyses
We performed multiple analyses to ensure results regarding high-pressure performance and regulatory focus were not being influenced due to effects of other factors.
Order effects. Condition-order did not affect participants’ low-pressure performance
mean scores, t(101) = .71, p = .480, d = .14, or their narcissism mean scores, t(102) = .69, p = .492, d = .04. Furthermore, condition-order did not affect participants’ prevention focus mean scores, t(102) = .81, p = .418, d = .16.
Sex. We have conducted several independent samples t-tests to control for possible
effects of gender. Male and female athletes performed approximately the same in the high-pressure condition, t(101) = .11, p = .915, d = .02 Male and female athletes also did not differ in being promotion-focused, t(102) = .52, p = .606, d = .10, or in being prevention-focused, t(102) = .89, p = .378, d = .18.
Age. To test whether age had a relevant effect on performance and regulatory focus
scores, we performed linear regression analyses. No high-pressure performance differences in athletes of varying ages were found, β = .04, t(101) = .56, p = .574. Age also was not related to being promotion-focused, β = -.12, t(102) = 1.23, p = .222, or being prevention-focused, β = -.17, t(102) = 1.78, p = .078.
Handball experience. To test whether handball experience was a predictor of
performance, promotion focus, or prevention focus, we conducted linear regression analyses. For high-pressure performance, it did not matter how many years of handball experience an athlete had, β = .07, t(102) = .89, p = .374, nor for promotion focus, β = -.06, t(103) = .65, p = .518, or for prevention focus, β = -.19, t(103) = 1.94, p = .055.
Narcissism and performance under pressure. The model was significant F(3, 99) =
24.24, p < .001. The R2 = .42, so the model explained 42% of the variance. Athletes’ mean low-pressure performance was a significant predictor, β = .58, t(102) = 7.89, p < .001, just as condition-order, β = .27, t(102) = 3.51, p = .001. Furthermore, when low-pressure
performance (i.e., base-line ability) was not taken into account, athletes’ levels of narcissism still did not predict their performance under pressure, β = .10, t(102) = 1.03, p = .304.
Narcissism and promotion focus. The model was significant F(2, 101) = 8.04, p =
.001. The R2 = .14, so the model explained 14% of the variance. Condition-order was a significant predictor, β = .29, t(103) = 3.14, p = .002.
Narcissism and prevention focus. The model was not significant F(1, 102) = 5.45, p
= .022. The R2 = .04, so the model explained 4% of the variance.
Promotion focus and performance. The model was significant F(3, 99) = 24.56, p <
.001. The R2 = .43, so the model explained 43% of the variance. Athletes’ mean low-pressure performance was a significant predictor, β = .58, t(102) = 7.57, p < .001, just as condition-order, β = .29, t(102) = 3.59, p = .001. Furthermore, when low-pressure performance (i.e., base-line ability) was not taken into account, results stayed the same, β = -.02, p = .826.
Prevention focus and performance. The model was significant F(3, 99) = 24.33, p <
.001. The R2 = .42, so the model explained 42% of the variance. Athletes’ mean low-pressure performance was a significant predictor, β = .58, t(102) = 7.53, p < .001, just as condition-order, β = .27, t(102) = 3.53, p = .001. Furthermore, when low-pressure performance (i.e., base-line ability) was not taken into account, results stayed the same, β = -.00, p = .986.
Narcissism, promotion focus, and performance. The model was significant F(4, 98)
= 18.22, p < .001. The R2 = .43, so the model explained 43% of the variance. Athletes’ mean low-pressure performance was a significant predictor, β = .48, t(102) = 7.40, p < .001, just as condition-order, β = .27, t(102) = 3.56, p < .001. Furthermore, when low-pressure
performance (i.e., baseline ability) was not taken into account, results stayed the same, β = -.02, CI [-.10, .07].
Narcissism, prevention focus, and performance. The model was significant F(4, 98)
= 18.18, p < .001. The R2 = .43, so the model explained 43% of the variance. Athletes’ mean low-pressure performance was a significant predictor, β = .48, t(102) = 7.40, p < .001, just as condition-order, β = .26, t(102) = 3.54, p = .001. Furthermore, when low-pressure
performance (i.e., base-line ability) was not taken into account, results stayed the same, β = .01, CI [-.06, .08].
