- Email: [email protected]
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism: On the pivotal role of trait Antagonism
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism: On the pivotal role of trait Antagonism
15
Brandon Weiss*, W. Keith Campbell*, Donald R. Lynam†, Joshua D. Miller* *Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States, †Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States
Across the myriad instantiations of narcissism (i.e., Greek myth, psychoanalytic conceptualization, scientific models), antagonistic traits, defined by grandiosity, callousness, hostility, manipulativeness, and oppositionality, are omnipresent. According to Greek myth (Ovid & Miller, 1946), Narcissus showed vanity and disdain for others, remorselessly leaving beautiful and besotted suitors nursing their own narcissistic wounds. Psychoanalytic scholars have characterized pathological narcissism by aggressive behavior and narcissistic rage, thought to often emanate from defensive functions of the grandiose self in response to emotional injury (Kernberg, 1974; Kohut, 1972). In the modern era, empirical examinations of narcissistic traits have resulted in several widely used and validated models where antagonistic traits are a central focus. In the present chapter, we answer two questions concerning Antagonism in the context of narcissism: (a) Is Antagonism the core trait of narcissism? and (b) Is the Antagonism of Grandiose narcissism the same as the Antagonism of Vulnerable narcissism? In answering both questions, we use the Trifurcated Model of Narcissism (Miller et al., 2016; Miller, Lynam, Hyatt, & Campbell, 2017) to examine which aspects of narcissism bear the most meaningful associations with constructs central to psychological functioning (i.e., love styles, interpersonal styles, pathological traits). Most research on narcissism has examined narcissism at two primary levels of organization, namely, the single-factor model (e.g., NPD, PNI total score) and the two-factor model (i.e., Grandiose narcissism, Vulnerable narcissism). In the current study, we focus on a three-factor model of narcissism that further delineates narcissism into Agentic Extraversion, Antagonism, and Neuroticism (see Miller et al., 2016, 2017; see also Krizan & Herlache, 2018). To quantify the role that Antagonism plays in narcissism, we compare its empirical correlates to those generated by factors across narcissism’s three levels of organization (i.e., single factor; Grandiose and Vulnerable; Agentic Extraversion, Antagonism, and Neuroticism) using intraclass correlations (ICCs) that assess absolute similarity between correlate profiles. To answer the second question, we examine how levels of specific antagonistic traits vary across narcissism constructs at different levels of organization (i.e., NPD, Grandiose narcissism, Vulnerable narcissism, trifurcated factors). To do so, The Handbook of Antagonism. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814627-9.00015-3 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
222
The Handbook of Antagonism
we use the framework of the most prominent general and pathological personality trait model—the Five-Factor Model (FFM; e.g., APA, 2013; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Accordingly, antagonistic traits will be examined using facets of FFM Agreeableness.
Narcissism as one, two, or three factors At the single-factor level, narcissism measures combine content across Antagonism, Agentic Extraversion, and Neuroticism (e.g., NPD, FFNI Total score), albeit to varying degrees. Although NPD symptoms as described in the DSM-5 criteria primarily (Fossati et al., 2005; Miller, Hoffman, Campbell, & Pilkonis, 2008) resemble Grandiose narcissism, the full DSM-5 description of NPD makes it clear that vulnerability is thought to be involved as well: “vulnerability in self-esteem makes individuals with narcissistic personality disorder very sensitive to ‘injury’ from criticism or defeat. Although they may not show it outwardly, criticism may haunt these individuals and may leave them feeling humiliated, degraded, hollow, and empty” (APA, 2013, p. 671). At the two-factor level, one finds the commonly described and studied dimensions of Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism (Cain, Pincus, & Ansell, 2008; Miller & Campbell, 2008; Wink, 1991), both of which include antagonistic traits. In general, Grandiose narcissism is associated with immodesty, interpersonal dominance, selfabsorption, callousness, and manipulativeness, whereas Vulnerable narcissism is associated with psychological distress, negative affectivity (e.g., anxiety, shame), low self-esteem, distrustfulness, egocentrism, reactive anger, and hostility. These two narcissism dimensions have been discussed using a variety of titles with Grandiose narcissism also referred to as manipulative, phallic, overt, egotistical, oblivious, exhibitionistic, psychopathic; and Vulnerable narcissism also referred to as craving, contact-shunning, thin-skinned, hypervigilant, and shy (Cain et al., 2008). At the three-factor level of narcissism, we conceptualize narcissism as being divisible into agentic aspects of trait Extraversion, Antagonism (or low Agreeableness), and Neuroticism. The approach appears to be part of an emerging consensus with respect to (a) conceptualizing narcissism involving three dimensions and (b) an understanding of the biological and personality bases underlying phenotypic manifestations of narcissism. The trifurcated model is instantiated in the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory (FFNI; Glover, Miller, Lynam, Crego, & Widiger, 2012), a measure of narcissism based on the framework of general personality, which includes at the subordinate (and most parsimonious) level of its organization three dimensions: Antagonism, Agentic Extraversion, and Neuroticism (Miller et al., 2016, 2017). Like our own trifurcated model (Fig. 1), Krizan and Herlache’s (2018) Narcissism Spectrum Model characterizes narcissistic individuals by two main dimensions involving a common elevation in Entitled Self-importance, and fairly distinct functional qualities involving either an approach-oriented Boldness or an avoidance-oriented Reactivity. This model is similar to our conceptualization in which we see Antagonism (akin to their Entitled Self-importance) as the core feature with the other two dimensions (Neuroticism/Reactivity vs Agentic Extraversion/Reactivity) as diagnostic
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism
223
Trifurcated model of narcissism (TMN) Single factor model
NPD
Vulnerable narcissism
Grandiose narcissism
Two factor model
Agentic extraversion
Antagonism
Neuroticism
Three factor model
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Foundational traits
Fig. 1 Trifurcated model of narcissism (TMN). NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. From OSF.IO/2UA35 under CC0 1.0 Universal.
specifiers (Miller et al., 2017).1 Although other expressions of narcissism are possible (e.g., high Antagonism, Agentic Extraversion, and Neuroticism akin to narcissistic personality disorder), a negative association between the latter two traits makes this presentation less likely to occur. Table 1 delineates how contemporary models/measures fit into this integrated model of narcissism.
FFM facet-level profile and correlates of individual functioning at narcissism’s three levels of organization In the following sections, we illustrate how Antagonism contributes to functioning, and examine FFM facet-level correlates of narcissism at three levels of organization (i.e., single-factor; two-factor: Grandiose vs Vulnerable; three-factor: Antagonism, Agentic Extraversion, and Neuroticism) to highlight the role of Antagonism across levels. To accomplish these goals, we combined results from five datasets that included the FFNI. Where measures were identical across datasets, we combined the data before conducting analyses; where outcome measures were similar across datasets, but not identical, we conducted correlational analyses separately for each dataset and averaged across the two sets of correlational values using Fisher z conversion and sample size weighting.
1
Of note, the Antagonism of the FFNI model is broader than the entitlement and self-importance in the NSM of Krizan and Herlache (2018).
224
Table 1 Instantiations of the three-factor model across measures/models of narcissism
The Handbook of Antagonism
Note. Narcissism Spectrum Model ¼ Krizan and Herlache (2018); Five-factor Narcissism Inventory ¼ Glover et al. (2012); Pathological Narcissism Inventory ¼ Pincus et al. (2009); NARQ ¼ Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire ¼ Back et al. (2013); Narcissistic Personality Inventory ¼ Raskin and Terry (1988); Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale ¼ Rosenthal, Hooley, and Steshenko (2007); Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale ¼ Crowe et al. (2018); PID-5 ¼ Personality Inventory for DSM-5 ¼ Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, and Skodol (2012); Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale ¼ Hendin and Cheek (1997); Psychological Entitlement Scale ¼ Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, and Bushman (2004); Interpersonal Exploitativeness Scale ¼ Brunell et al. (2013). From OSF.IO/2UA35 under CC0 1.0 Universal.
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism
225
Table 2 Psychopathological markers in relation to narcissism Singlefactor model
Two-factor model
Three-factor model
FFNI total
FFNI G
FFNI V
FFNI A
FFNI E
FFNI N
n
.33*
–.07
.84*
.44*
–.28*
.74*
95
.17 .37* .42* .73* .68* .59* .61*
–.18 .20 .36* .53* .61* .38* .57*
.70* .42* .20 .54* .29* .53* .22
.38* .48* .49* .80* .67* .70* .62*
–.49* –.13 .08 .18 .36* .02 .30*
.55* .25 .16 .31* .15 .40* .01
95 95 95 95 95 95 95
.56*
.51*
.23
.47*
.44*
.14
95
.50* .46*
.37* .17
.36* .64*
.67* .56*
–.05 –.07
.15 .41*
95 95
.33* .17 .13 –.13
.10 –.09 –.13 .10
.53* .64 .64 –.58
.40* .14 .15 –.14
–.10 –.08 –.17 .18
.38* .54 .55 –.56
95 690 690 1070
DSM-5 traits Negative affectivity Detachment Psychoticism Disinhibition Antagonism Manipulative Deceitfulness Grandiosity Attention seeking Callousness Hostility Internalizing Anger Anxietym Depressionm Self-esteemm
Note. G ¼ Grandiose; V ¼ Vulnerable; A ¼ Antagonism; E ¼ Agentic Extraversion; N ¼ Neuroticism; m superscript indicates where inferential statistical results are not presented given correlation values were combined across multiple datasets; bold indicates where FFNI A correlation values significantly differ from FFNI total, FFNI G, FFNI V, FFNI E, and FFNI N; P < .01.
Correlates of individual functioning at three levels of organization In this section, we examine correlates of functioning/impairment across three levels of organization. We selected three important areas: psychopathology (Table 2); externalizing behaviors, aggression, and psychopathy (Table 3); and interpersonal and attachment styles (Table 4). To determine if correlates differ significantly between FFNI Antagonism and other narcissism factors, the correlations for FFNI Antagonism were tested against the correlations for the other factors using tests of dependent rs (P .01). Psychopathological markers. To examine the relations between factors of narcissism and psychopathology, we examined psychopathological correlates including DSM-5 pathological personality traits, internalizing symptoms of anger, anxiety, and depression, and self-esteem (Table 2). We first examined correlates at the single-factor level; FFNI Total narcissism was substantively associated with all
226
The Handbook of Antagonism
Table 3 Externalizing behaviors, aggression, and psychopathy in relation to narcissism Single-factor model
Two-factor model
Three-factor model
FFNI G
FFNI V
FFNI A
FFNI E
FFNI N
n
.12
.11
.07
.12
.03
–.02
1070
.20
.19
.11
.22
.09
–.03
1070
.36* .33* .69*
.34* .21* .63*
.19* .43* .39*
.44* .33* .80*
.15* .16* .07
–.02 .19* .05
790 790 370
FFNI total
Externalizing behaviors Substance usem Antisocial behaviorm
Aggression Proactive Reactive Psychopathy
Note. G ¼ Grandiose; V ¼ Vulnerable; A ¼ Antagonism; E ¼ Agentic Extraversion; N ¼ Neuroticism; m superscript indicates where inferential statistical results are not presented given correlation values were combined across multiple datasets; bold indicates where FFNI A correlation values significantly differ from FFNI total, FFNI G, FFNI V, FFNI E, and FFNI N; P < .01.
Table 4 Interpersonal styles in relation to narcissism Single-factor model
Two-factor model
Three-factor model
FFNI G
FFNI V
FFNI A
FFNI E
FFNI N
n
.30
.41
–.11
.19
.48
–.28
475
.57
.61
.19
.57
.26
–.10
475
.54
.51
.31
.66
–.07
–.03
475
.37
.26
.42
.52
–.29
.18
475
.02
–.12
.31
.11
–.38
.30
475
–.22
–.28
.04
–.15
–.34
.10
475
–.38
–.36
–.22
–.53
.15
.02
475
–.21
–.09
–.36
–.39
.38
–.21
475
.08 –.56
.24 –.51
–.29 –.37
–.07 –.70
.54 .11
–.30 –.03
475 475
FFNI total
Interpersonal circumplexm Assured dominant Arrogant calculating Cold-hearted Aloof introverted Unassured submissive Unassuming ingenuous Warm agreeable Gregarious extraverted Dominant Love
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism
227
Table 4 Continued
Attachment style Anxious Avoidant
.32* .32*
.14 .27*
.53* .26*
.35* .44*
–.08 –.18*
.43* .04
285 285
–.03 .32 –.08 .24 .31 –.02
.02 .27 –.04 .22 .17 –.05
–.15 .25 –.14 .14 .43 .04
–.11 .39 –.09 .19 .29 –.08
.15 .08 .01 .24 .11 .04
–.10 .13 –.10 .09 .32 .08
705 705 705 705 705 705
Love stylesm Eros Ludus Storge Pragma Mania Agape
Note. G ¼ Grandiose; V ¼ Vulnerable; A ¼ Antagonism; E ¼ Agentic Extraversion; N ¼ Neuroticism; m superscript indicates where inferential statistical results are not presented given correlation values were combined across multiple datasets; bold indicates where FFNI A correlation values significantly differ from FFNI total, FFNI G, FFNI V, FFNI E, and FFNI N; P < .01.
PID-5 Antagonism facets, as well as the domains of Disinhibition, Psychoticism, and Negative Affectivity. The total narcissism score was also related to problems with anger and unrelated to self-esteem. Next, we examined correlates at the two-factor level, which reflect levels of psychopathology across the main two dimensions of narcissism. Grandiose narcissism exhibited moderate to strong associations with DSM-5 Disinhibition and Antagonism, with particularly high elevations for facets of Manipulativeness, Grandiosity, and Attention Seeking. Vulnerable narcissism exhibited strong associations with Anger, as well as DSM-5 Negative Affectivity, Detachment, and Antagonism (highest facet-level elevations on deceitfulness and hostility), and evinced strong associations with all internalizing domains including anxiety, depression, and self-esteem (negative relation). The general lack of discriminant validity found for Vulnerable narcissism, compared to Grandiose narcissism, is consistent with previous work (e.g., Miller et al., 2011) and the fact that this construct is primarily composed of trait Neuroticism (Miller, Lynam, Viz et al., 2018)—a robust risk factor for psychopathology (e.g., Lahey, 2009). Next, we examined correlates at the three-factor level to understand the degree to which Antagonism, versus Agentic Extraversion and Neuroticism, is responsible for psychopathology outcomes across Grandiose and Vulnerable dimensions. With respect to Grandiose narcissism, Antagonism, relative to Agentic Extraversion, appears primarily responsible for the association between Grandiose narcissism and PID-5 Psychoticism, Disinhibition, and Antagonism. Interestingly, although Agentic Extraversion is equally related to psychopathological traits involving Grandiosity, Attention Seeking, and Manipulativeness, it appears to mute the effect of Antagonism on trait Negative Affectivity and Detachment. With respect to Vulnerable narcissism, Antagonism appears primarily responsible for the association between Vulnerable narcissism and DSM-5 domains of Psychoticism and Antagonism. Conversely, FFNI Neuroticism appears primarily responsible for associations between Vulnerable narcissism and internalizing forms of psychopathology.
228
The Handbook of Antagonism
Externalizing behaviors, aggression, and psychopathy. To examine the relations between factors of narcissism and externalizing behaviors, aggression, and psychopathy, we examined relevant correlates including counts of substance use and antisocial behavior, reactive and proactive aggression, and psychopathy (Table 3). We first examined correlates at the single-factor level and two-factor level in order to understand narcissism’s general association with externalizing, aggression, and psychopathy. FFNI Total and Grandiose narcissism were both positively correlated with reactive and proactive aggression, as well as psychopathic traits. Our pattern of results was consistent with previous research suggesting that Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism are differentially related to proactive and reactive aggression (Vize et al., 2017). Next, we examined the degree to which Antagonism may drive the association between Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism and outcomes. Antagonism appears primarily responsible for the association between both narcissism dimensions and antisocial behavior, aggression, and psychopathy, showing a weak to moderate correlation with antisocial behavior (r ¼ .22), moderate correlations with proactive and reactive aggression (rs ¼ .44, .33, respectively), and a strong correlation with psychopathy (r ¼ .80). The effect sizes for Antagonism exceeded those for Agentic Extraversion and Neuroticism across all outcomes. Interpersonal correlates. We next examined the relations between factors of narcissism and interpersonal, attachment, and romantic correlates (Table 4). We first examined correlates at the single- and two-factor levels in order to understand narcissism’s general association with interpersonal circumplex (IPC) correlates. The FFNI Total narcissism score manifested a strong negative correlation with IPC love but was unrelated to dominance, manifested moderate associations with attachment difficulties, and moderate positive relations with several love styles including a game playing approach (i.e., ludus). As expected, Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism manifested similarly negative correlations with IPC love but differed with respect to IPC dominance (Grandiose: positive; Vulnerable: negative) and Vulnerable narcissism demonstrated more pervasive attachment difficulties, as expected (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Miller et al., 2010, 2011). Both Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism were related to ludus and mania love styles. Ludus is described as a “game-playing” love, whereas mania is described as a “possessive, dependent love” (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986, p. 393). Next, we examined the degree to which Antagonism, relative to Agentic Extraversion and Neuroticism, is responsible for the association between Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism and interpersonal correlates. Antagonism appears primarily responsible for the association between both narcissism dimensions and styles related to IPC love (negative), avoidant attachment styles, as well as a tendency toward a ludus-related love style, which is consistent with previous work (e.g., Miller et al., 2011; White, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2004). Notably, Agentic Extraversion and Neuroticism appear to disproportionately influence each narcissistic dimension’s interpersonal style related to dominance (Grandiose: positive; Vulnerable; negative), which is broadly consistent with Krizan and Herlache’s (2018) argument regarding these constructs relations with approach versus avoidance-orientation.
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism
229
FFM facet-level profile at three levels of organization Our primary source of data for examining the FFM trait profiles of narcissism at the one-, two-, and three-factor levels of organization involved a meta-analytically combined dataset containing data from the FFNI and two measures of FFM personality, namely, the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and IPIP-NEO 120 (Maples, Guan, Carter, & Miller, 2014). To determine if correlates differed significantly between FFNI Antagonism and other narcissism factors, tests of dependent rs were conducted using a P-value equal to or less than .01 (see Table 5). Single-factor level. The FFNI Total score exhibited weak to strong relations across all Agreeableness facets (Table 5) with correlations ranging from .24 (Trust) to .57 (Straightforwardness) with a median of .35. These findings are roughly consistent with correlates related to NPD (Samuel & Widiger, 2008). Two-factor level. FFNI Grandiose narcissism manifested its largest correlations with facets of Straightforwardness (.53) and Modesty (.58) with smaller relations for Trust (.06) and Altruism (.18). Conversely, FFNI Vulnerable narcissism manifested its strongest relations with Trust (.46) and Compliance (.33) with no relation to Modesty (.06). These findings are largely consistent with discussions regarding how Antagonism may be expressed differently across Grandiose and Vulnerable dimensions. Krizan and Herlache (2018) posit that Agentic Extraversion and Neuroticism may be key dimensions in influencing the types of antagonistic traits that people exhibit. For example, research suggests that vulnerably narcissistic individuals with an avoidance-orientation are more distrustful and are more likely than Grandiose individuals to read malevolent intent in the actions of others. Grandiosely narcissistic individuals with an approach-orientation are more likely to exhibit immodest behavior, possibly linked to motives involving self-enhancement and status-acquisition as well as early life parental overvaluation (Brummelman et al., 2015). Three-factor level. We next examined the facet-level profile of Antagonism, Agentic Extraversion, and Neuroticism in our meta-analytically combined dataset (Table 5). As expected, given its development, FFNI Antagonism shows moderate to strong negative correlations across FFM Antagonism facets with correlations ranging from .32 (Trust) to .63 (Straightforwardness). Conversely, FFNI Agentic Extraversion (range .45 [Modesty] to .15 [Altruism]) and FFNI Neuroticism (range .12 [Trust] to .21 [Modesty]) manifested a mixture of positive and negative relations.
Similarity of correlates across narcissism We next examined the similarity of relations to functioning and FFM facets across our three levels of organization (Table 6). Similarity was calculated using intraclass correlations that take into account absolute similarity of the correlational profiles. FFNI Antagonism closely maps onto the single-factor score (i.e., FFNI Total; ICC ¼ .97), exceeding both Grandiose narcissism and Vulnerable narcissism in its convergence. The same is not true of either the Agentic Extraversion (ICC ¼ .17) or Neuroticism
230
Table 5 Five-Factor Model agreeableness facets in relation to narcissism Two-factor model
Single-factor model FFM
Trust Straightforwardness Altruism Compliance Modesty Tendermindedness n
Three-factor model
Academic ratings (NPD)
Clinician ratings (NPD)
Lay ratings (narcissism)
FFNI total
FFNI G
FFNI V
FFNI A
FFNI E
FFNI N
1.42 1.83 1.00 1.58 1.08 1.5
1.86 1.91 1.73 1.77 1.23 1.77
2.09 1.98 1.77 1.98 1.55 2.00
–.24 –.57 –.25 –.44 –.48 –.25 857
–.06 –.53 –.18 –.36 –.58 –.25 857
–.46 –.28 –.23 –.33 .06 –.10 857
–.32 –.63 –.42 –.51 –.48 –.39 857
.08 –.27 .15 –.17 –.45 .02 857
–.12 –.10 –.05 –.08 .21 .08 857
.21 .51 –.62
.27 .54 –.55
Profile similarity (second order rs) –.43 –.18 –.30
Note. G ¼ Grandiose; V ¼ Vulnerable; A ¼ Antagonism; E ¼ Agentic Extraversion; N ¼ Neuroticism; Academician ratings ¼ Lynam and Widiger (2001); Clinician ratings ¼ Samuel and Widiger (2004); Lay ratings ¼ Miller, Lynam, Siedor et al. (2018); Inferential statistical results are not presented given correlation values were combined across multiple datasets; bold indicates where FFNI A correlation values significantly differ from FFNI total, FFNI G, FFNI V, FFNI E, and FFNI N; P < .01.
The Handbook of Antagonism
FFNI total FFNI G FFNI V
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism
231
Table 6 Profile similarities for all FFM traits and correlates across narcissism
FFNI G FFNI V FFNI A FFNI E FFNI N
FFNI Total
FFNI G
FFNI V
FFNI A
FFNI E
.90 .70 .97 .17 .31
– .36 .82 .46 .04
– .75 .37 .82
– .02 .35
– .54
Note. A, Antagonism; E, Agentic Extraversion; G, Grandiose; N, Neuroticism; V, Vulnerable; P < .01.
(ICC ¼ .31) factors, which both show a much weaker match with the FFNI total score’ empirical profile. At the two-factor level, Antagonism shows strong overlap with both Grandiose narcissism (ICC ¼ .82), and Vulnerable narcissism (ICC ¼ .75), whereas Agentic Extraversion and Neuroticism are related differentially to Grandiose (Agentic Extraversion: ICC ¼ .46; Neuroticism: .04) and Vulnerable narcissism (Agentic Extraversion: ICC ¼ .37; Neuroticism: .82). At the three-factor level, Antagonism appears to converge moderately with Neuroticism (ICC ¼ .35), while showing no convergence with Agentic Extraversion (ICC ¼ .02). These results are consistent with the notion that Antagonism represents the core of narcissism, whether studied at a single- or two-factor (Grandiose vs Vulnerable) level of the hierarchy and that narcissistic aspects of Extraversion and Neuroticism play key roles in describing the Grandiose versus Vulnerable dimensions.
Antagonism in narcissism: A summary We begin with the first question: Can Antagonism be considered the core trait of narcissism? Historically, researchers have identified Antagonism as narcissism’s core by virtue of its structural presence in narcissism’s two main dimensions (i.e., Grandiose, Vulnerable). Our results reflect Antagonism’s structural relevance to narcissism across single- and two-factor models, as well as Antagonism’s functional relevance within narcissism’s nomological network. First, FFM Antagonism trait correlates overlap substantially with the single- and two-factor models of narcissism. Grandiose narcissism is most strongly characterized by a lack of modesty and straightforwardness whereas Vulnerable narcissism reflects Antagonism in the form of distrust and oppositionality. Furthermore, both Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism reflect almost exclusively negative associations with FFM Agreeableness facets, suggesting a common core of Antagonism. Second, examinations of external correlates with dimensions of the trifurcated model indicate that, overall, Antagonism seems primarily responsible for the externalizing behaviors associated with pathological and Grandiose narcissism (e.g., aggressive; manipulative, grandiose, angry, noncommunal, game playing), as well as its overlap with its “near neighbor,” psychopathy. There are notable exceptions however, where other trifurcated dimensions besides Antagonism appear to explain equally well certain behaviors. For Grandiose narcissism, Agentic Extraversion counteracts
232
The Handbook of Antagonism
Antagonism’s negative association with altruism, while contributing to greater immodesty. For Vulnerable narcissism, Neuroticism may counteract Antagonism’s positive association with immodesty and may in part explain the limited amount of grandiosity expressed in Vulnerable narcissism. With respect to our second question (i.e., is the Antagonism of Grandiose narcissism the same as the Antagonism of Vulnerable narcissism?), although Antagonism may be the core of both primary narcissistic presentations, this core is itself multifaceted, consisting of multiple antagonistic traits that appear differentially related to each. Vulnerable narcissism demonstrates its weakest relations with Modesty and Tender-mindedness and highest relations with Trust, whereas Grandiose narcissism shows an inverse pattern.
Implications for a syncretic model of narcissism We believe that the time has come to clarify and consolidate varied yet overlapping conceptualizations/models of narcissism, especially since many of them converge in important ways. We offer four propositions to this end: First, narcissism can be conceptualized as existing at multiple hierarchical levels. The decision regarding at which level to work (e.g., 1, 2, 3) depends on the aims and the constraints of the researcher. Second, numerous measures contain information relevant to one of the three factors of narcissism outlined here, but most of these do not provide coverage across all of them (e.g., HSNS, NARQ, PES). Thus there is a need for researchers to use (a) measurement “stacks,” such as the NPI and HSNS, or NGS and PNI, or (b) a combined measure like the FFNI, if they want to examine all aspects of narcissism. Third, the antagonistic component of Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism may largely share negative relations with traits related to straightforwardness, altruism, and compliance, yet fail to share relations with traits related to modesty, trust, and tender-mindedness. These patterns of relations have important implications for future assessment of narcissistic presentations. Rather than use a nonoverlapping set of antagonistic traits to characterize Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism, an approach that assesses all antagonistic traits would comprehensively capture both antagonistic traits held in common across different presentations. Fourth, the alternative model of NPD in Section III of DSM-5 (i.e., Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders) may not adequately assess the antagonistic features characteristic of narcissism (e.g., Miller et al., 2017). It is our contention that the core of narcissism/NPD is made of traits related to Antagonism and that traits from this domain should form the bedrock of NPD’s assessment in DSM. Indeed, the present findings illustrate that both Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism show a pattern of meaningful associations with all Criterion B facets of Antagonism. Regrettably, the use of only two traits to assess NPD as part of Criterion B (i.e., Grandiosity, Attention Seeking) may provide inadequate coverage of the NPD construct, especially Vulnerable narcissism (Miller, Gentile, & Campbell, 2013). We propose that the traits used to assess NPD should be expanded to include other relevant traits beyond Grandiosity and Attention Seeking, including Manipulativeness, Deceitfulness, Callousness, and Hostility, which are consistent with traits
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism
233
emphasized by other expert-based characterizations (e.g., manipulativeness, callousness, entitlement; Ackerman, Hands, Donnellan, Hopwood, & Witt, 2016; Lynam & Widiger, 2001; Samuel, Lynam, Widiger, & Ball, 2012), We believe that the overall construct validity of NPD’s diagnosis must be prioritized over discriminant validityrelated concerns, even if the inclusion of these additional traits increases its overlap with near neighbor disorders like antisocial PD (Miller et al., 2017).
Future directions The Trifurcated Model of Narcissism represents an important step beyond the Grandiose versus Vulnerable distinction that has been the focus of research for the past decade (and which itself was a major step forward in understanding narcissism). While the Grandiose versus Vulnerable distinction remains indispensable, the three-factor model (a) provides an avenue for richer explanatory models of narcissism and (b) can be used to assess an individual’s presentation with high granularity.
References Ackerman, R. A., Hands, A. J., Donnellan, M. B., Hopwood, C. J., & Witt, E. A. (2016). Experts’ views regarding the conceptualization of narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 31, 1–16. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Back, M. D., K€ufner, A. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1013–1037. 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 of the United States of America, 112, 3659–3662. Brunell, A. B., Davis, M. S., Scheley, D. R., Eng, A. L., Dulmen, M. H. M., Wester, K. L., et al. (2013). A new measure of interpersonal exploitativeness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–9. Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 638–656. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29–45. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Lutz, FL: PAR. Crowe, M., Edershile, E. A., Wright, A. G. C., Keith Campbell, W., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2018). Development and validation of the Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale: an adjective rating scale. Psychological Assessment, 30, 978–983. Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 188–207. Fossati, A., Beauchaine, T. P., Grazioli, F., Carretta, I., Cortinovis, F., & Maffei, C. (2005). A latent structure analysis of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Narcissistic Personality Disorder criteria. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 46, 361–367.
234
The Handbook of Antagonism
Glover, N., Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). The Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory: a five-factor measure of narcissistic personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 500–512. Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: a reexamination of Murray’s Narcissism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588–599. Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392–402. Kernberg, O. F. (1974). Contrasting viewpoints regarding the nature and psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personalities. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 22, 255–267. Kohut, H. (1972). Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 27, 360–400. Krizan, Z., & Herlache, A. D. (2018). The narcissism spectrum model: a synthetic view of narcissistic personality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 3–31. Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890. Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64, 241–256. Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five-factor model to represent the DSM-IV personality disorders: an expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 401. Maples, J. L., Guan, L., Carter, N. T., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the five-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 26, 1070–1084. Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76, 449–476. Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: comparing factor 2 psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality, 78, 1529–1564. Miller, J. D., Gaughan, E. T., Maples, J., Gentile, B., Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2011). Examining the construct validity of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. Assessment, 18, 106–114. Miller, J. D., Gentile, B., & Campbell, W. K. (2013). A test of the construct validity of the FiveFactor Narcissism Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 377–387. Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2008). An examination of the factor structure of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, narcissistic personality disorder criteria: one or two factors? Comprehensive Psychiatry, 49, 141–145. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). Controversies in narcissism. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 1–25. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., McCain, J. L., Few, L. R., Crego, C., Widiger, T. A., et al. (2016). Thinking structurally about narcissism: an examination of the five-factor narcissism inventory and its components. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30, 1–18. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Siedor, L., Crowe, M., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Consensual lay profiles of narcissism and their connection to the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 30, 10–18. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Vize, C., Crowe, M., Sleep, C., Maples-Keller, J. L., et al. (2018). Vulnerable narcissism is (mostly) a disorder of neuroticism. Journal of Personality, 86, 186–199.
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism
235
Ovid, & Miller, F. J. (1946). Ovid: Metamorphoses: (p. 1946). Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press/Heinemann. Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G., & Levy, K. N. (2009). Initial construction and validation of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21, 365–379. Raskin, R., & 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, 890–902. Rosenthal, S. A., Hooley, J. M., & Steshenko, Y. (2007). Distinguishing grandiosity from selfesteem: Development of the Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale. Unpublished manuscript. Samuel, D. B., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Ball, S. A. (2012). An expert consensus approach to relating the proposed DSM-5 types and traits. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 1–16. Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2004). Clinicians’ personality descriptions of prototypic personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 286–308. Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: a facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326–1342. Vize, C. E., Collison, K. L., Crowe, M. L., Campbell, W. K., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2017). Using dominance analysis to decompose narcissism and its relation to aggression and externalizing outcomes. Assessment, 1–11. White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big five personality variables and relationship constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1519–1530. Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 590–597.
15
Brandon Weiss*, W. Keith Campbell*, Donald R. Lynam†, Joshua D. Miller* *Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States, †Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States
Across the myriad instantiations of narcissism (i.e., Greek myth, psychoanalytic conceptualization, scientific models), antagonistic traits, defined by grandiosity, callousness, hostility, manipulativeness, and oppositionality, are omnipresent. According to Greek myth (Ovid & Miller, 1946), Narcissus showed vanity and disdain for others, remorselessly leaving beautiful and besotted suitors nursing their own narcissistic wounds. Psychoanalytic scholars have characterized pathological narcissism by aggressive behavior and narcissistic rage, thought to often emanate from defensive functions of the grandiose self in response to emotional injury (Kernberg, 1974; Kohut, 1972). In the modern era, empirical examinations of narcissistic traits have resulted in several widely used and validated models where antagonistic traits are a central focus. In the present chapter, we answer two questions concerning Antagonism in the context of narcissism: (a) Is Antagonism the core trait of narcissism? and (b) Is the Antagonism of Grandiose narcissism the same as the Antagonism of Vulnerable narcissism? In answering both questions, we use the Trifurcated Model of Narcissism (Miller et al., 2016; Miller, Lynam, Hyatt, & Campbell, 2017) to examine which aspects of narcissism bear the most meaningful associations with constructs central to psychological functioning (i.e., love styles, interpersonal styles, pathological traits). Most research on narcissism has examined narcissism at two primary levels of organization, namely, the single-factor model (e.g., NPD, PNI total score) and the two-factor model (i.e., Grandiose narcissism, Vulnerable narcissism). In the current study, we focus on a three-factor model of narcissism that further delineates narcissism into Agentic Extraversion, Antagonism, and Neuroticism (see Miller et al., 2016, 2017; see also Krizan & Herlache, 2018). To quantify the role that Antagonism plays in narcissism, we compare its empirical correlates to those generated by factors across narcissism’s three levels of organization (i.e., single factor; Grandiose and Vulnerable; Agentic Extraversion, Antagonism, and Neuroticism) using intraclass correlations (ICCs) that assess absolute similarity between correlate profiles. To answer the second question, we examine how levels of specific antagonistic traits vary across narcissism constructs at different levels of organization (i.e., NPD, Grandiose narcissism, Vulnerable narcissism, trifurcated factors). To do so, The Handbook of Antagonism. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814627-9.00015-3 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
222
The Handbook of Antagonism
we use the framework of the most prominent general and pathological personality trait model—the Five-Factor Model (FFM; e.g., APA, 2013; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Accordingly, antagonistic traits will be examined using facets of FFM Agreeableness.
Narcissism as one, two, or three factors At the single-factor level, narcissism measures combine content across Antagonism, Agentic Extraversion, and Neuroticism (e.g., NPD, FFNI Total score), albeit to varying degrees. Although NPD symptoms as described in the DSM-5 criteria primarily (Fossati et al., 2005; Miller, Hoffman, Campbell, & Pilkonis, 2008) resemble Grandiose narcissism, the full DSM-5 description of NPD makes it clear that vulnerability is thought to be involved as well: “vulnerability in self-esteem makes individuals with narcissistic personality disorder very sensitive to ‘injury’ from criticism or defeat. Although they may not show it outwardly, criticism may haunt these individuals and may leave them feeling humiliated, degraded, hollow, and empty” (APA, 2013, p. 671). At the two-factor level, one finds the commonly described and studied dimensions of Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism (Cain, Pincus, & Ansell, 2008; Miller & Campbell, 2008; Wink, 1991), both of which include antagonistic traits. In general, Grandiose narcissism is associated with immodesty, interpersonal dominance, selfabsorption, callousness, and manipulativeness, whereas Vulnerable narcissism is associated with psychological distress, negative affectivity (e.g., anxiety, shame), low self-esteem, distrustfulness, egocentrism, reactive anger, and hostility. These two narcissism dimensions have been discussed using a variety of titles with Grandiose narcissism also referred to as manipulative, phallic, overt, egotistical, oblivious, exhibitionistic, psychopathic; and Vulnerable narcissism also referred to as craving, contact-shunning, thin-skinned, hypervigilant, and shy (Cain et al., 2008). At the three-factor level of narcissism, we conceptualize narcissism as being divisible into agentic aspects of trait Extraversion, Antagonism (or low Agreeableness), and Neuroticism. The approach appears to be part of an emerging consensus with respect to (a) conceptualizing narcissism involving three dimensions and (b) an understanding of the biological and personality bases underlying phenotypic manifestations of narcissism. The trifurcated model is instantiated in the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory (FFNI; Glover, Miller, Lynam, Crego, & Widiger, 2012), a measure of narcissism based on the framework of general personality, which includes at the subordinate (and most parsimonious) level of its organization three dimensions: Antagonism, Agentic Extraversion, and Neuroticism (Miller et al., 2016, 2017). Like our own trifurcated model (Fig. 1), Krizan and Herlache’s (2018) Narcissism Spectrum Model characterizes narcissistic individuals by two main dimensions involving a common elevation in Entitled Self-importance, and fairly distinct functional qualities involving either an approach-oriented Boldness or an avoidance-oriented Reactivity. This model is similar to our conceptualization in which we see Antagonism (akin to their Entitled Self-importance) as the core feature with the other two dimensions (Neuroticism/Reactivity vs Agentic Extraversion/Reactivity) as diagnostic
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism
223
Trifurcated model of narcissism (TMN) Single factor model
NPD
Vulnerable narcissism
Grandiose narcissism
Two factor model
Agentic extraversion
Antagonism
Neuroticism
Three factor model
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Foundational traits
Fig. 1 Trifurcated model of narcissism (TMN). NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. From OSF.IO/2UA35 under CC0 1.0 Universal.
specifiers (Miller et al., 2017).1 Although other expressions of narcissism are possible (e.g., high Antagonism, Agentic Extraversion, and Neuroticism akin to narcissistic personality disorder), a negative association between the latter two traits makes this presentation less likely to occur. Table 1 delineates how contemporary models/measures fit into this integrated model of narcissism.
FFM facet-level profile and correlates of individual functioning at narcissism’s three levels of organization In the following sections, we illustrate how Antagonism contributes to functioning, and examine FFM facet-level correlates of narcissism at three levels of organization (i.e., single-factor; two-factor: Grandiose vs Vulnerable; three-factor: Antagonism, Agentic Extraversion, and Neuroticism) to highlight the role of Antagonism across levels. To accomplish these goals, we combined results from five datasets that included the FFNI. Where measures were identical across datasets, we combined the data before conducting analyses; where outcome measures were similar across datasets, but not identical, we conducted correlational analyses separately for each dataset and averaged across the two sets of correlational values using Fisher z conversion and sample size weighting.
1
Of note, the Antagonism of the FFNI model is broader than the entitlement and self-importance in the NSM of Krizan and Herlache (2018).
224
Table 1 Instantiations of the three-factor model across measures/models of narcissism
The Handbook of Antagonism
Note. Narcissism Spectrum Model ¼ Krizan and Herlache (2018); Five-factor Narcissism Inventory ¼ Glover et al. (2012); Pathological Narcissism Inventory ¼ Pincus et al. (2009); NARQ ¼ Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire ¼ Back et al. (2013); Narcissistic Personality Inventory ¼ Raskin and Terry (1988); Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale ¼ Rosenthal, Hooley, and Steshenko (2007); Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale ¼ Crowe et al. (2018); PID-5 ¼ Personality Inventory for DSM-5 ¼ Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, and Skodol (2012); Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale ¼ Hendin and Cheek (1997); Psychological Entitlement Scale ¼ Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, and Bushman (2004); Interpersonal Exploitativeness Scale ¼ Brunell et al. (2013). From OSF.IO/2UA35 under CC0 1.0 Universal.
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism
225
Table 2 Psychopathological markers in relation to narcissism Singlefactor model
Two-factor model
Three-factor model
FFNI total
FFNI G
FFNI V
FFNI A
FFNI E
FFNI N
n
.33*
–.07
.84*
.44*
–.28*
.74*
95
.17 .37* .42* .73* .68* .59* .61*
–.18 .20 .36* .53* .61* .38* .57*
.70* .42* .20 .54* .29* .53* .22
.38* .48* .49* .80* .67* .70* .62*
–.49* –.13 .08 .18 .36* .02 .30*
.55* .25 .16 .31* .15 .40* .01
95 95 95 95 95 95 95
.56*
.51*
.23
.47*
.44*
.14
95
.50* .46*
.37* .17
.36* .64*
.67* .56*
–.05 –.07
.15 .41*
95 95
.33* .17 .13 –.13
.10 –.09 –.13 .10
.53* .64 .64 –.58
.40* .14 .15 –.14
–.10 –.08 –.17 .18
.38* .54 .55 –.56
95 690 690 1070
DSM-5 traits Negative affectivity Detachment Psychoticism Disinhibition Antagonism Manipulative Deceitfulness Grandiosity Attention seeking Callousness Hostility Internalizing Anger Anxietym Depressionm Self-esteemm
Note. G ¼ Grandiose; V ¼ Vulnerable; A ¼ Antagonism; E ¼ Agentic Extraversion; N ¼ Neuroticism; m superscript indicates where inferential statistical results are not presented given correlation values were combined across multiple datasets; bold indicates where FFNI A correlation values significantly differ from FFNI total, FFNI G, FFNI V, FFNI E, and FFNI N; P < .01.
Correlates of individual functioning at three levels of organization In this section, we examine correlates of functioning/impairment across three levels of organization. We selected three important areas: psychopathology (Table 2); externalizing behaviors, aggression, and psychopathy (Table 3); and interpersonal and attachment styles (Table 4). To determine if correlates differ significantly between FFNI Antagonism and other narcissism factors, the correlations for FFNI Antagonism were tested against the correlations for the other factors using tests of dependent rs (P .01). Psychopathological markers. To examine the relations between factors of narcissism and psychopathology, we examined psychopathological correlates including DSM-5 pathological personality traits, internalizing symptoms of anger, anxiety, and depression, and self-esteem (Table 2). We first examined correlates at the single-factor level; FFNI Total narcissism was substantively associated with all
226
The Handbook of Antagonism
Table 3 Externalizing behaviors, aggression, and psychopathy in relation to narcissism Single-factor model
Two-factor model
Three-factor model
FFNI G
FFNI V
FFNI A
FFNI E
FFNI N
n
.12
.11
.07
.12
.03
–.02
1070
.20
.19
.11
.22
.09
–.03
1070
.36* .33* .69*
.34* .21* .63*
.19* .43* .39*
.44* .33* .80*
.15* .16* .07
–.02 .19* .05
790 790 370
FFNI total
Externalizing behaviors Substance usem Antisocial behaviorm
Aggression Proactive Reactive Psychopathy
Note. G ¼ Grandiose; V ¼ Vulnerable; A ¼ Antagonism; E ¼ Agentic Extraversion; N ¼ Neuroticism; m superscript indicates where inferential statistical results are not presented given correlation values were combined across multiple datasets; bold indicates where FFNI A correlation values significantly differ from FFNI total, FFNI G, FFNI V, FFNI E, and FFNI N; P < .01.
Table 4 Interpersonal styles in relation to narcissism Single-factor model
Two-factor model
Three-factor model
FFNI G
FFNI V
FFNI A
FFNI E
FFNI N
n
.30
.41
–.11
.19
.48
–.28
475
.57
.61
.19
.57
.26
–.10
475
.54
.51
.31
.66
–.07
–.03
475
.37
.26
.42
.52
–.29
.18
475
.02
–.12
.31
.11
–.38
.30
475
–.22
–.28
.04
–.15
–.34
.10
475
–.38
–.36
–.22
–.53
.15
.02
475
–.21
–.09
–.36
–.39
.38
–.21
475
.08 –.56
.24 –.51
–.29 –.37
–.07 –.70
.54 .11
–.30 –.03
475 475
FFNI total
Interpersonal circumplexm Assured dominant Arrogant calculating Cold-hearted Aloof introverted Unassured submissive Unassuming ingenuous Warm agreeable Gregarious extraverted Dominant Love
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism
227
Table 4 Continued
Attachment style Anxious Avoidant
.32* .32*
.14 .27*
.53* .26*
.35* .44*
–.08 –.18*
.43* .04
285 285
–.03 .32 –.08 .24 .31 –.02
.02 .27 –.04 .22 .17 –.05
–.15 .25 –.14 .14 .43 .04
–.11 .39 –.09 .19 .29 –.08
.15 .08 .01 .24 .11 .04
–.10 .13 –.10 .09 .32 .08
705 705 705 705 705 705
Love stylesm Eros Ludus Storge Pragma Mania Agape
Note. G ¼ Grandiose; V ¼ Vulnerable; A ¼ Antagonism; E ¼ Agentic Extraversion; N ¼ Neuroticism; m superscript indicates where inferential statistical results are not presented given correlation values were combined across multiple datasets; bold indicates where FFNI A correlation values significantly differ from FFNI total, FFNI G, FFNI V, FFNI E, and FFNI N; P < .01.
PID-5 Antagonism facets, as well as the domains of Disinhibition, Psychoticism, and Negative Affectivity. The total narcissism score was also related to problems with anger and unrelated to self-esteem. Next, we examined correlates at the two-factor level, which reflect levels of psychopathology across the main two dimensions of narcissism. Grandiose narcissism exhibited moderate to strong associations with DSM-5 Disinhibition and Antagonism, with particularly high elevations for facets of Manipulativeness, Grandiosity, and Attention Seeking. Vulnerable narcissism exhibited strong associations with Anger, as well as DSM-5 Negative Affectivity, Detachment, and Antagonism (highest facet-level elevations on deceitfulness and hostility), and evinced strong associations with all internalizing domains including anxiety, depression, and self-esteem (negative relation). The general lack of discriminant validity found for Vulnerable narcissism, compared to Grandiose narcissism, is consistent with previous work (e.g., Miller et al., 2011) and the fact that this construct is primarily composed of trait Neuroticism (Miller, Lynam, Viz et al., 2018)—a robust risk factor for psychopathology (e.g., Lahey, 2009). Next, we examined correlates at the three-factor level to understand the degree to which Antagonism, versus Agentic Extraversion and Neuroticism, is responsible for psychopathology outcomes across Grandiose and Vulnerable dimensions. With respect to Grandiose narcissism, Antagonism, relative to Agentic Extraversion, appears primarily responsible for the association between Grandiose narcissism and PID-5 Psychoticism, Disinhibition, and Antagonism. Interestingly, although Agentic Extraversion is equally related to psychopathological traits involving Grandiosity, Attention Seeking, and Manipulativeness, it appears to mute the effect of Antagonism on trait Negative Affectivity and Detachment. With respect to Vulnerable narcissism, Antagonism appears primarily responsible for the association between Vulnerable narcissism and DSM-5 domains of Psychoticism and Antagonism. Conversely, FFNI Neuroticism appears primarily responsible for associations between Vulnerable narcissism and internalizing forms of psychopathology.
228
The Handbook of Antagonism
Externalizing behaviors, aggression, and psychopathy. To examine the relations between factors of narcissism and externalizing behaviors, aggression, and psychopathy, we examined relevant correlates including counts of substance use and antisocial behavior, reactive and proactive aggression, and psychopathy (Table 3). We first examined correlates at the single-factor level and two-factor level in order to understand narcissism’s general association with externalizing, aggression, and psychopathy. FFNI Total and Grandiose narcissism were both positively correlated with reactive and proactive aggression, as well as psychopathic traits. Our pattern of results was consistent with previous research suggesting that Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism are differentially related to proactive and reactive aggression (Vize et al., 2017). Next, we examined the degree to which Antagonism may drive the association between Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism and outcomes. Antagonism appears primarily responsible for the association between both narcissism dimensions and antisocial behavior, aggression, and psychopathy, showing a weak to moderate correlation with antisocial behavior (r ¼ .22), moderate correlations with proactive and reactive aggression (rs ¼ .44, .33, respectively), and a strong correlation with psychopathy (r ¼ .80). The effect sizes for Antagonism exceeded those for Agentic Extraversion and Neuroticism across all outcomes. Interpersonal correlates. We next examined the relations between factors of narcissism and interpersonal, attachment, and romantic correlates (Table 4). We first examined correlates at the single- and two-factor levels in order to understand narcissism’s general association with interpersonal circumplex (IPC) correlates. The FFNI Total narcissism score manifested a strong negative correlation with IPC love but was unrelated to dominance, manifested moderate associations with attachment difficulties, and moderate positive relations with several love styles including a game playing approach (i.e., ludus). As expected, Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism manifested similarly negative correlations with IPC love but differed with respect to IPC dominance (Grandiose: positive; Vulnerable: negative) and Vulnerable narcissism demonstrated more pervasive attachment difficulties, as expected (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Miller et al., 2010, 2011). Both Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism were related to ludus and mania love styles. Ludus is described as a “game-playing” love, whereas mania is described as a “possessive, dependent love” (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986, p. 393). Next, we examined the degree to which Antagonism, relative to Agentic Extraversion and Neuroticism, is responsible for the association between Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism and interpersonal correlates. Antagonism appears primarily responsible for the association between both narcissism dimensions and styles related to IPC love (negative), avoidant attachment styles, as well as a tendency toward a ludus-related love style, which is consistent with previous work (e.g., Miller et al., 2011; White, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2004). Notably, Agentic Extraversion and Neuroticism appear to disproportionately influence each narcissistic dimension’s interpersonal style related to dominance (Grandiose: positive; Vulnerable; negative), which is broadly consistent with Krizan and Herlache’s (2018) argument regarding these constructs relations with approach versus avoidance-orientation.
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism
229
FFM facet-level profile at three levels of organization Our primary source of data for examining the FFM trait profiles of narcissism at the one-, two-, and three-factor levels of organization involved a meta-analytically combined dataset containing data from the FFNI and two measures of FFM personality, namely, the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and IPIP-NEO 120 (Maples, Guan, Carter, & Miller, 2014). To determine if correlates differed significantly between FFNI Antagonism and other narcissism factors, tests of dependent rs were conducted using a P-value equal to or less than .01 (see Table 5). Single-factor level. The FFNI Total score exhibited weak to strong relations across all Agreeableness facets (Table 5) with correlations ranging from .24 (Trust) to .57 (Straightforwardness) with a median of .35. These findings are roughly consistent with correlates related to NPD (Samuel & Widiger, 2008). Two-factor level. FFNI Grandiose narcissism manifested its largest correlations with facets of Straightforwardness (.53) and Modesty (.58) with smaller relations for Trust (.06) and Altruism (.18). Conversely, FFNI Vulnerable narcissism manifested its strongest relations with Trust (.46) and Compliance (.33) with no relation to Modesty (.06). These findings are largely consistent with discussions regarding how Antagonism may be expressed differently across Grandiose and Vulnerable dimensions. Krizan and Herlache (2018) posit that Agentic Extraversion and Neuroticism may be key dimensions in influencing the types of antagonistic traits that people exhibit. For example, research suggests that vulnerably narcissistic individuals with an avoidance-orientation are more distrustful and are more likely than Grandiose individuals to read malevolent intent in the actions of others. Grandiosely narcissistic individuals with an approach-orientation are more likely to exhibit immodest behavior, possibly linked to motives involving self-enhancement and status-acquisition as well as early life parental overvaluation (Brummelman et al., 2015). Three-factor level. We next examined the facet-level profile of Antagonism, Agentic Extraversion, and Neuroticism in our meta-analytically combined dataset (Table 5). As expected, given its development, FFNI Antagonism shows moderate to strong negative correlations across FFM Antagonism facets with correlations ranging from .32 (Trust) to .63 (Straightforwardness). Conversely, FFNI Agentic Extraversion (range .45 [Modesty] to .15 [Altruism]) and FFNI Neuroticism (range .12 [Trust] to .21 [Modesty]) manifested a mixture of positive and negative relations.
Similarity of correlates across narcissism We next examined the similarity of relations to functioning and FFM facets across our three levels of organization (Table 6). Similarity was calculated using intraclass correlations that take into account absolute similarity of the correlational profiles. FFNI Antagonism closely maps onto the single-factor score (i.e., FFNI Total; ICC ¼ .97), exceeding both Grandiose narcissism and Vulnerable narcissism in its convergence. The same is not true of either the Agentic Extraversion (ICC ¼ .17) or Neuroticism
230
Table 5 Five-Factor Model agreeableness facets in relation to narcissism Two-factor model
Single-factor model FFM
Trust Straightforwardness Altruism Compliance Modesty Tendermindedness n
Three-factor model
Academic ratings (NPD)
Clinician ratings (NPD)
Lay ratings (narcissism)
FFNI total
FFNI G
FFNI V
FFNI A
FFNI E
FFNI N
1.42 1.83 1.00 1.58 1.08 1.5
1.86 1.91 1.73 1.77 1.23 1.77
2.09 1.98 1.77 1.98 1.55 2.00
–.24 –.57 –.25 –.44 –.48 –.25 857
–.06 –.53 –.18 –.36 –.58 –.25 857
–.46 –.28 –.23 –.33 .06 –.10 857
–.32 –.63 –.42 –.51 –.48 –.39 857
.08 –.27 .15 –.17 –.45 .02 857
–.12 –.10 –.05 –.08 .21 .08 857
.21 .51 –.62
.27 .54 –.55
Profile similarity (second order rs) –.43 –.18 –.30
Note. G ¼ Grandiose; V ¼ Vulnerable; A ¼ Antagonism; E ¼ Agentic Extraversion; N ¼ Neuroticism; Academician ratings ¼ Lynam and Widiger (2001); Clinician ratings ¼ Samuel and Widiger (2004); Lay ratings ¼ Miller, Lynam, Siedor et al. (2018); Inferential statistical results are not presented given correlation values were combined across multiple datasets; bold indicates where FFNI A correlation values significantly differ from FFNI total, FFNI G, FFNI V, FFNI E, and FFNI N; P < .01.
The Handbook of Antagonism
FFNI total FFNI G FFNI V
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism
231
Table 6 Profile similarities for all FFM traits and correlates across narcissism
FFNI G FFNI V FFNI A FFNI E FFNI N
FFNI Total
FFNI G
FFNI V
FFNI A
FFNI E
.90 .70 .97 .17 .31
– .36 .82 .46 .04
– .75 .37 .82
– .02 .35
– .54
Note. A, Antagonism; E, Agentic Extraversion; G, Grandiose; N, Neuroticism; V, Vulnerable; P < .01.
(ICC ¼ .31) factors, which both show a much weaker match with the FFNI total score’ empirical profile. At the two-factor level, Antagonism shows strong overlap with both Grandiose narcissism (ICC ¼ .82), and Vulnerable narcissism (ICC ¼ .75), whereas Agentic Extraversion and Neuroticism are related differentially to Grandiose (Agentic Extraversion: ICC ¼ .46; Neuroticism: .04) and Vulnerable narcissism (Agentic Extraversion: ICC ¼ .37; Neuroticism: .82). At the three-factor level, Antagonism appears to converge moderately with Neuroticism (ICC ¼ .35), while showing no convergence with Agentic Extraversion (ICC ¼ .02). These results are consistent with the notion that Antagonism represents the core of narcissism, whether studied at a single- or two-factor (Grandiose vs Vulnerable) level of the hierarchy and that narcissistic aspects of Extraversion and Neuroticism play key roles in describing the Grandiose versus Vulnerable dimensions.
Antagonism in narcissism: A summary We begin with the first question: Can Antagonism be considered the core trait of narcissism? Historically, researchers have identified Antagonism as narcissism’s core by virtue of its structural presence in narcissism’s two main dimensions (i.e., Grandiose, Vulnerable). Our results reflect Antagonism’s structural relevance to narcissism across single- and two-factor models, as well as Antagonism’s functional relevance within narcissism’s nomological network. First, FFM Antagonism trait correlates overlap substantially with the single- and two-factor models of narcissism. Grandiose narcissism is most strongly characterized by a lack of modesty and straightforwardness whereas Vulnerable narcissism reflects Antagonism in the form of distrust and oppositionality. Furthermore, both Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism reflect almost exclusively negative associations with FFM Agreeableness facets, suggesting a common core of Antagonism. Second, examinations of external correlates with dimensions of the trifurcated model indicate that, overall, Antagonism seems primarily responsible for the externalizing behaviors associated with pathological and Grandiose narcissism (e.g., aggressive; manipulative, grandiose, angry, noncommunal, game playing), as well as its overlap with its “near neighbor,” psychopathy. There are notable exceptions however, where other trifurcated dimensions besides Antagonism appear to explain equally well certain behaviors. For Grandiose narcissism, Agentic Extraversion counteracts
232
The Handbook of Antagonism
Antagonism’s negative association with altruism, while contributing to greater immodesty. For Vulnerable narcissism, Neuroticism may counteract Antagonism’s positive association with immodesty and may in part explain the limited amount of grandiosity expressed in Vulnerable narcissism. With respect to our second question (i.e., is the Antagonism of Grandiose narcissism the same as the Antagonism of Vulnerable narcissism?), although Antagonism may be the core of both primary narcissistic presentations, this core is itself multifaceted, consisting of multiple antagonistic traits that appear differentially related to each. Vulnerable narcissism demonstrates its weakest relations with Modesty and Tender-mindedness and highest relations with Trust, whereas Grandiose narcissism shows an inverse pattern.
Implications for a syncretic model of narcissism We believe that the time has come to clarify and consolidate varied yet overlapping conceptualizations/models of narcissism, especially since many of them converge in important ways. We offer four propositions to this end: First, narcissism can be conceptualized as existing at multiple hierarchical levels. The decision regarding at which level to work (e.g., 1, 2, 3) depends on the aims and the constraints of the researcher. Second, numerous measures contain information relevant to one of the three factors of narcissism outlined here, but most of these do not provide coverage across all of them (e.g., HSNS, NARQ, PES). Thus there is a need for researchers to use (a) measurement “stacks,” such as the NPI and HSNS, or NGS and PNI, or (b) a combined measure like the FFNI, if they want to examine all aspects of narcissism. Third, the antagonistic component of Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism may largely share negative relations with traits related to straightforwardness, altruism, and compliance, yet fail to share relations with traits related to modesty, trust, and tender-mindedness. These patterns of relations have important implications for future assessment of narcissistic presentations. Rather than use a nonoverlapping set of antagonistic traits to characterize Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism, an approach that assesses all antagonistic traits would comprehensively capture both antagonistic traits held in common across different presentations. Fourth, the alternative model of NPD in Section III of DSM-5 (i.e., Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders) may not adequately assess the antagonistic features characteristic of narcissism (e.g., Miller et al., 2017). It is our contention that the core of narcissism/NPD is made of traits related to Antagonism and that traits from this domain should form the bedrock of NPD’s assessment in DSM. Indeed, the present findings illustrate that both Grandiose and Vulnerable narcissism show a pattern of meaningful associations with all Criterion B facets of Antagonism. Regrettably, the use of only two traits to assess NPD as part of Criterion B (i.e., Grandiosity, Attention Seeking) may provide inadequate coverage of the NPD construct, especially Vulnerable narcissism (Miller, Gentile, & Campbell, 2013). We propose that the traits used to assess NPD should be expanded to include other relevant traits beyond Grandiosity and Attention Seeking, including Manipulativeness, Deceitfulness, Callousness, and Hostility, which are consistent with traits
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism
233
emphasized by other expert-based characterizations (e.g., manipulativeness, callousness, entitlement; Ackerman, Hands, Donnellan, Hopwood, & Witt, 2016; Lynam & Widiger, 2001; Samuel, Lynam, Widiger, & Ball, 2012), We believe that the overall construct validity of NPD’s diagnosis must be prioritized over discriminant validityrelated concerns, even if the inclusion of these additional traits increases its overlap with near neighbor disorders like antisocial PD (Miller et al., 2017).
Future directions The Trifurcated Model of Narcissism represents an important step beyond the Grandiose versus Vulnerable distinction that has been the focus of research for the past decade (and which itself was a major step forward in understanding narcissism). While the Grandiose versus Vulnerable distinction remains indispensable, the three-factor model (a) provides an avenue for richer explanatory models of narcissism and (b) can be used to assess an individual’s presentation with high granularity.
References Ackerman, R. A., Hands, A. J., Donnellan, M. B., Hopwood, C. J., & Witt, E. A. (2016). Experts’ views regarding the conceptualization of narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 31, 1–16. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Back, M. D., K€ufner, A. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1013–1037. 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 of the United States of America, 112, 3659–3662. Brunell, A. B., Davis, M. S., Scheley, D. R., Eng, A. L., Dulmen, M. H. M., Wester, K. L., et al. (2013). A new measure of interpersonal exploitativeness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–9. Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 638–656. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29–45. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Lutz, FL: PAR. Crowe, M., Edershile, E. A., Wright, A. G. C., Keith Campbell, W., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2018). Development and validation of the Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale: an adjective rating scale. Psychological Assessment, 30, 978–983. Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 188–207. Fossati, A., Beauchaine, T. P., Grazioli, F., Carretta, I., Cortinovis, F., & Maffei, C. (2005). A latent structure analysis of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Narcissistic Personality Disorder criteria. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 46, 361–367.
234
The Handbook of Antagonism
Glover, N., Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). The Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory: a five-factor measure of narcissistic personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 500–512. Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: a reexamination of Murray’s Narcissism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588–599. Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392–402. Kernberg, O. F. (1974). Contrasting viewpoints regarding the nature and psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personalities. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 22, 255–267. Kohut, H. (1972). Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 27, 360–400. Krizan, Z., & Herlache, A. D. (2018). The narcissism spectrum model: a synthetic view of narcissistic personality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 3–31. Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890. Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64, 241–256. Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five-factor model to represent the DSM-IV personality disorders: an expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 401. Maples, J. L., Guan, L., Carter, N. T., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the five-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 26, 1070–1084. Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76, 449–476. Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: comparing factor 2 psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality, 78, 1529–1564. Miller, J. D., Gaughan, E. T., Maples, J., Gentile, B., Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2011). Examining the construct validity of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. Assessment, 18, 106–114. Miller, J. D., Gentile, B., & Campbell, W. K. (2013). A test of the construct validity of the FiveFactor Narcissism Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 377–387. Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2008). An examination of the factor structure of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, narcissistic personality disorder criteria: one or two factors? Comprehensive Psychiatry, 49, 141–145. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). Controversies in narcissism. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 1–25. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., McCain, J. L., Few, L. R., Crego, C., Widiger, T. A., et al. (2016). Thinking structurally about narcissism: an examination of the five-factor narcissism inventory and its components. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30, 1–18. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Siedor, L., Crowe, M., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Consensual lay profiles of narcissism and their connection to the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 30, 10–18. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Vize, C., Crowe, M., Sleep, C., Maples-Keller, J. L., et al. (2018). Vulnerable narcissism is (mostly) a disorder of neuroticism. Journal of Personality, 86, 186–199.
A Trifurcated Model of Narcissism
235
Ovid, & Miller, F. J. (1946). Ovid: Metamorphoses: (p. 1946). Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press/Heinemann. Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G., & Levy, K. N. (2009). Initial construction and validation of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21, 365–379. Raskin, R., & 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, 890–902. Rosenthal, S. A., Hooley, J. M., & Steshenko, Y. (2007). Distinguishing grandiosity from selfesteem: Development of the Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale. Unpublished manuscript. Samuel, D. B., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Ball, S. A. (2012). An expert consensus approach to relating the proposed DSM-5 types and traits. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 1–16. Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2004). Clinicians’ personality descriptions of prototypic personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 286–308. Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: a facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326–1342. Vize, C. E., Collison, K. L., Crowe, M. L., Campbell, W. K., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2017). Using dominance analysis to decompose narcissism and its relation to aggression and externalizing outcomes. Assessment, 1–11. White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big five personality variables and relationship constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1519–1530. Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 590–597.