How, when, and why transgressors’ narcissism affects motivation to apologize (or not)

Accepted Manuscript How, When, and Why Transgressors’ Narcissism Affects Motivation to Apologize (or Not) Arik Shoikhedbrod, C. Ward Struthers, Joshua Guilfoyle, Elizabeth van Monsjou, Julia Halilova, Somayya Saleemi PII: DOI: Reference:

S0092-6566(18)30152-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.11.003 YJRPE 3766

To appear in:

Journal of Research in Personality

Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:

6 July 2018 9 November 2018 12 November 2018

Please cite this article as: Shoikhedbrod, A., Ward Struthers, C., Guilfoyle, J., van Monsjou, E., Halilova, J., Saleemi, S., How, When, and Why Transgressors’ Narcissism Affects Motivation to Apologize (or Not), Journal of Research in Personality (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.11.003

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Running head: NARCISSISM AND APOLOGIES

How, When, and Why Transgressors’ Narcissism Affects Motivation to Apologize (or Not)

Arik Shoikhedbrod C. Ward Struthers Joshua Guilfoyle Elizabeth van Monsjou Julia Halilova Somayya Saleemi

Department of Psychology York University 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario Canada M3J 1P3

Word count=13412

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

2

How, When, and Why Transgressors’ Narcissism Affects Motivation to Apologize (or Not)

Word count=15821 Abstract Four studies were conducted to test the association between transgressors’ narcissism and their motivation to apologize or not, the extent to which victims’ vengeful and forgiving feedback moderated the association, and whether guilt and shame mediated the moderated association. Overall, narcissism was negatively related to apology and positively related to nonapology. However, these associations were qualified by victim feedback such that those with higher degrees of narcissism who received vengeful feedback were more nonapologetic and aggressive toward victims compared to those who received forgiving feedback. Finally, shame did not explain the moderated relation, however, the results for guilt were mixed.

Key words: narcissism, forgiveness, revenge, apology, aggression

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

3

How, When, and Why Transgressors’ Narcissism Affects Motivation to Apologize (or Not) Developing and maintaining lasting relationships is a fundamental human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Myers, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000); however, while forming associations with others, individuals commit transgressions that threaten these important social bonds. Apologizing is one of the most basic ways of restoring relationships after a transgression (Adams, Zou, Inesi, & Pillutla, 2015; Eaton & Struthers, 2006; Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010). In general, apologizing involves acknowledging the transgression and one’s responsibility, saying sorry, expressing remorse, assuring the offense will not happen again, and compensating the victim (Lazare, 2004; Tavuchis, 1991; Weiner, 2006). Despite the benefits (Fehr et al., 2010), transgressors in general (Schumann, 2014; Struthers, Eaton, Shirvani, Georghiou, & Edell, 2008), and narcissistic transgressors more specifically (Leunissen, Sedikides, & Wildschut, 2017; Sandage, Worthington, Hight, & Berry, 2000), struggle with the process of apologizing because doing so could expose them to rejection (Okimoto, Wenzel, & Hedrick, 2013; Schumann & Dweck, 2014; Shnabel & Nadler, 2008; Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013); harsh judgments (Goffman, 1955); or retaliation (Struthers et al., 2008). In the following research, we tested an interpersonal model that incorporates transgressors’ narcissism (Howell,

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

4

Dopko, Turowski, & Buro, 2011; Leunissen et al., 2017; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) and victims’ vengeful or forgiving responses (Struthers et al., 2017; Struthers et al., 2008) to explain transgressors’ reluctance to apologize. More specifically, we examined (1) how transgressors’ narcissism relates to their motivation to apologize or not; (2) whether victims’ vengeful and forgiving responses moderate the relations; and (3) if the moderated relations are explained by transgressors’ feelings of guilt and shame. Narcissism, Apologies, and Forgiveness Narcissism is characterized by a sense of entitlement, superiority, and power over others; a self-admiring and grandiose, yet vulnerable, self-concept; and a pursuit of flattering selfaffirmations (Ackerman et al., 2011; Back et al., 2013; Brummelman, Thomaes, & Sedikides, 2016; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Raskin & Terry, 1988; Rhodewalt & Peterson, 2009). For the purposes of this paper, we conceptualize narcissism as grandiose narcissism; a prevalent construct in the social/personality literature that is distinct from vulnerable and clinical representations of narcissism (see Miller and Campbell, 2008). Narcissistic individuals are unconcerned with others’ needs, viewing them as inferior and vulnerable to exploitation (Horvath & Morf, 2010; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Given this, we theorized that those with narcissistic tendencies would be more focused on themselves and manipulating others to satisfy their needs rather than focusing on the victim’s needs (Rhodewalt & Peterson, 2009). As such, narcissism should be negatively associated with a general motivation to apologize because apologizing involves admitting wrongdoing which challenges a narcissist’s need for flattering self-affirmations. Responding unapologetically, such as blaming the victim, should enable narcissistic individuals to defend their inflated self-image by not acknowledging their own wrongdoing. Therefore, narcissism should be positively associated with a general motivation to

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

5

not apologize. Although little empirical attention has been paid to the association between transgressors’ narcissism and the process of apologizing and not apologizing, a small body of research does show that greater narcissism is linked to lower motivation to apologize (Howell et al., 2011; Leunissen et al., 2017) and seek forgiveness (Sandage, Worthington, Hight, & Berry, 2000). To the extent that one’s motivation to apologize can be conceptualized as a prosocial act, the relation between narcissism and prosocial conduct is mixed (Brunell, Tumblin, & Buelow, 2014; Kauten & Barry, 2014; Konrath, Ho, & Sarins, 2016). This research measured prosocial acts in general rather than following specific situations, suggesting that the interpersonal context, including victims’ post-transgression responses, may be important in understanding when individuals with higher degrees of narcissism might be more or less willing to apologize. Narcissistic individuals have to habitually affirm and defend their inflated self-concept; therefore, positive interpersonal feedback is central to how they regulate their interactions with those they have hurt (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Apologizing is one way to draw out the positive feedback they crave while removing the negative feedback they want to avoid. Ironically, however, being focused on themselves could amplify narcissistic individuals’ reluctance to apologize following a specific transgression, leaving ample time for victims to respond in ways that are harmful to narcissistic individuals’ fragile self-concept (Okimoto, Wenzel, & Hedrick, 2013; Schumann & Dweck, 2014; Struthers et al., 2008; Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2013). One form of feedback that might qualify narcissistic individuals’ motivation to apologize is whether they have been forgiven or not by their victims (Leunissen, DeCramer, & Reinders Folmer, 2012; Struthers et al., 2008; Struthers et al., 2017). Because individuals who are narcissistic respond defensively and aggressively to negative feedback and criticism (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Rasmussen, 2015), deflecting

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

6

blame (Campbell et al., 2000; Morf & Rhodewalt, 1993; Stucke, 2003) and turning on the person providing the feedback (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Kernis & Sun, 1994), we reasoned that acts of unforgiveness by victims such as vengeance would make narcissistic individuals more likely to engage in nonapologetic responses following a specific transgression. Conversely, because these reactions are diminished by self-affirmations (Thomaes, Bushman, Orobio de Castro, Cohen, & Dennisen, 2009) and forgiveness provides positive affirmations by signaling that the transgressor is valued and accepted by the victim (Schnabel & Nadler, 2008), we also reasoned that narcissistic individuals would be less aggressive and less likely to respond nonapologetically when they are forgiven. Regarding apologetic responses, research shows that when they receive positive feedback, more narcissistic individuals attribute success to their own ability and even take credit for group successes (Farwell & Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1998; Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, & Elliot, 2000), suggesting that being forgiven might make them feel as though there is no need to apologize. Although independent programs of research have examined how feedback affects narcissistic individuals’ attributions and aggression (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Rasmussen, 2015; Rhodewalt, & Morf, 1998), as well as the association between victims’ vengeful and forgiving responses and transgressors’ motivation to apologize (Adams et al., 2015; Kelln & Ellard, 1999; Leunissen et al., 2012; Struthers et al., 2017; Struthers et al., 2008), the inter-relation among transgressors’ narcissism, victims’ vengeful and forgiving responses, and transgressors’ apologetic responses, is unknown. One explanation for these effects could be that negative interpersonal feedback provokes self-conscious emotions such as shame and guilt (Tangney, 1995; Tangney, Youman, & Stuewig, 2009), which can affect both how narcissistic individuals view themselves and others, as well as how apologetic they are (Howell, Turowski & Buro, 2012). Shame is associated with a global

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

7

negative evaluation of oneself, including condemnation, disgust, and inferiority (Keltner & Harker, 1998; Lewis, 1971), whereas guilt is associated with a specific undesirable behavior (Lewis, 1971; Tangney & Tracy, 2014). In the context of a transgression, shame triggers transgressors’ concerns about how they are perceived by others, particularly as worthless and powerless, and motivates nonapologetic defensive responses such as victim blaming. In contrast, guilt gives rise to concerns about how transgressors’ behavior affects others, specifically that someone was hurt, and motivates reparative behavior such as apologetic responses (Howell et al., 2012; Tangney & Dearing, 2002). In line with this theorizing, research suggests when transgressors feel ashamed they are less apologetic (Howell et al., 2012), whereas they are more apologetic when they feel guilty (Howell et al., 2012; Leunissen et al., 2017). Importantly, narcissism is negatively associated with both dispositional shame and guilt (Giammarco & Vernon, 2015; Gramzow & Tangney, 1992; Leunissen et al., 2017), pointing to a potential conflict in narcissistic individuals’ motivation to apologize. However, we theorize that being forgiven or not will affect whether narcissistic transgressors feel guilty or ashamed, which, in turn, will influence their apologetic response. Specifically, because guilt is associated with context rather than self-concept, we predicted that narcissistic transgressors would feel less guilt when subjected to revenge. However, because shame is associated with undesirable aspects of one’s self-concept rather than context, narcissistic transgressors may attempt to cloak and deny their shame or hide it at an implicit level as a form of self-protection (Montebarocci, Surcinelli, Baldaro, Trombini, & Rossi, 2004, Tracy et al., 2011). As a result, narcissistic transgressors may be less genuine or insightful in reporting feelings of shame than guilt, and therefore, it is difficult to predict how shame will affect their apologetic response. Overview of Research and Hypotheses

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

8

The goal of the current set of studies was to gain a better understanding of how, when, and why transgressors’ narcissism affects their apologetic responses. Narcissistic transgressors are particularly reluctant to apologize because they are unwilling to admit wrongdoing and expose themselves to judgments that threaten their inflated sense of self. Instead, narcissistic transgressors manipulate the situation following a transgression to suit their needs rather than victims’ needs by rationalizing their actions and behaving aggressively. We expected greater narcissism would be associated with lower motivation to apologize and higher motivation not to apologize. Given the mixed findings concerning the relation between narcissism and prosocial responses in specific situations, we were unable to make a definitive prediction for the relation between narcissism and motivation to apologize following a specific transgression. However, because narcissistic individuals are motivated to seek validating positive feedback and avoid threatening negative feedback, vengeful responses from victims were predicted to make narcissistic transgressors less apologetic and more nonapologetic. Finally, it was predicted that guilt, but not shame, would be more likely to explain why victims’ feedback and transgressors’ narcissism influence apologetic responses. Four studies were conducted to test these predictions. All of the research was approved by the University, Human Participant Review Committee (certificate 2015-186).1 Study 1

1

Study 3 was preregistered and we are unable to share the raw data for the other studies on open science registries because consent was not obtained from the participants.

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

9

This study used a nonexperimental design to test the basic relation between transgressors’ narcissism, their tendency to apologize, and their apologetic and nonapologetic responses following an actual transgression. Method Participants. The original sample size, N=257, was determined by conducting an a priori power analysis using G*Power with one predictor variable, α = .05, a moderate ES, ƒ = .15, and 80% power, N = 55 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) as well as Schonbrodt and Perugini’s (2013) recommendation for sample sizes approximating N=250 for stable estimates. After excluding 23 participants for impossibly low completion times (less than 10 minutes) and 6 participants because of indiscriminate responding based on responses to Marjanovic, Struthers, Cribbie, and Greenglass’ (2014) Conscientious Responders Scale, the remaining participants used in this study were 228 adults (123 females) from a community sample who were on average 40 years old (SD = 14.09). The participants were recruited using a snowball technique in which students in an advanced psychology course were asked to distribute two URLs, one to a female adult and another to an independent, unrelated, male adult (both 18 years or older). Control over the number of participants is difficult with this recruitment procedure because we wanted to give all students in the course an opportunity to participate. The upshot of this procedure was that it generated a sample with greater power than needed to test our hypothesis. Participants completed the study materials online and, in exchange for their participation, they had their names entered in one of two draws for $100. The sample was diverse in terms of ethnicity, religion, education, employment status, and marital status. In terms of ethnic diversity: 1% Aboriginal, 11% Black, 41% White, 14% East Asian, 4% Latin American, 15% Middle Eastern, 13% South Asian, 1% did not know, and there were 10 that did not respond. In terms of religious diversity: 57%

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

10

Christian, 15% Muslim, 5% Hindu, 4% Jewish, 4% Atheist, 11% no religious affiliation, and 3 did not respond. Regarding highest level of education: 2% incomplete High School, 12% High School, 11% incomplete College, 26% complete College, 38% completed their BA, 6% completed their MA, and 5% completed their PhD. In terms of the sample’s marital status: 28% were single, 66% were married or common law, 5% were divorced, 2% were widowed, and 1 did not respond. Employment status was also diverse: 64% were employed full-time, 17% were employed part-time, 5% were students, 7% were unemployed, 4% were retired, and 3% identified as homemakers. Materials Narcissistic Personality Inventory-13 (NPI-13). We assessed narcissism with the shortform version (Gentile et al., 2013) of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988). On this adapted version of the NPI, participants rated their agreement with 13 items (e.g., “I will usually show off if I get the chance”) on a 7-point scale (where 1 = Strongly agree and 7 = Strongly disagree) that are comprised of three subscales: Leadership/Authority (4 items); Grandiose Exhibitionism (5 items); and Entitlement/Exploitativeness (4 items). Tendency to not apologize. We assessed participants’ tendency to not apologize using the Proclivity to Apologize Measure (PAM; Howell et al., 2011). Respondents indicated how much they agreed with 8 statements such as “I tend to downplay my wrongdoings to the other person, rather than apologize”. All items were assessed using a 7-point scale that ranged from 1 = Strongly agree to 7 = Strongly disagree.

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

11

Tendency to apologize. Because the PAM is comprised of items that only measure tendencies to not apologize rather than apologize, we used another item with a positive valence to measure participants’ perceived tendency to apologize, “I have a tendency to apologize”. The same 7-point scale was used to assess this variable, 1 = Strongly agree to 7 = Strongly disagree. Conscientious Responders Scale (CRS). We used Marjanovic et al.’s (2014) Conscientious Responders Scale to detect participants who had responded randomly or indiscriminately to our questionnaire. The scale consists of 5 items which instruct responders exactly how to answer a particular question (e.g., please answer this question by choosing number 7, “Strongly disagree”). Responding incorrectly to more than 2 of the 5 items indicates a random response pattern and these participants were excluded from the sample.

In addition to different demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, religion, culture), participants also responded to stimuli associated with a specific transgression that they committed within the past 6 months.

Transgression. We had the participants recall and write about a past transgression that they committed. Specifically, participants were instructed to respond to the following stimuli: Please take a moment to think about a time in the last six months in which a negative event occurred between you and another person in which you committed a transgression by hurting the other person. If you cannot recall such an event in the past six months then please think about the most recent negative event you can. This other person could be a friend, family member, romantic partner, coworker, acquaintance, stranger, or someone else. The

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

12

negative event could have been due to something you did or failed to do but it must have had a moderate to severe impact on the other person. In the space below please describe what happened and what you did. Transgression and victim characteristics. Participants completed 4 items assessing the severity of the transgression (e.g., How severe was the transgression?), all items were measured on a 7-point scale, 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much so. In addition, time since the transgression, relationship to the victim, and gender of the victim were assessed. Apologetic responses. Based on Lazare’s (2004), Tavuchis’ (1991), and Weiner’s (2006) conceptualizations, apologies were operationalized as acknowledging the transgression and one’s responsibility for it, saying sorry, expressing remorse, assuring victims of no future transgressions, and compensating the victim. Based on this, we used 14 items to operationalize transgressors’ state apologetic behavior following the transgression. Using 7-point scales, 1 = Not at all to 7 = Very much so, participants responded to items such as, “To what extent did you apologize to the other person?”, “To what extent did you tell the other person you were sorry?”, and “To what extent did you try to make things better with the other person?” Nonapologetic responses. We used 12 items to assess transgressors’ nonapologetic behavior. Using the same 7-point scale, participants were asked, for instance, “To what extent did you justify your actions?”, “To what extent did you blame the other person for your actions?”, and “To what extent did you deny what you had done?” Procedures Participants completed all materials online and were debriefed in writing when the data collection was completed.

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

13

Results and Discussion Narcissism and Tendency to Apologize or Not We first created our key variables. Based on positive correlations between items specific to each variable and acceptable levels of internal consistency, we averaged the items for narcissism (NPI-13), M = 3.79, SD = 1.01, α = .86, and its subscales, Leadership/Authority, M = 4.30, SD = 1.29, α = .81, Grandiose Exhibitionism, M = 3.44, SD = 1.26, α = .78, and Entitlement/Exploitativeness, M = 3.72, SD = 1.27, α = .88. We also averaged the items for tendency to not apologize (PAM), M = 4.92, SD = 1.37, α = .92. In addition, we found a significant and moderately strong negative relation between the PAM and our measure of tendency to apologize, M = 4.71, SD = 1.61, r = -.53, p < .001, suggesting that the single item measure is moderately related to one’s tendency to not apologize (i.e., the PAM). We also found positive relations between the subscales of the NPI-13. See Table 1, upper triangle, for the correlations between our variables. Our hypotheses were based on using the NPI-13 in conceptualizing the degree of narcissism; however, we present the regression results of the full scale and its 3 subscales in Table 1. In general, regardless of the scale (full scale or subscales), the valence and statistical significance of the findings were similar; however, the strength of the relation between narcissism and tendency to apologize or not was stronger when the full scale was considered (see Table 1). When we regressed tendency to apologize and not apologize (PAM) onto the NPI-13, we found, as predicted, a significant negative and positive relation, respectively, between narcissism and tendency to apologize, b = -.51, SE = .10, t(207) = -4.97, p < .001, and not apologize (PAM), b = .49, SE = .09, t(207) = 5.68, p < .001. Thus, those who reported higher degrees of narcissism

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

14

were less likely to see themselves as apologetic and more likely to see themselves as nonapologetic. These results replicate the independent results reported by Howell et al. (2011) and Leunissen et al. (2017), and therefore, should instill a reasonable degree of confidence in the association between transgressors’ narcissism and their tendency to apologize or not. We also examined the relation between the subscales of the NPI-13 and participants’ tendency to apologize or not. These results, which are reported in Table 1, show a similar pattern of relations, however, the relations were weaker for the subscales than the NPI-13. Narcissism and Apologetic and Nonapologetic Responses Following a Transgression Another purpose of Study 1 was to examine the relation between narcissism and transgressors’ apologetic responses following a specific transgression. The participants for this analysis were a subsample of 181 adults (88 Male) from the original community sample who could recall a transgression that they had committed within the past 6 months. Those who could not recall a transgression that they had committed were omitted. The subsample was, on average, 40 years old (SD = 14.50). Based on a sensitivity power analysis, 181 participants with 80% power was sufficient to detect a small to moderate effect size, ƒ = .04. The reduced sample remained diverse in terms of our demographic measures. In terms of ethnic diversity, the sample consisted of: 1% Aboriginal, 9% Black, 45% White, 14% East Asian, 5% Latin American, 13% Middle Eastern, 12% South Asian, 1% did not know their ethnicity, and there were 4 that did not respond. In terms of religious diversity: 57% Christian, 13% Muslim, 5% Hindu, 4% Jewish, 5% Atheist, 12% no religious affiliation, 4% did not know, and 2 did not respond. Regarding highest level of education achieved: 11% incomplete High School, 14% High School, 11% incomplete College, 24% completed College, 37% completed their BA, 7% completed their MA, and 6%

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

15

completed their PhD. In terms of the sample’s marital status: 28% were single, 66% were married or common law, 3% were divorced, 2% were widowed, and 1 did not respond. Employment status was also diverse: 65% were employed full-time, 17% were employed parttime, 4% were students, 7% were unemployed, 4% were retired, and 3% identified as homemakers. Before conducting the main analysis, we created our key variables. Based on positive correlations between items specific to each variable and acceptable levels of internal consistency, we averaged the items for the NPI-13, M = 3.73, SD = 1.04, α = .87, NPI-LA, M = 4.24, SD = 1.34, α = .85, NPI-GE, M = 3.36, SD = 1.24, α = .81, NPI-EE, M = 3.69, SD = 1.31, α = .78, transgression severity, M = 4.39, SD = 1.33, α = .81, apologetic response, M = 4.58, SD = 1.64, α = .97, and nonapologetic response, M = 3.28, SD = 1.17, α = .88. We also assessed victims’ gender and relation to the transgressor: 69 were males, 110 were females, and 28% were family, 22% were friends, 7% were coworkers, 2% were bosses, 18% were romantic partners, 18% were spouses, 1% were acquaintances, 4% were strangers, and 2 did not indicate the type of relationship. On average our sample thought the transgression they committed was moderately severe, M = 4.39, and reported that it has occurred within the past 3-6 months. See Table 1, lower triangle, for correlations between the variables. Next, we examined whether narcissism predicted apologetic and nonapologetic responses following a specific transgression. To do this, we regressed our apologetic and nonapologetic response variables onto participants’ NPI-13 scores (see Table 2). Narcissism did not predict apologetic responses, b = .04, SE = .12, t(178) = .38, p = .701; however, it did predict engaging

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

16

in nonapologetic responses such as justifying their actions, denying their actions, and blaming the victim, b = .23, SE = .08, t(178) = 2.78, p = .006. Despite the benefits of apologizing (Eaton & Struthers, 2006; Fehr et al., 2010), transgressors are often reluctant to do so, especially when victims are vengeful (Struthers et al., 2008; Struthers et al., 2017). This general reluctance could explain why narcissism specifically did not predict apologizing following a specific transgression. However, we assert that this reluctance should be greater for narcissistic individuals because they have a sense of entitlement and preoccupation with power, combined with grandiose but vulnerable self-concepts (Rhodewalt & Peterson, 2009). These factors predispose them to seek positive feedback from others (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) suggesting that forgiveness, a form of positive selfaffirmation, might facilitate narcissistic transgressors’ apologetic responses. However, having been forgiven, it is possible that narcissistic transgressors will feel no need to apologize. In comparison, when receiving negative feedback from others such as vengeful responses, narcissistic individuals derogate and act aggressively toward them (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Kernis & Sun, 1994; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) suggesting that revenge, a form of selfthreat, might hinder narcissistic transgressors’ apologetic responses. Thus, victims’ forgiving and vengeful feedback following a transgression could moderate narcissist transgressors’ motivation to apologize. We did not assess victims’ feedback in Study 1 and therefore we tested the moderation hypothesis in Study 2. Study 2 In Study 2, we used a quasi-experimental design to systematically test whether being forgiven or not affects narcissistic transgressors’ apologetic responses. When forgiven, it was

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

17

theoretically unclear if transgressors with greater narcissism would be more apologetic because forgiveness could affirm their grandiose self-concept, or their negative experience associated with the transgression. However, when subjected to revenge, we predicted they would be less apologetic. We also tested whether feeling shame or guilt would explain why this occurs. Method Participants. The participants were 78 undergraduate students who received course credit toward their introductory psychology course in exchange for participating in our study. The participants (65 Females) were on average 20 years old (SD = 3.58). We originally planned to test our hypotheses using 115 participants which was based on a power analysis with three predictor variable, α = .05, a moderate ES, and 80% power. However, our data collection ended prematurely because of a labor strike on campus. A post-hoc sensitivity statistical power analysis for 78 participants with 80% power was sufficient to detect a moderate effect size, ƒ2 = .15. Materials Narcissistic Personality Inventory-13 (NPI-13). Participants’ narcissism was assessed with the NPI-13 (Gentile et al., 2013) used in Study 1. As in Study 1, participants rated their agreement with 13 items (e.g., “I will usually show off if I get the chance”) on a 7-point scale (where 1 = Strongly agree and 7 = Strongly disagree), which comprise three subscales: Leadership/Authority (4 items); Grandiose Exhibitionism (5 items); and Entitlement/Exploitativeness (4 items).

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

18

Transgression. Participants read and responded to the following transgression scenario used in previous research (e.g., Struthers, Eaton, Mendoza, Santelli, & Shirvani, 2010; Struthers, Miller, Boudens, & Briggs, 2001). Please take a moment to imagine yourself as an employee in a highly successful organization. In this organization, you are a member of a two-person team with a coworker, John, who is of the same rank. Recently, you and John were assigned to complete a major project. This is a high-profile project, and its success would give you and John the opportunity to really show your potential. In fact, John was up for a long overdue promotion, which was granted with one condition: you and John had to successfully complete this project by a specific date. Unfortunately, you and your coworker failed to successfully complete this important project on time. The consequences of not meeting this deadline seriously jeopardized your company’s relationship with the client. And, as a result of missing your deadline, your coworker, John, lost his long-anticipated promotion that was contingent on successfully completing the project. After reviewing your project notes and preceding events, in order to determine what went wrong, you realized that the deadline was not met because you took a personal day and missed a day of work. You had enough knowledge to successfully finish the project, and you would have, had you not had to miss a day of work. Consequently, only you were unable to get your part of the project completed on time, which caused you both to miss the deadline. Thus, after an evaluation of the events leading to this incident, you determined that the missed deadline was caused by you.

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

19

Victim post-transgression response (PTR). In the forgiving condition, participants read the following statement: “Sometime after hearing about John’s lost promotion, you run into him in the photocopy room. This is the first time you have seen John since his lost promotion. You say hello to John and he replies "Hello," pauses, and then goes on to say, "Listen, I was upset with you after losing my promotion, but now I’m over it and forgive you for losing my promotion." In the vengeful condition, participants read: “Sometime after hearing about John’s lost promotion, you run into him in the photocopy room. This is the first time you have seen John since his lost promotion. You say hello to John. John initially ignores you, pauses, and then goes on to say, "Listen, I'm upset with you after losing my promotion and I'm definitely not going to be able to let go of this one. I'm going to get you back for losing my promotion.” Transgressors’ shame and guilt. Shame and guilt were measured with the State Shame and Guilt Scale (SSGS, Marschall, Sanftner, & Tangney, 1994). On a 7-point scale, 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much so, Participants rated their agreement with 5 items for shame (e.g., "I would feel like a bad person") and 5 items for guilt (e.g., "I would feel bad about what I did"). Apologetic responses. Based on the apology items used in Study 1 (recalled transgression), we used 12 items to assess transgressor’s imagined apologetic response following the transgression. Using 7-point scales, 1 = Not at all to 7 = Very much so, participants responded to items such as, How apologetic would you be?, Would you be sorry?, and Would you try to make things better with John? Manipulation check. Participants completed 2 items assessing the manipulation of the victim’s forgiving and vengeful responses, John forgave me for what happened?, and John did not forgive me for what happened?, rated from, 1=Not at all, to, 7=Very much so.

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

20

Procedure Participants completed the study material online. After agreeing to participate, they completed a questionnaire containing the NPI and demographic items. After the participants were randomly assigned to the different victim PTR conditions, they read and imagined themselves as the transgressor in a work-related vignette. Following this, the participants completed another questionnaire measuring their self-focused emotions and apologetic responses. The participants were debriefed in writing at the end of the study. Results and Discussion Preliminary Analysis Based on positive correlations between items and acceptable levels of internal consistency, we averaged the items to create our variables: NPI-13, M = 3.95, SD = 1.09, α = .87, and its three subscales, Leadership/Authority, M = 4.23, SD = 1.31, α = .88, Grandiose Exhibitionism, M = 3.81, SD = 1.15, α = .79, and Entitlement/Exploitativeness, M = 3.88, SD = 1.19, α = .73, shame, M = 4.65, SD = 1.37, α = .88, guilt, M = 5.42, SD = 1.16, α = .81, and apology, M = 5.62, SD = 1.01, α = .91. See Table 3 for the zero-order correlations between the variables. Consistent with Study 1, we present the results for the full NPI-13 scale in the next section, however, we include the results for the three subscales in Table 4. Main Analyses We used Hayes’ (2012) PROCESS and bootstrapping procedure (SAS, Model 1) to test whether being forgiven or not would impact how apologetic narcissistic individuals think they would be following a transgression. Consistent with Study 1, we found a nonsignificant relation

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

21

between narcissism and apologetic response, b = .57, SE = .36, t = 1.59, p = .116, 95% CI [-.14, 1.28], suggesting that, if there is a relation between narcissism and apologetic responses, it is likely a moderated one (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Based on our theorizing, we suggest that this relation might depend on victims’ post-transgression feedback to seek revenge or forgive their transgressors. As predicted, transgressors’ narcissism interacted with whether they were forgiven or not to predict how apologetic they would be, b = -.49, SE = .23, t = -2.13, p = .037, 95% CI [.95, -.03]. Next, we conducted simple slope tests to probe the interaction (see Figure 1). For participants in the forgiving condition, no significant relation was found between narcissism and apology, b = .08, SE = .16, t = .49, p = .628, 95% CI [-.24, .39]; however, a significant negative relation was found between narcissism and apology for participants in the vengeful condition, b = -.41, SE = .17, t = -2.45, p = .017, 95% CI [-.75, -.08], supporting the prediction that the relation between narcissism and apology is moderated by whether victims forgave them or sought revenge. We also tested the simple slopes for victim’s forgiving and vengeful responses for those lower (-1 SD) and higher (1 SD) on our narcissism measure. For those lower in narcissism, no significant relation was found between victim PTR and apology, b = .29, SE = .32, t = 0.91, p = .364, 95% CI [-.34, .93]; however, for those higher in narcissism, a significant relation was found between victim PTR and apology, b = -.67, SE = .32, t = -2.11, p = .038, 95% CI [-1.30, -.04]. Next, we examined if the moderated relation between transgressors’ narcissism and apology was explained by their shame and guilt. We tested a model that simultaneously considered both mediators as parallel explanations for the moderated relation (PROCESS, SAS, Model 8). A significant and marginally nonsignificant narcissism by victim PTR (forgiveness, revenge) interaction was found, respectively, for both shame, b = -.74, SE = .31, t = -2.39, p =

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

22

.019, 95% CI [-1.35, -.12], and guilt, b = -.52, SE = .27, t = -1.93, p = .058, 95% CI [-1.05, .02] on apology. However, shame did not significantly predict apology, whereas, guilt did, both, shame, b = .05, SE = .11, t = 0.48, p =.630, 95% CI [-.17, .27], guilt, b = .51, SE = .13, t = 4.05, p < .001, 95% CI [.26, .77], suggesting that guilt is viable explanation for the moderated effect. Moreover, the indirect effects of shame was nonsignificant, whereas guilt was, b = -.27, SE = .16, 95% CI [-.65, -.02], To probe these effects, we examined the conditional indirect effect of narcissism on apology for forgiveness and revenge (see Figure 2). No significant indirect effect was found for guilt when the transgressor received forgiving feedback; however, a significant indirect effect was found for guilt when the transgressor received vengeful feedback, b = -.21, SE = .11, 95% CI [-.51, -.06]. As predicted, transgressors who are more narcissistic felt less guilt when the victim expressed revenge, b = -.42, SE = .16, t = -2.60, p = .014. In turn, those who felt guilty were more likely to apologize, b = .68, SE = .13, t = 5.21, p < .001. Study 2 was designed to test the moderating role of victims’ vengeful and forgiving responses on the relation between transgressors’ narcissism and apologetic responses. It was also designed to test the simultaneous mediating role of shame and guilt. Overall, Study 2 showed that the relation between transgressors’ narcissism and their apologetic responses was moderated by victims’ vengeful and forgiving responses. Moreover, this moderated relation was explained by transgressors’ feeling of guilt but not shame. In Study 3, our goal was to systematically replicate these findings by preregistering the study and using a sample size that was consistent with our apriori power analysis. We also included a measure of nonapology. Study 3

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

23

In Study 3, we also used a quasi-experimental design to systematically replicate whether being forgiven or not affected narcissistic transgressors’ apologetic responses. We also tested whether feeling shame or guilt would explain why this occurs. The following study was preregistered (http://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=u3u8fy). Method Participants. 316 individuals were solicited to participate in this study on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Our original sample size was based on an apriori power analysis with 80% power, 3 predictors (i.e., narcissism, PTR, narcissism*PTR interaction), and alpha=.05, N=266. We oversampled by approximately 20% (n=50) because of potential exclusions due to incomplete responding, random responding based on the CRS (Marjanovic, et al., 2014), and participants who responded “no” when asked “should we include your data in our analyses?” After exclusions (n=25), our final sample consisted of 291 MTurkers (females = 146) who were on average 36 years old (SD = 12.11). As in Studies 1 and 2, our sample was diverse in ethnicity, religion, education, employment status, and marital status. In terms of ethnic diversity: 1% Aboriginal, 15% Black, 66% White, 5% East Asian, 4% Latin American, .5% Middle Eastern, 1% South Asian, 1% South East Asian 2% Polynesian, 1% mixed, and 1 person did not respond to the demographic items. In terms of religious diversity: 54% Christian, 1% Muslim, 3% Hindu, 1% Jewish, 12% Atheist, 12% Agnostic, 13% no religious affiliation, and 2% other. Regarding level of education: 1% incomplete High School, 11% High School, 23% incomplete College, 13% completed College, 42% completed their BA, 8% completed their MA, and 1% completed their PhD. In terms of marital status: 6% were single, 47% were married or common law, 5% were divorced, and < 1% was widowed. Employment status was diverse as well: 65%

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

24

were employed full-time, 16% were employed part-time, 5% were students, 6% were unemployed, 3% were retired, and 1% identified as caregivers. Materials Narcissistic Personality Inventory-13 (NPI-13). Participants’ narcissism was assessed with the NPI-13 (Gentile et al., 2013) that was used in Studies 1 and 2. Transgression. Participants read and responded to the following transgression scenario used in previous research (e.g., Struthers, Eaton, Mendoza, Santelli, & Shirvani, 2010; Struthers, Miller, Boudens, & Briggs, 2001). Please take a moment to imagine yourself as an employee in a highly successful organization. In this organization, you are a member of a twoperson team with a coworker, John, who is of the same rank. You’ve been working with John for approximately 2 years. You get along with each other, depend on each other’s unique skills, and work effectively together completing the projects you are assigned. Recently, you and John were assigned to complete a major project. This is a high profile project, and its success would give you and John the opportunity to really show your potential. In fact, John was up for a long overdue promotion, which was granted with one condition: you and John had to successfully complete this project by a specific date. Unfortunately, you and John failed to successfully complete this important project on time. The consequences of not meeting this deadline seriously jeopardized your company’s relationship with the client. And as a result of missing your deadline, John (your coworker) lost his long-anticipated

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

25

promotion that was contingent on successfully completing the project. After reviewing your project notes and preceding events in order to determine what went wrong, you realized that the deadline was not met because you took a personal day and missed a day of work. You had what was needed to successfully finish the project, and you would have, had you not had to miss a day of work. Consequently, only you were unable to get your part of the project completed on time, which caused you both to miss the deadline. Thus, after an evaluation of the events leading to this incident, you determined that the missed deadline was caused by you. Victim post-transgression response (PTR). In the forgiving condition, participants read the following statement: “Sometime after hearing about John’s lost promotion, you run into him in the photocopy room. This is the first time you have seen John since his lost promotion. You say hello to John and he replies "Hello," pauses, and then goes on to say, "Listen, I was upset with you after losing my promotion, but now I’m over it and have let it go. Hey, we should try out that new restaurant for lunch sometime next week". In the vengeful condition, participants read: “Sometime after hearing about John’s lost promotion, you run into him in the photocopy room. This is the first time you have seen John since his lost promotion. You say hello to John. John initially ignores you, pauses, and then goes on to say, listen, I was upset with you after losing my promotion and I got back at you by convincing your manager to document what you did in your personnel file. He then leaves the room. Transgressors’ shame and guilt. Shame and guilt were measured with the State Shame and Guilt Scale (SSGS, Marschall, Sanftner, & Tangney, 1994) used in Study 2. On a 7-point scale, 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much so, participants rated their agreement with 5 items for shame

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

26

(e.g., "I would feel like a bad person") and 5 items for guilt (e.g., "I would feel bad about what I did"). Apologetic responses. Based on the apology items used in Studies 1 and 2, we used 12 items to assess transgressors’ apologetic response following the transgression. Using 7-point scales, 1 = Not at all to 7 = Very much so, participants responded to items such as, “How apologetic would you be?”, “Would you be sorry?”, and “Would you try to make things better with John?” Nonapologetic responses. Based on the nonapology items used in Study 1, we used 12 items to assess transgressors’ imagined nonapologetic response following the transgression. Using 7-point scales, 1 = Not at all to 7 = Very much so, participants responded to items such as, To what extent would you blame John for your actions?, To what extent would you lash out at John?, and To what extent would you downplay the event or your behavior?. Manipulation check. Participants completed 3 items concerning the severity, How severe do you consider this event?; negativity, How negative is this event?; and impact of the event on the victim, To what extent would the event have a negative effect on John?; and 2 items assessing the manipulation of the victim’s forgiving and vengeful responses, John forgave me for what happened?, and John tried to get back at me for what happened, 1=Not at all, to, 7=Very much so. Procedure After agreeing to participate, individuals completed a questionnaire containing the NPI13 and demographic items. Then the participants were randomly assigned to the different victim

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

27

PTR conditions, in which they read and imagined themselves as the transgressor in a workrelated vignette. Following this, the participants completed another questionnaire measuring the characteristics of the event, their self-focused emotions, and apologetic and nonapologetic responses. At the end the study, participants were debriefed, thanked for their participation, and provided with a survey code that verified their participation on MTurk. Participants were then compensated $1.00 US to their MTurk account. Results and Discussion Preliminary Analysis Based on positive correlations between items and acceptable levels of internal consistency, we averaged the items to create our variables: NPI-13, M = 3.72, SD = 1.21, α = .87, NPI-LA, M = 3.87, SD = 1.36, α = .88, NPI-GE, M = 3.52, SD = 1.41, α = .79, NPI-EE, M = 3.81, SD = 1.27, α = .73, shame, M = 4.69, SD = 1.59, α = .88, guilt, M = 5.41, SD = 1.34, α = .81, apology, M = 5.70, SD = 1.21, α = .91, and nonapology, M = 2.72, SD = 1.45, α = .94. See Table 5 for the zero-order correlations between the variables. In addition, participants perceived the event as moderately severe, M = 5.45, SD = 1.36, negative, M = 5.48, SD = 1.42, and having an impact on the victim, M = 5.22, SD = 1.49. Next, we assessed the success of the PTR manipulation. As desired, participants in the forgiveness condition perceived the response as more forgiving (M=6.03, SD=1.07) and less vengeful (M=2.10, SD=1.64), F(1, 289)=499.41 , p < .001, η2 = .63; than participants in the revenge condition (M=2.06, SD=1.84, M=6.13, SD=1.51, respectively), F(1, 250)=412.54, p < .001, η2 = .62. Main Analyses

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

28

We used Hayes’ (2012) PROCESS and bootstrapping procedure (SAS, Model 1) to test whether being forgiven or not would impact how apologetic and nonapologetic narcissistic individuals thought they would be following a transgression. The results for the NPI-13 and its 3 subscales (Leadership/Authority, Grandiose Exhibitionism, Entitlement/Exploitativeness) are summarized in Tables 6 and 7. Once again, our hypotheses were based on using the NPI-13; however, we present the regression results of the full scale and its 3 subscales in Table 6 for apology and Table 7 for nonapology. In general, regardless of the scale, the findings were similar. Consistent with Studies 1 and 2, we found a nonsignificant relation between narcissism and apology, b = -.21, SE = .19, t(290) = -1.11, p = .269, 95% CI [-.57, .16]. Also consistent with Study 1, we found a significant relation between narcissism and nonapology, b = .39, SE = .18, t(290) = 2.23, p = .026, 95% CI [.05, .74]. PTR was not related to apology or nonapology, b = .08, SE = .45, t(290) = 0.17, p = .867, 95% CI [-.82, .97], b = -.67, SE = .43, t(290) = -1.55, p = .121, 95% CI [-1.51, .18], respectively. Based on our theorizing, we suggest that the relations between narcissism and transgressors’ apologetic and nonapologetic responses might depend on victims’ post-transgression feedback to seek revenge or forgive their transgressors. Although, narcissism did not interact with whether transgressors were forgiven or not to predict how apologetic they would be, b = -.01, SE = .12, t(290) = -0.05, p = .958, 95% CI [-.23, .22], it did predict how nonapologetic they would be, b = .23, SE = .11, t(290) = 2.14, p = .034, 95% CI [.02, .45]. We conducted simple slope tests to probe the significant interaction (see Figure 3). For participants in the forgiving condition, a significant relation was found between narcissism and nonapology, b = .63, SE = .08, t(140) = 7.85, p < .001, 95% CI [.47, .78], as well as for

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

29

participants in the revenge condition, b = .86, SE = .07, t (149)= 11.55, p < .001, 95% CI [.71, 1.01]. We also tested the simple slopes for victim’s forgiving and vengeful responses for those low (-1 SD) and high (1 SD) in narcissism. For those low in narcissism, no significant relation was found between victim PTR and nonapology, b = -.08, SE = .19, t = -0.43, p = .670, 95% CI [-.44, .29]; however, for those high in narcissism, a significant relation was found between victim PTR and nonapology, b = .49, SE = .19, t = 2.60, p = .010, 95% CI [.12, .85]. Thus, regardless of victim PTR, narcissistic transgressors were unapologetic; however, the relation was stronger for those who received vengeful feedback. Moreover, transgressors with higher degrees of narcissism were more nonapologetic when receiving vengeful feedback compared to forgiveness feedback. Next, we examined if the moderated relation between narcissism and apology was explained by transgressors’ shame and guilt. We tested a model that simultaneously considered both mediators as parallel explanations for the moderated relation (PROCESS, SAS, Model 8). A nonsignificant narcissism by victim PTR (forgiveness, revenge) interaction was found for shame, b = -.02, SE = .15, t(290) = -0.12, p = .908, 95% CI [-.32, .28], and guilt, b = -.07, SE = .13, t(290) = -0.56, p = .574, 95% CI [-.33, .18]. Moreover, the indirect effects of shame and guilt for the interaction of narcissism and victim PTR on nonapology were both nonsignificant, b = .004, Bootstrap SE = .04, 95% CI [-.08, .08], b = .04, Bootstrap SE = .08, 95% CI [-.11, .22], suggesting that neither shame nor guilt are viable explanation for the moderated effect. Study 3 was designed to test the moderating role of victims’ vengeful and forgiving responses on narcissistic transgressors’ motivation to apologize or not following a transgression.

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

30

It was also designed to test the simultaneous mediating roles of shame and guilt. Overall, Study 3 showed that the relation between transgressors’ narcissism and their nonapologetic response was moderated by victims’ vengeful and forgiving responses. Like Study 2, this moderated relation was not explained by transgressors’ feelings of shame. However, unlike Study 2, this moderated relation was not explained by guilt either. In Study 2 and 3, participants were instructed to imagine a situation in which they transgressed against a coworker. In Study 4, we wanted to examine the extent to which our moderated findings generalized to an actual transgression and aggressive behavior. Study 4 Narcissistic individuals’ defensiveness may be best exemplified in their aggressive behavior, particularly toward people who provide them with negative feedback (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). This is because they are interested in maintaining their grandiose self-image through heightened aggressive behavior directed toward any source of ego-threat (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Rasmussen, 2015). Aggression impedes apologizing (Eaton & Struthers, 2006), and narcissistic individuals may even double down on their nonapologetic responses and act aggressively toward victims in order to defend their self-image, particularly toward victims who provide them with negative feedback, such as a desire for revenge. The purpose of Study 4 was to systematically test whether the relation between narcissism and aggressive behavior is moderated by whether transgressors are forgiven or not. Once again, we used a quasiexperimental design in which we manipulated whether participants were forgiven or not after measuring their level of narcissism. In addition, we tested the mediational role of shame and guilt in explaining the moderated relation between narcissism and aggression.

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

31

Method Participants. The participants were 99 undergraduate students who received course credit for participating. The participants, which included 66 females and 31 males, were on average 22 years old (SD = 7.17). A sensitivity statistical power analysis for 99 participants with 80% power was sufficient to detect a moderate effect size, ƒ 2 = .11. Two participants were excluded because they were outliers (> 2 SD) on the dependent variable. The sample was ethnically diverse: White 22%, East Asian 9%, Latin American 1%, South Asian 26%, Middle Eastern 11%, Black 22%, and other 9%. Materials Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI). In this study we used the extended version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI, Raskin & Terry, 1988). On this version of the NPI, participants rated their agreement with 40 items (e.g., "I am more capable than other people") on a 7-point scale (where 1 = Strongly agree and 7 = Strongly disagree). When compared to the original forced-choice format of the NPI, the continuous response scale format of the NPI demonstrates equivalent reliability and validity (Miller et al., 2017). Similar to the NPI-13, it was possible to examine the 3 subscales of the NPI-40 (Ackerman et al., 2011): Leadership/Authority (11 items); Grandiose Exhibitionism (9 items); and Entitlement/Exploitativeness (4 items). Transgression. The transgression was embedded in a team-based boggle game that participants played with a virtual partner against another virtual team. At the end of the game, participants received false feedback suggesting that their performance lost the game and their partner's chance at a grand prize. This paradigm was adopted from previous studies that

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

32

successfully used this team-based game approach to create in-lab transgressions (e.g., van Monsjou et al., 2015; Young et al., 2013). Participants in these studies indicate a moderate to high level of negativity and severity associated with their performance as well as a moderate to high level of responsibility for their performance. Victim post-transgression response (PTR). Participants received either a forgiving or vengeful response from their partner following the transgression. Spelling mistakes and emoticons were included in the messages to add to the ecological validity of the study. In the forgiving condition, participants received the following message from their partner: "Ahhhh... it's tough losing this game and the chance at $200 Oh well... I bet you tried your best so no worries :)". In the vengeful condition, participants received the following message from their partner: "AHHHH... it sucks losing this game and the chance at winning the $200...If only i had some way to get u back for this >:(". The forgiving response was coded as 1 and the vengeful response was coded as 2. Event impact. Self-report items were used to assess the participants' perceived impact of the transgression. Participants rated their agreement with the following items on a 7-point scale (where 1 = not at all and 7 = very much so): "How negative was the event (i.e., losing the Boggle game and prizes) for your partner", "I had control over what happened between my partner and I", and "I think I am responsible for what happened". Shame and guilt. The same shame and guilt items used in Studies 2 and 3 were used in this study. However, we used an Interruption of Session Form to assess participants’ responses to these items. Participants received a pop-up message stating that, after review, the system identified that a negative event occurred between the participant and their partner and research

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

33

protocol requires that the study is stopped in order to assess participants' experience prior to continuing. Using a 7-point scale (where 1 = Not at all and 7 = Very much so), participants rated their degree of experiencing each of the items. Aggression. To measure aggression, we assessed the extent to which participants administered distracting sound blasts to their partner. More specifically, at the end of the study, participants took part in a wild card round of the Boggle game, which required them to administer distractions while their partner played 2 additional rounds. Participants actively adjusted a digital slider to determine the intensity and duration of a white noise sound blast during each 60 second round. Prior to administering the sound blasts, participants heard 5 second samples of 0, 25, 50, and 100 dBs, as well as instructions specifying that they had the choice to administer no sound blasts. The sound intensity levels on the slider ranged from none to maximum volume (where 0 = no sound blasts and 5 = 100 dB). Participants determined the duration of the noise blasts by keeping the slider stationary on different intensity levels for different intervals throughout a round. The values for all 60 seconds of round 1 and 2 were averaged respectively, and then combined to create a composite aggression score. Manipulation Check. To determine whether forgiveness and revenge were accurately perceived by participants, they recalled what their partner said to them following the game, which was coded according to the corresponding victim PTR participants received (where 1 = Forgiving, 2 = Vengeful and 3 = Unsure). Procedure

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

34

Participants were told that the study concerned one-way communication (i.e., when only one person can communicate at a time, e.g., email, texting, and the receiver must wait for a response), virtual teams (i.e., groups or teams of people who work together online, but never meet in person), and distractions. Participants were told that they would be forming a team with another student, and that they would be competing against another two-person virtual team in a series of Boggle games. Next, the participants were instructed to complete a questionnaire which included the NPI and demographic items. Once completed, participants were told to wait while the RA called the researcher in the other lab who was supposedly giving the same instructions to their partner. The researcher ensured that the participant could overhear the phone conversation. He pretended to speak to the other researcher, saying that he had just given the participant the instructions and was ready to begin, and asked if their partner was ready to begin as well. Following the phone call, the researcher told the participants that their partner was also ready to begin the game, and that their team had been randomly assigned to the no-distraction condition while they played Boggle against the other team. The researcher also disclosed that he was told over the phone that their partner had actually played 2 previous games and was one game short of winning the grand prize. Participants were then directed to read and follow the instructions for the game presented on the computer. Using a computer-programmed application, the participants were informed that they would be playing an online version of Boggle, a word search game for those 8 years and older, with another student who was located in another room. The goal of Boggle is to quickly identify as many words as possible in a 4x4 matrix of random letters. Players accumulate points based on word quantity and difficulty. This game consisted of 5 rounds timed at 60 seconds each. Although Boggle is not typically a team-based game, participants were told that they would be

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

35

playing online, teamed with one other student, against another team of two students that in reality were all fictional. The computer program was rigged such that participants and their partner lost the game. Participants received a message summarizing each team player’s score clearly indicating they were responsible for the loss. It was also implied that their loss resulted in their partner not being eligible for an overall grand prize. This sequence of events was intended to frame participants as transgressors. After learning the outcome of the competition, participants were given an opportunity for one-way communication with their partner. The participants were instructed that their partner would deliver the first message, as he or she had accumulated more points in the boggle game. The partner's response was either forgiving or vengeful based on which condition participants were randomly assigned to. Shortly after responding to their partner’s message, participants evaluated their experience with the game and their partner in a questionnaire, which consisted of the impact items. It was at this point that participants were "unexpectedly" presented with the Interruption of Session Form, which was ostensibly used to measure their general experience, but in reality was used to measure their feelings of guilt and shame. Once the system stated that it reviewed participants' responses and permitted the study to go on, participants were informed of the wild card round of Boggle. Participants were told that their partner would have one more chance at the grand prize because he had the highest score among all individual players. Additionally, the participants were told that their score did not qualify for the wild card; however, their participation was still required to distract their partner, because the wild card is used to assess how high-scoring players perform under varied conditions. The number of sound blasts and

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

36

decibel level were used to assess behavioral aggression. Afterward, participants were given manipulation check items, debriefed, and thanked for their participation. Results and Discussion Preliminary Analysis As in the previous studies, we created our variables by averaging specific items associated with each measure: NPI-40, M = 4.13, SD = .65, α = .86, NPI-LA, M = 4.50, SD = .84, α = .78, NPI-GE, M = 3.75, SD = .87, α = .71, NPI-EE, M = 3.79, SD = 1.13, α = .57, shame, M = 2.17, SD = 1.41, α = .89, guilt, M = 3.57, SD = 1.71, α = .90, and aggression, M = 1.93, SD = 1.13, α = .94. See Table 8 for the zero-order correlations between the variables. Next, we checked the manipulation of our victim PTR variable. A significant χ 2 = 93.66, p < .001, was found showing that 98% of those in the forgiving condition correctly reported that their partner forgave them, whereas 89.36% of those in the vengeful condition reported that their partner was vengeful toward had not forgiven them. In addition, on average, participants indicated that the event was negative for their partner, M = 4.05, SD = 2.08, that they had control over the event, M = 4.91, SD = 1.76, and that they were responsible for the event, M = 5.29, SD = 1.81. Main Analyses We used Hayes’ (2012) PROCESS (SAS, Model 1) and bootstrapping procedure to test the moderating role of victims’ PTRs on the relation between transgressors’ narcissism and aggressive responses. As in the previous studies, we present the full NPI results next and the 3 NPI subscale results in Table 9. We found a significant effect for narcissism, PTR, and their interaction on transgressors’ aggression, b = .51, SE = .16, t(97) = 3.14, p = .002, 95% CI [.19,

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

37

.84], b = .62, SE = .21, t(97) = 2.98, p < .004, 95% CI [.21, 1.04], and b = .71, SE = .32, t(97) = 2.17, p = .032, 95% CI [.06, 1.36], respectively. Next, we conducted simple slope tests to probe these interactions (see Figure 4). For participants in the forgiving condition, no significant relation was found between narcissism and aggression, b = .17, SE = .24, t(39) = .71, p = .482, 95% CI [-.31, .65]; however, a significant relation was found between narcissism and aggression for participants in the vengeful condition, b = .87, SE = .22, t(46) = 4.02, p < .001, 95% CI [.44, 1.31], supporting the prediction that the relation between narcissism and aggression is moderated by whether victims’ forgive or not. We also tested the simple slopes for victim PTR for those low (-1 SD) and high (1 SD) in narcissism (Figure 4). For those low in narcissism, no significant relation was found between forgiveness/revenge and aggression, b = .01, SE = .35, t = .04, p = .969, 95% CI [-.68, .70]; however, for those high in narcissism, a significant relation was found between forgiveness/revenge and aggression, b = 1.14, SE = .32, t = 3.57, p < .001, 95% CI [.51, 1.78]. In other words, vengeful responses predicted greater aggression for narcissistic transgressors. In our next analysis, we examined the extent to which shame and guilt mediated the moderated relation between narcissism and aggression (PROCESS, SAS, Model 8). Consistent with Studies 2 and 3, we tested a model that simultaneously considered both mediators as parallel explanations for the moderated relation for each dependent variable. Although a significant narcissism by victim PTR interaction was found for aggression, as reported in the previous section, a nonsignificant interaction was found for shame, b = .22, SE = .35, t(97) = 0.63, p = .533, 95% CI [-483, .92], and guilt, b = -.07, SE = .43, t(97) = -0.17, p = .867, 95% CI [-.92, .78], suggesting that neither mediated the moderated relation. As well, neither shame nor guilt significantly predict aggression, b = .21, SE = .13, t(97) = 1.59, p = .116, 95% CI [-.05,

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

38

.47], b = -.14, SE = .11, t(97) = -1.31, p = .192, 95% CI [-.36, .07], respectively. Finally, neither the indirect effect of shame nor guilt on the relation between the interaction of narcissism and PTR on aggression was significant, b = .05, Bootstrap SE = .13, 95% CI [-.16, .36], b = .01, Bootstrap SE = .08, 95% CI [-.10, .26], respectively. Overall, partial support was found for the hypotheses tested in Studies 2 and 3 which incorporated a real time transgression within a laboratory setting and a behavioral measure of aggression. In particular, the predicted interaction between transgressors’ narcissism and victims’ forgiving and vengeful responses on transgressors’ aggression was found. These results replicate the findings reported in Studies 2 and 3. Inconsistent with our prediction, but consistent with Study 3, neither guilt nor shame explained the moderated relation. General Discussion The primary aim of this research was to examine how, when, and why transgressors’ narcissism relates to their motivation to apologize or not. We predicted that narcissism would relate negatively to transgressors’ apologetic responses and positively with transgressors’ nonapologetic responses. We also predicted that victims’ forgiving vs. vengeful feedback would differentially affect narcissistic transgressors’ motivation to engage in apologetic vs. nonapologetic responses. Although the association between transgressors’ narcissism and their apologetic and nonapologetic responses is difficult to predict when they are forgiven, we expected a negative and positive relation, respectively, between transgressors’ narcissism and their apologetic and nonapologetic responses when victims are vengeful toward them. We tested the mediational role of guilt and shame in explaining the moderated relation between transgressors’ narcissism and their motivation to apologize or not. In general, we

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

39

predicted that narcissistic individuals would experience more guilt when forgiven and less guilt when faced with revenge. However, because narcissistic individuals are particularly concerned with protecting their grandiose self-concept, and shame exposes undesirable characteristics of one’s self-concept, we also considered that participants with higher degrees of narcissism may be less genuine in reporting feelings of shame compared to guilt. Given this, guilt was likely to be a more genuine explanation for this moderated relation than shame. Overall, support was found for most of our hypotheses across the four studies. Study 1 showed a negative association between narcissism and tendency to apologize, and a positive association between narcissism and tendency to not apologize. Study 1 also confirmed the relation between narcissism and nonapologetic responses following a specific recalled transgression but did not confirm the relation between narcissism and apologetic responses. This suggests that there may be differences between narcissistic individuals’ perceived tendencies to apologize or not and their specific apologetic and nonapologetic responses following a transgression. It seems when narcissistic individuals are recounting their aggregate apologetic and nonapologetic responses (i.e., their tendencies), they see themselves as less apologetic and more nonapologetic; however, when they are reflecting on an actual specific transgression, they exclusively report stronger associations with nonapologetic responses. This finding was echoed in Studies 3 and 4 providing some degree of confidence in the association. It may be too threatening for those with higher degrees of narcissism to apologize because apologies, which include taking responsibility for the transgression, may pose the greatest threat to their pursuit of flattering self-affirmations about their grandiose, yet vulnerable, self-concept (Ackerman et al., 2011; Back et al., 2013; Brummelman, Thomaes, & Sedikides, 2016; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Raskin & Terry, 1988; Rhodewalt & Peterson, 2009). In comparison, nonapologies can keep

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

40

victims and their potential harsh judgments at bay by blaming them for the transgression. Importantly, vengeance from the victim diminishes apologetic responding and increases nonapologetic and aggressive responding, suggesting that transgressors with higher narcissism seem likely to double down in an effort to protect their self-image. Understanding the posttransgression motivational strategy for those higher in narcissism seems like a potential avenue for future research. The null finding concerning the relation between narcissism and apologetic responses following an actual transgression (Study 1) and an imagined scenario (Study 2 and 3) suggested that the relation might be moderated. Thus, in Studies 2 through 4, we specifically focused on the moderating role of forgiving and vengeful feedback from victims on apologetic responses. In Study 2, we tested, and partially confirmed, our predictions about the moderating role of victims’ forgiving and vengeful feedback on narcissistic individuals’ apologetic responses. As well, we tested our prediction about the mediating role of guilt in explaining the moderated relation between narcissism and apologetic responses. Consistent with Study 1, we found no overall relation between narcissism and apologetic response; however, we did find a negative relation between narcissism and apologetic response when transgressors were given vengeful feedback. Although we predicted a positive relation between narcissism and apologetic response when victims forgave transgressors, no significant relation was found. Moreover, guilt explained the relation between narcissism and motivation to apologize when transgressors received vengeful feedback but did not when they received forgiving feedback. Overall, this suggests that narcissistic transgressors are characterized by nonapologetic responses following a specific transgression, which are further enhanced by negative interpersonal feedback.

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

41

In Study 3, we systematically tested, and partially confirmed, our predictions about the moderating role of victims’ forgiving and vengeful feedback on narcissistic transgressors’ apologetic and nonapologetic responses. Inconsistent with Study 2, the relation between narcissism and apology was not moderated by victim PTR; however, the relation between narcissism and nonapology was. We also tested our prediction that shame and guilt would explain the moderated relation between narcissism and apologetic and nonapologetic responses. Consistent with Studies 1 and 2, we found no significant overall relation between narcissism and apologetic response but did find a significant relation between narcissism and nonapologetic response. Importantly, we did not find a positive relation between narcissism and apologetic response when transgressors were given forgiveness feedback; however, we did find a positive relation between narcissism and apologetic response when transgressors were given both forgiveness and vengeful feedback, though the relation for vengeance was stronger than for forgiveness. Moreover, neither guilt nor shame explained the moderated relation between narcissism and apologetic and nonapologetic responses when transgressors received forgiveness or vengeful feedback. Overall, this suggests that narcissistic transgressors are nonapologetic following a specific transgression, which is enhanced by vengeful feedback. In Study 4, we tested the idea that narcissistic transgressors are likely to double down on their nonapologetic responses by acting aggressively toward their victims, particularly when they receive vengeful feedback from them. We also tested whether guilt and shame would explain the moderated relation with aggression. Our findings confirmed our moderation hypothesis by showing that participants higher on narcissism were more likely to act aggressively toward their victims when they received vengeful feedback compared to forgiving feedback. These findings systematically replicated our results reported in Studies 2 and 3. In addition, these findings

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

42

appear to generalize to unique methods (vignette vs. laboratory) and responses (self-reported apology/nonapology vs. behavioral aggression). Across all 4 studies, the full scale of the NPI proved to be a more robust predictor of the relations than the subscales. Studies 3 and 4 did not confirm the mediational role of guilt or shame with apology, nonapology, and aggressive behavior; however, Study 2 did for guilt when apology was the outcome. This may be a function of different methods, measures, or spurious findings. The null finding for the mediational role of shame in Studies 2 through 4 is consistent with mixed findings reported in research on shame and aggression (Tangney et al., 1992). Because shame is associated with attempts to mask deep-seated feelings of inferiority, it may go undetected by self-reported measures. Research on the affective neuroscience of narcissism and social pain suggests that following social exclusion, individuals with higher degrees of narcissism exhibit greater activation in the anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, and subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, a neural network associated with social pain (Cascio, Konrath, & Falk, 2015). In addition, narcissistic individuals who display greater activation in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex after being socially excluded behave more aggressively toward those who reject them (Chester & DeWall, 2016). This may suggest that feelings of shame associated with receiving a vengeful response may occur at a neurological level for narcissistic transgressors and go undetected by self-report measures. This could explain why narcissism was associated with greater aggressive behavior but not mediated by self-reported shame. In terms of theoretical explanations, narcissistic transgressors who receive vengeful feedback rather than forgiving feedback from victims may be more likely to feel moral indignation rather than guilt or shame, suggesting that a broader set of self-focused emotions might be needed to explain the moderated relation. Given the positive relation between

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

43

narcissism and nonapologetic responses when forgiveness feedback was provided, it seems that even positive feedback can possibly create a sense of moral indignation (i.e., “How dare you forgive me”) and greater nonapology in narcissistic transgressors. Given the extent to which narcissistic individuals are self-focused, defensive, and entitled, interpersonal responses from their victim, be it a desire for vengeance or a sanctimonious expression of forgiveness, may be construed as a threat to their grandiose self-view, which in turn, may be met with feelings of moral indignation, nonapology, and aggression. This suggests that transgressors with higher narcissism seem likely to double down when faced with vengeful feedback in an effort to protect their self-image. Understanding the post-transgression motivational strategy for those higher in narcissism seems like a potential avenue for future research. The present research supports and extends the literature on narcissism and interpersonal feedback. Previous research has examined narcissistic individuals’ reactions to different types of feedback from others such as success/failure and praise/criticism from others (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). As far as we know, this is the first set of studies examining the role of victims’ forgiving and vengeful feedback on narcissistic transgressors’ apologetic and nonapologetic responses. The unapologetic and defensive reactions narcissistic transgressors exhibit in response to vengeful responses from their victims supports research showing that negative interpersonal feedback is particularly threatening for them (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Campbell et al., 2000; Kernis & Sun, 1994; Morf & Rhodewalt, 1993; Stucke, 2003). The findings in Study 4 contribute to a body of research on narcissistic aggression and ego-threat (Rasmussen, 2015). Despite transgressing against their partner, narcissistic participants were more likely to double down by acting aggressively toward their partner when they gave vengeful

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

44

feedback. This propensity to double down following an ego-threat provides unique information about the cyclical dynamics of narcissism in interpersonal conflict. Our findings also extend research concerning the role of narcissism in the forgiveness and apology literatures. Although the majority of research has focused on narcissism from the victim’s perspective (Brown, 2004; Eaton, Struthers, & Santelli, 2006; Exline, Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, & Finkel, 2004; Fatfouta, Gerlach, & Merkl, 2015; Fatfouta & SchröderAbé, 2017; Strelan, 2007), there is a growing interest in examining narcissism from the transgressor’s perspective and understanding their motivation to apologize or not (Howell et al., 2011, Leunissen et al., 2017). Study 1 replicates the negative relation between narcissism and apologizing found in the extant literature (Howell et al., 2011; Leunissen et al., 2017). By incorporating victim feedback in Studies 2 through 4, the current research is the first to experimentally examine the role of interpersonal moderators in better understanding the boundary conditions that affect the relations between narcissism and nonapologizing and narcissism and acting aggressively. Limitations and Future Directions The present research is not without its limitations. Although self-reported and behavioral measures were used in this research, the use of neuropsychological and psychophysiological measures of emotions rather than self-reported measures could help to better assess the mediational role of self-focused emotions in explaining our findings. Although gender was relatively equal in Studies 1 and 3, the generalizability of Studies 2 and 4 is limited by the predominantly female undergraduate sample recruited. It may be worth replicating the observed patterns in aggression in a more gender representative undergraduate sample as well. Future

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

45

research should also consider additional theoretical mechanisms explaining the moderated relation of victim feedback on transgressors’ narcissism in predicting apologizing and not apologizing. In addition to moral indignation, other emotions, such as empathy, also appears to explain narcissistic individuals’ reluctance to apologize (Leunissen et al., 2017). Moreover, Combs et al. (2010) found that transgressors were less willing to apologize following public condemnation, which was mediated by humiliation, anger, and hostility rather than shame and guilt. These emotions as well as moral indignation may uniquely explain why narcissistic individuals are particularly unapologetic and defensive following vengeful and forgiving feedback. Given the multidimensional nature of narcissism, future research should consider incorporating measures of vulnerable narcissism, which have pronounced associations with selfconsciousness and vulnerability (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Wink, 1994), to address whether the observed patterns pertain to only certain aspects of narcissism. Conclusion Despite the importance of apologies in repairing and maintaining relationships, transgressors often struggle with the process of initiating and carrying them out. The current research examined the interactive role of personality and interpersonal factors to provide a more nuanced understanding of how, when, and why transgressors’ struggle with the process of apologizing or not. Not only does this research help to explain why narcissistic transgressors are reluctant to apologize for their alleged transgressions, but also, how and when they are likely to double down and act aggressively toward their victims, especially after receiving negative feedback.

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

46

Acknowledgments Author Contributions All authors listed, have made substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication. All authors played a significant role in the conceptualization and design of this research. The first four authors wrote the manuscript, collected and conducted the statistical analyses.

Declaration of Interest

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

47

None.

References Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory really measure? Assessment, 18(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110382845 Adams, G. S., Zou, X., Inesi, M. E., & Pillutla, M. M. (2015). Forgiveness is not always divine: When expressing forgiveness makes others avoid you. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.003

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

48

AsPredicted (2018). Narcissism, Victim Feedback, and Apology; Conceptual Replication [preregistration]. Retrieved from http://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=u3u8fy. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//00223514.51.6.1173 Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013-1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034431 Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), 4th ed.; the handbook of social psychology (vols. 1-2, 4th ed.) (4th ed. ed., pp. 193-281, Chapter x, 1085 Pages) McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Brown, R. P. (2004). Vengeance is mine: Narcissism, vengeance, and the tendency to forgive. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(6), 576–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2003.10.003 Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., & Sedikides, C. (2016). Separating narcissism from selfesteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 8-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415619737

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

49

Brunell, A. B., Tumblin, L., & Buelow, M. T. (2014). Narcissism and the motivation to engage in volunteerism. Current Psychology, 33(3), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144014-9216-7 Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.75.1.219 Combs, D. J. Y., Campbell, G., Jackson, M., & Smith, R. H. (2010). Exploring the consequences of humiliating a moral transgressor. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 128143. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973531003738379 Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., Sedikides, C., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Narcissism and comparative self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2282 Cascio, C. N., Konrath, S. H., & Falk, E. B. (2015). Narcissists’ social pain seen only in the brain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(3), 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu072 Chester, D. S., & DeWall, C. N. (2016). Sound the alarm: The effect of narcissism on retaliatory aggression is moderated by dACC reactivity to rejection. Journal of Personality, 84(3), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12164 Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17(3), 188-207. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.17.3.188.22146

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

50

Eaton, J., & Struthers, C. W. (2006). The reduction of psychological aggression across varied interpersonal contexts through repentance and forgiveness. Aggressive Behavior, 32(3), 195-206. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20119 Eaton, J., Struthers, C. W., & Santelli, A. G. (2006). Dispositional and state forgiveness: The role of self-esteem, need for structure, and narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(2), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.005 Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., Campbell, W. K.,& Finkel, E. J. (2004). Too proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 894–912. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.87.6.894 Farwell, L., & Wohlwend-Lloyd, R. (1998). Narcissistic processes: Optimistic expectations, favorable self-evaluations, and self-enhancing attributions. Journal of Personality, 66(1), 65-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00003 Fatfouta, R., Gerlach, T. M., Schröder-Abé, M., & Merkl, A. (2015). Narcissism and lack of interpersonal forgiveness: The mediating role of state anger, state rumination, and state empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.051 Fatfouta, R., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2017). I can see clearly now: Clarity of transgression-related motivations enhances narcissists' lack of forgiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 280-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.010 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

51

Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 894-914. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019993 Gentile, B., Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Campbell, W. K. (2013). A test of two brief measures of grandiose narcissism: The narcissistic personality Inventory–13 and the narcissistic personality inventory-16. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1120-1136. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033192 Giammarco, E. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2015). Interpersonal guilt and the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 96–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.046 Goffman, E. (1955). On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction. Psychiatry: Journal of Interpersonal Relations, 18(3), 213-231. Gramzow, R., & Tangney, J. P. (1992). Proneness to shame and the narcissistic personality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 369–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292183014 Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Horvath, S., & Morf, C. C. (2010). To be grandiose or not to be worthless: Different routes to self-enhancement for narcissism and self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(5), 585-592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.07.002 Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Turowski, J. B., & Buro, K. (2011). The disposition to apologize. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 509-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.009

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

52

Howell, A. J., Turowski, J. B., & Buro, K. (2012). Guilt, empathy, and apology. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(7), 917-922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.021 Kauten, R. & Barry, C. T. (2014). Do you think I’m as kind as I do? The relation of adolescent narcissism with self- and peer-perceptions of prosocial and aggressive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 61, 69-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.014 Kelln, B. R., & Ellard, J. H. (1999). An equity theory analysis of the impact of forgiveness and retribution on transgressor compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(7), 864-872. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025007008 Keltner, D., & Harker, L. (1998). The forms and functions of nonverbal signals of shame. In P. Gilbert & B. Andrews (Eds.), Shame: Interpersonal behavior, psychopathology, and culture (pp.78-98). Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Kernis, M. H., & Sun, C. R. (1994). Narcissism and reactions to interpersonal feedback. Journal of Research in Personality, 28(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1994.1002 Konrath, S., Ho, M.-H., & Zarins, S. (2016). The strategic helper: Narcissism and prosocial motives and behaviors. Current Psychology, 35(2), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9417-3 Lazare, A. (2004). On apology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York: International Universities Press. Leunissen, J. M., De Cremer, D., Reinders Folmer, C. P., & van Dijke, M. (2013). An instrumental perspective on apologizing in bargaining: The importance of forgiveness to apologize, Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(1), 215-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.004

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

53

Leunissen, J. M., Sedikides, C., & Wildschut, T. (2017). Why narcissists are unwilling to apologize: The role of empathy and guilt. European Journal of Personality, 31(4), 385– 403. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2110 Marschall, D., Sanftner, J., & Tangney, J. P. (1994). The state shame and guilt scale. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University. Marjanovic, Z., Struthers, C. W., Cribbie, R., & Greenglass, E. R. (2014). The Conscientious Responders Scale: A new tool for discriminating between conscientious and random responders. Sage Open, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014545964 Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76(3), 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00492.x Miller, J. D., Gentile, B., Carter, N. T., Crowe, M., Hoffman, B. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). A comparison of the nomological networks associated with forced-choice and Likert formats of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1310731 Montebarocci, O., Surcinelli, P., Baldaro, B., Trombini, E., & Rossi, N., (2004). Narcissism versus proneness to shame and guilt. Psychological Reports, 94, 883-887. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.3.883-887 Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic selfregulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_1

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

54

Morf, C., & Rhodewalt, F. (1993). Narcissism and self-evaluation maintenance: Explorations in object relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 668–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196001 Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55(1), 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.56 Okimoto, T. G., Wenzel, M., & Hedrick, K. (2013). Refusing to apologize can have psychological benefits (and we issue no mea culpa for this research finding). European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), 22-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1901 Raskin, R., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissistic self-esteem management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 911–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.60.6.911 Rasmussen, K. (2015). Entitled vengeance: A meta-analysis relating narcissism to provoked aggression. Aggressive Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21632 Rhodewalt, F., & Peterson, B. (2009). Narcissism. In M. R. Leary &R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 547-560). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1998). On self-aggrandizement and anger: A temporal analysis of narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 672–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.672 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

55

Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Hight, T. L., & Berry, J. W. (2000). Seeking forgiveness: Theoretical context and an initial empirical study. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 28(1), 21–35. Schonbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609-612. http://dx.doi.org/j.jrp.2013.05.009 Schumann, K. (2014). An affirmed self and a better apology: The effect of self-affirmation on transgressors' responses to victims. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 8996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.013 Schumann, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2014). Who accepts responsibility for their transgressions? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(12), 1598-1610. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616721455278 Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 116-132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116 Strelan, P. (2007). Who forgives others, themselves, and situations? The roles of narcissism, guilt, self-esteem, and agreeableness. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(2), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.017 Struthers, C. W., Eaton, J., Mendoza, R., Santelli, A. G., & Shirvani, N. (2010). Interrelationship among injured parties' attributions of responsibility, appraisal of appropriateness to forgive the transgressor, forgiveness, and repentance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(4), 970-1002. https://doi.org/j.1559-1816.2010.00607.x

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

56

Struthers, C. W., Eaton, J., Shirvani, N., Georghiou, M., & Edell, E. (2008). The effect of preemptive forgiveness and a transgressor’s responsibility on shame, motivation to reconcile, and repentance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530802209178 Struthers C.W., Guilfoyle, J., Khoury, C., van Monsjou, E., Sasaki, J., Phills, C., Young, R., & Marjanovic, Z. (2017). What victims say and how they say it matters: Effects of victims' post-transgression responses and form of communication on transgressors' apologies. In K. Norlock (Ed.) The Moral Psychology of Forgiveness. Struthers, C. W., Miller, D. L., Boudens, C. J., & Briggs, G. L. (2001). Effects of causal attributions on coworker interactions: A social motivation perspective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23(3), 169-181. https://doi.org/10.1207/15324830175043356 Stucke, T. S. (2003). Who’s to blame? Narcissism and self-serving attributions following feedback. European Journal of Personality, 17(6), 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.497 Tangney, J. P. (1995). Shame and guilt in interpersonal relationships. In J. P. Tangney and K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-Conscious Emotions: The Psychology of Shame, Guilt, Embarrassment, and Pride (pp. 114-390). New York: Guilford. Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York: The Guilford Press. Tangney, J. P., & Tracy, J. L. (2014). Self-conscious emotions. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney(Eds.) Handbook of self and identity (second edition) (chapter 21, pp. 446478). Guilford Publications.

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

57

Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., Fletcher, C., & Gramzow, R. (1992). Shamed into anger? The relation of shame and guilt to anger and self-reported aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 669-675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.4.669 Tangney, J. P., Youman, K., & Stuewig, J. (2009). Proneness to shame and proneness to guilt. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 192-209). New York: Guilford Press. Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., de Castro, B. O., Cohen, G. L., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2009). Reducing narcissistic aggression by buttressing self-esteem: An experimental field study. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1536-1542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14679280.2009.02478.x Tracy, J. L., Cheng, J. T., Martens, J. P., & Robins, R. W. (2011). The emotional dynamics of Narcissism: Inflated by pride, deflated by shame. In W. K. Campbell and J. D. Miller (Eds.) The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments. John Wiley & Sons Inc. van Monsjou, E., Struthers, C. W., Khoury, C., Guilfoyle, J., Young, R., Hodera, O., & Muller, R. (2015). The effects of adult attachment style on post-transgression responses. Personal Relationships, 22(4), 762-780. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12106 Weiner, B. (2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ. Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 590-597. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.590

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

58

Woodyatt, L., & Wenzel, M. (2013). The psychological immune response in the face of transgressions: Pseudo self-forgiveness and threat to belonging. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 951–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.05.016 Young, R. E., Struthers, C. W., Khoury, C., Muscat, S., Phills, C., & Mongrain, M. (2013). Forgiveness and revenge: The conflicting needs of dependents and self-critics in relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32(10), 1095–1115. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2013.32.10.1095

Running head: NARCISSISM AND APOLOGIES

Figure 1 Simple slopes for Narcissism by Victim PTR on Apology in Study 2

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

2

Figure 2 Conditional Direct and Indirect Effects of Narcissism on Guilt and Apology (Study 2) For Vengeful Feedback

Guilt b = .68, p < .001

b = -.42, p =.014

Direct Effect b = -.18, SE= .13, CI[-.44, .08]

Narcissism

Apology

Indirect Effect b = -.21, SE= .11, CI[-.55, -.06]

For Forgiving Feedback

Guilt b = .10, p = .63

Narcissism

b = .54, p < .001

Direct Effect b = .02, SE= .12, CI[-.22, .26] Indirect Effect b = .06, SE= .11, CI[-.13, .30]

Apology

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

Figure 3 Simple slopes for Narcissism by Victim PTR on Nonapology for Study 3

3

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

Figure 4 Simple slopes for Narcissism by Victim PTR on Aggression in Study 4

4

Running head: NARCISSISM AND APOLOGIES

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Between Variables for Study 1 1.NPI-13(Total) 2.NPI-13 (LA) 3.NPI-13 (GE) 4.NPI-13 (EE) 5.Apology(G) 6.Nonapology(G)

1

2

3

4

5

6

M

SD

N

—

.77*** —

.79*** .34*** —

.83*** .55*** .48*** —

-.31*** -.34*** -.13* -.29*** —

.35*** .34*** .17* .35*** -.53*** —

3.79 4.30 3.44 3.72 4.71 4.92

1.01 1.29 1.26 1.27 1.61 1.37

227 227 227 227 227 227

1

2

3

4

5

6

M

SD

N

—

.78*** —

.79*** .35*** —

.85*** .58*** .51*** —

.03 .01 .04 .04 —

.20** .18** .15* .16* -.21** —

3.73 4.24 3.36 3.69 4.58 3.28

1.04 1.34 1.24 1.31 1.64 1.17

181 181 181 181 181 181

1.NPI-13(Total) 2.NPI-13 (LA) 3.NPI-13 (GE) 4.NPI-13 (EE) 5.Apology(S) 6.Nonapology(S) Note: LA=Leadership/Authority, GE=Grandiose Exhibitionism, EE=Entitlement/Exploitativeness, G=General tendency, S=Specific response, *=p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

2

Table 2 Regression Results for the NPI-13 and Subscales on General/Specific Nonapology and Apology for Study 1 Predictor

General NonApology

NPI-13 NPI-LA NPI-GE NPI-EE

b .49 .39 .19 .38

SE .09 .07 .07 .07

p .01 .01 .01 .01

Specific Apology

b -.51 -.43 -.18 -.38

SE .10 .08 .09 .08

p .01 .01 .04 .01

NonApology b .23 .16 .15 .14

SE .08 .06 .07 .07

p .01 .02 .04 .03

Apology b .04 .00 .04 .05

SE .12 .09 .10 .09

Note: LA=Leadership/Authority, GE=Grandiose Exhibitionism, EE=Entitlement/Exploitativeness, General Measures N=227 Specific Measures N=181,

p .70 .99 .68 .61

Running head: NARCISSISM AND APOLOGIES

Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Between Variables for Study 2 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

M

SD

—

.08 —

.09 .82*** —

.01 .79*** .43*** —

.12 .81*** .58*** .44*** —

-.09 -.18 -.15 -.10 -.19 —

-.02 -.12 -.08 -03 -.19 .81*** —

-.11 -16 -.06. -.03 -.30** .60*** .68***

NA 3.95 4.23 3.81 3.88 4.65 5.42 5.62

NA 1.09 1.31 1.15 1.19 1.37 1.16 1.01

N

78 1.Victim PTR 78 2.NPI-13 (Total) 78 3.NPI-13 (LA) 78 4.NPI-13 (GE) 78 5.NPI-13 (EE) 78 6.Shame 78 7.Guilt 78 8.Apology Note: LA=Leadership/Authority, GE=Grandiose Exhibitionism, EE=Entitlement/Exploitativeness, *=p<.05, PTR=PostTransgression Response (1=Forgiving, 2=Unforgiving), *=p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001

Running head: NARCISSISM AND APOLOGIES

Table 4 Regression Results for the NPI-13 and Subscales on Apology for Study 2 Apology b SE t NPI-13(Total) .57 .36 1.59 PTR 1.75 .94 1.86 X -.49 .23 -2.13

p .12 .07 .04

NPI-13(LA) PTR X

.45 1.27 -.35

.26 .79 .18

1.71 1.62 -1.97

.09 .11 .05

NPI-13(GE) PTR X

.40 .84 -.28

.32 .80 .20

1.24 1.06 -1.39

.22 .29 .17

NPI-13(EE) .18 .30 .61 .55 PTR .96 .75 1.27 .21 X -.28 .19 -1.53 .13 Note: LA=Leadership/Authority, GE=Grandiose Exhibitionism, EE=Entitlement/Exploitativeness, PTR=Post-Transgression Response (Forgiving=1, Unforgiving=2), X=NPI*PTR interaction

Running head: NARCISSISM AND APOLOGIES

Table 5 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Between Variables for Study 3 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

M

SD

— .05 .06 .03 .06 .17** .13* .04 .03 NA NA 1. Victim PTR — .88*** .91*** .88*** -.03 -.15* .62*** -.22*** 3.72 1.21 2. NPI-13 (Total) — .68*** .72*** -.05 -.12* .49*** -.18*** 3.87 1.36 3. NPI-13 (LA) — .69*** -.06 -.16 .59*** -.20*** 3.52 1.41 4. NPI-13 (GE) — .03 -.10 .59*** -.20*** 3.81 1.27 5. NPI-13 (EE) — .74*** -.14* -.55*** 4.69 1.59 6. Shame — -.42*** .82*** 5.41 1.34 7. Guilt — -.54*** 2.72 1.45 8. Nonapology — 5.70 1.21 9. Apology Note: LA=Leadership/Authority, GE=Grandiose Exhibitionism, EE=Entitlement/Exploitativeness, *=p<.05, PTR=PostTransgression Response (1=Forgiving, 2=Vengeful), *=p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001

N 291 291 291 291 291 291 291 291 291

Running head: NARCISSISM AND APOLOGIES

Table 6 Regression Results for the NPI-13 and Subscales on Apology for Study 3 Apology b SE t NPI-13(Total) -.21 .19 -1.11 PTR .08 .45 .17 X -.01 .12 -.05

p .27 .87 .96

NPI-13(LA) PTR X

-.05 .33 -.07

.16 .42 .10

-.32 .79 -.69

.75 .43 .49

NPI-13(GE) PTR X

-.23 -.09 .04

.16 .38 .10

-1.46 -.24 .45

.14 .81 .65

NPI-13(EE) -.17 .18 -.97 .33 PTR .10 .44 .22 .82 X -.01 .11 -.11 .91 Note: LA=Leadership/Authority, GE=Grandiose Exhibitionism, EE=Entitlement/Exploitativeness, PTR=Post-Transgression Response (Forgiving=1, Vengeful=2), X=NPI*PTR interaction

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

10

Table 7 Regression Results for the NPI-13 and Subscales on Nonapology for Study 3 Nonapology b SE t NPI-13(Total) .39 .18 2.23 PTR -.67 .43 -1.55 X .23 .11 2.13

p .03 .12 .03

NPI-13(LA) PTR X

.18 -0.69 .23

.17 .45 .11

1.05 -1.55 2.10

.29 .12 .04

NPI-13(GE) PTR X

.40 -.29 .13

.16 .37 .10

2.54 -.79 1.32

.01 .43 .19

NPI-13(EE) .29 .17 1.66 .10 PTR -.76 .43 -1.75 .08 X .25 .11 2.35 .02 Note: LA=Leadership/Authority, GE=Grandiose Exhibitionism, EE=Entitlement/Exploitativeness, PTR=Post-Transgression Response (Forgiving=1, Vengeful=2), X=NPI*PTR interaction

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

11

Table 8 Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-order correlations Between Variables for Study 4 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

M

SD

—

.27** —

.16 .77*** —

.19 .77*** .33*** —

.09 .65*** .21* .69*** —

-.01 .04 -.11 .08 .09 —

-.06 -.01 -.07 .01 .01 .82*** —

.36*** .39*** .24* .36*** .24* .07 -.04 —

NA 4.13 4.50 3.75 3.79 2.17 3.57 1.93

NA .65 .84 .87 1.13 1.41 1.71 1.13

N

97 1.Victim PTR 97 2.NPI-40 (Total) 97 3.NPI-40 (LA) 97 4.NPI-40 (GE) 97 5.NPI-40 (EE) 97 6.Shame 97 7.Guilt 97 8.Aggression Note: LA=Leadership/Authority, GE=Grandiose Exhibitionism, EE=Entitlement/Exploitativeness, *=p<.05, PTR=Post-Transgression Response (1=Forgiving, 2=Vengeful), *=p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

12

Table 9 Regression Results for the NPI-40 and Subscales on Aggression (Study 4) Aggression b SE t NPI-40(Total) .51 .16 3.14 PTR .62 .21 2.98 X .71 .32 2.17

p .01 .01 .03

NPI-40(LA) PTR X

.25 .74 .40

.13 .21 .26

1.91 3.44 1.57

.06 .01 .12

NPI-40(GE) PTR X

.32 .70 .43

.13 .21 .25

2.54 3.34 1.74

.01 .01 .09

NPI-40(EE) .19 .10 1.99 .55 PTR .77 .21 3.60 .21 X .22 .19 1.17 .13 Note: LA=Leadership/Authority, GE=Grandiose Exhibitionism, EE=Entitlement/Exploitativeness, PTR=Post-Transgression Response (Forgiving=1, Vengeful=2), X=NPI*PTR interaction

NARCISSISM & APOLOGIES

Highlights 1. Transgressors’ narcissism predicts nonapologetic, but not, apologetic responses 2. Association is moderated by victims’ post-transgression responses 3. Shame does not account for the moderated association 4. Guilt may account for the moderated association

68