Reward-punishment sensitivity bias predicts narcissism subtypes: Implications for the etiology of narcissistic personalities

Personality and Individual Differences 141 (2019) 143–151

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Reward-punishment sensitivity bias predicts narcissism subtypes: Implications for the etiology of narcissistic personalities☆

T

⁎

Gabrielle J. Milesa, , Kosmas X. Smyrniosb, Mervyn Jacksona, Andrew J.P. Francisc a

Discipline of Psychology, RMIT University at Bundoora, Victoria, Australia Discipline of Management, RMIT University at Melbourne, Victoria, Australia c School of Psychology, Cairnmillar Institute, Hawthorn East, Victoria, Australia b

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Narcissism Behavioral approach Behavioral avoidance Approach-avoidance bias Entrepreneurship Genetics Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory

Etiology for narcissism is undetermined, although associations have been reported between subtypes of narcissism and Gray's (1970, revised 2000) biologically based behavioral approach (BAS) and behavioral avoidance (BIS) systems of personality. Two studies (N = 199, N = 151) investigated Australian community families for associations between grandiose narcissism, vulnerable narcissism, BAS, BIS, and motivational bias indexed by ztransformed BAS less z-transformed BIS (zBLB). Grandiose, but not vulnerable, narcissism was substantially and significantly associated with approach motivational bias, while the vulnerable subtype was associated relatively more strongly with BIS than BAS. These results suggest that: (1) approach motivational bias may be critical to grandiose, but not vulnerable narcissism development, and (2) vulnerable narcissism development may be influenced by other (yet to be determined) factors in addition to possible influences of BIS and BAS. Furthermore, since asymmetrical brain EEG activity as well as asymmetrical dopamine D2 receptor binding have recently been associated with approach-avoidance motivational bias (zBLB)1 rather than absolute BAS or BIS values, we theorize an alternate etiology for narcissism: that the biology underpinning BAS and BIS may also influence development of approach and avoidance orientation aspects of narcissism, and may precede narcissism development, particularly the grandiose form.

1. Introduction 1.1. Background In recent years there has been increased interest in narcissism, particularly in relation to young people and social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, cyber bullying) (Buffardi, 2011; Twenge, 2011), with a number of researchers suggesting that levels of narcissism have been steadily increasing since the 1980s (Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008); although this view has been opposed (Trzesniewski, Donnellan, & Robins, 2008; Wetzel et al., 2017). Further interest in narcissism, and its impact on business leadership, decisionmaking and acumen has also been spurred by popular and academic discussion of the causes of the 2007–2009 Global Financial Crisis (Twenge & Campbell, 2009). Narcissistic traits may be of benefit as we

develop a sense of self and navigate our way to adulthood (Hill & Roberts, 2011), with moderate levels posited to provide on-going resilience throughout life (Ackerman et al., 2011). However, if they persist at high levels, these same traits may eventually become problematic for interpersonal and occupational functioning (Campbell & Foster, 2007). Nonetheless, narcissistic traits are generally acknowledged to be an adaptive facet of evolved human psychology (Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010), although the specific biopsychosocial etiology of narcissism is yet to be determined. A variety of theoretical models for the development and maintenance of narcissism have emerged, spanning biological, behavioral, and psychosocial frames of reference (e.g., Brummelman et al., 2015; Horton, 2011; Twenge, 2011). An important, and developing, theoretical and empirical literature connects narcissism with levels of approach and avoidance behavior. Campbell's agency model (Campbell &

☆

Data will not be shared because the participants who the data belongs to have not consented to the use of the data in this way. Author contributions to the paper were: Study design: G. Miles, A. Francis; Data Collection: G. Miles; Data Analyses: G. Miles, A. Francis, K. Smyrnios, M. Jackson; Manuscript Writing: G. Miles, A. Francis, K. Smyrnios, M. Jackson. ⁎ Corresponding author at: Discipline of Psychology, RMIT University, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.J. Miles). 1 zBLB = z-transformed BAS less z-transformed BIS, following Tomer et al. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.004 Received 19 June 2018; Received in revised form 4 December 2018; Accepted 1 January 2019 0191-8869/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Personality and Individual Differences 141 (2019) 143–151

G.J. Miles et al.

correlations for other dyads; suggestive of X-chromosome involvement. Whereas, in that study, perceived parenting style was found to have relatively little effect on levels of offspring narcissism. The studies reported here assess Campbell's agency model (CAM; Campbell & Foster, 2007), which conceptualizes narcissism as a selfregulating behavioral system. CAM focuses on motivation to approach rewarding stimuli, and is reflected in four key traits at the core of narcissism: having stronger personal concerns than community concerns; being motivated more by reward than punishment; having an entitled and grandiose self-view; and having a desire for high self-esteem. Due to differences in the approach-avoidance tendencies displayed by narcissism subtypes (discussed next), CAM, as an approach model of narcissism, applies more so to grandiose, than to vulnerable narcissism (Foster & Brennan, 2011). Relevant to these studies, Krusemark (2011) intuitively suggested that, since narcissism appears to be particularly reward focused, it should be investigated in light of both Campbell's agency model and Gray's behavioral approach (BAS) and behavioral inhibition system (BIS, discussed next) as possible underlying neural mechanisms. These theoretical models form the basis of these studies, which investigate relationships between Gray's approach and avoidance system, and grandiose and vulnerable narcissism.

Foster, 2007), for example, proposes a conceptualization of narcissism as a self-regulating behavioral system, with a clear focus on motivation to approach rewarding stimuli. Motivation to avoid punishing stimuli has also been linked to narcissism by several researchers, although with directional inconsistencies (e.g., Ackerman et al., 2011; Foster & Brennan, 2011). To further assess Campbell's agency model, and directly address the question of variance in behavioral approach-avoidance in narcissism subtypes, we report on the findings of two cross-sectional studies. Study 1 (S1) explored associative relationships between approach-avoidance behavior and grandiose narcissism. Study 2 (S2) expands on the findings of S1, including an assessment of the associative relationships between approach-avoidance behavior and vulnerable narcissism. These findings, we will argue, along with those of previous research in this area, importantly inform theoretical models of the developmental origins of narcissistic traits and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). 1.2. Definitions of narcissism and subtypes Narcissism is understood to be a stable, dimensional personality trait portraying self-centeredness, self-aggrandizement, extraversion, impaired empathy, dominance, and interpersonal manipulation (Miller, Campbell, & Pilkonis, 2007). However, the phenomenology is complex and two subtypes have been identified: grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism. Individuals with high levels of grandiose narcissism are typically extraverted with “An intensely antagonistic interpersonal style including grandiosity, manipulativeness, deception, greed, inflexibility, non-cooperativeness and a disregard for the rights of others” (Miller & Maples, 2011, p.82). In contrast, individuals identified as having a covert/hypervigilant subtype of ‘vulnerable narcissism’ display a tendency toward being overly sensitive and having feelings of inadequacy and negative emotionality, including stress and anxiety, in addition to an intense antagonistic personal style and disregard for the rights of others (Cain, Pincus, & Ansell, 2008; Miller & Maples, 2011). Vulnerable and grandiose narcissism portray seemingly unrelated features and it has been suggested they may therefore stem from differing etiologies (Miller, Lynam, Hyatt, & Campbell, 2017). Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), the diagnostic features of which include both grandiose and vulnerable elements (American Psychiatric Association; APA, 2013), is diagnosed when extreme levels of narcissistic traits combine with pervasive and inflexible behaviors across a broad range of personal and social situations, leading to clinically significant distress or impairment in functioning (APA, 2013). The studies reported here focused on the grandiose and vulnerable subtypes of sub-clinical narcissism expressed as personality traits in the general population sample, rather than NPD per se.

1.4. Approach-avoidance motivation and narcissism Gray's (1970, revised 2000) Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) is a biologically-based personality theory which proposes individual variation in three brain systems connecting neural and behavioral processes: the Behavioral Approach System (BAS), concerning sensitivity to reward, or approach motivation (Carver & White, 1994); the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), concerning sensitivity to punishment, or avoidance motivation (Carver & White, 1994); and the Fight/ Flight/Freeze System which is associated with fear (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). As discussed, a link has been reported between narcissism and an approach-avoidance motivation pattern (e.g., Campbell & Foster, 2007; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001), and as such is further investigated in these studies. A range of investigations has found both BAS and BIS to be associated with structural and functional differences in the brain (see Sommerfeldt, 2014, for a review). While a full review of this literature is beyond the scope of this paper, of relevance here, it has been found that behavioral approach (BAS) is uniquely related to relatively greater left than right frontal EEG activity, and behavioral avoidance (BIS) is related to relatively greater right than left frontal EEG activity (Amodio, Master, Yee, & Taylor, 2008; Rodrigues, Muller, Muhlberger, & Hewig, 2016; Sutton & Davidson, 1997; although see Wacker & Smillie, 2015, for inconsistencies). Furthermore, Tomer et al. (2014) found asymmetrically greater left versus right hemisphere dopamine D2 receptor binding in frontal brain regions predicted individual difference in approach-avoidance motivational bias, as measured by both a behavioral reward versus punishment learning task, and also a BAS/BIS self-report questionnaire. Tomer et al. (2014) calculated an index of relative dominance of self-reported approach versus avoidance tendencies by subtracting ztransformed BIS score from z-transformed BAS score whereby higher scores denoted approach motivational bias and lower scores denoted avoidance motivational bias. Results showed that higher left than right frontal dopamine D2 receptor binding asymmetry, rather than absolute binding levels, predicted higher zBAS less zBIS (zBLB) scores, and an associated preference for goal approach versus aversion avoidance stimuli. Frontal dopamine D2 receptor binding asymmetry similarly predicted individual difference in the behavioral reward versus punishment learning task. Given the demonstrated utility of behaviorally-assessed zBLB as a reliable ‘marker’ of BAS/BIS orientation, and its relatedness to potential underlying neural substrates of approach-avoidance motivation, zBLB is

1.3. Etiology and theoretical models Despite a multiplicity of theoretical perspectives and investigations, the underlying etiology and developmental path to high narcissism and clinically significant impairment remains unclear. ‘Nurture’ theories emphasize early developmental (Hill & Roberts, 2011) and parenting experiences (Brummelman et al., 2015; Horton, 2011), as well as broader cultural (Twenge, 2011) and evolutionary factors (Holtzman & Strube, 2011). Typically this perspective asserts narcissism development results from a combination of poor parenting practices (either dismissive, or over-indulgent and over-valuing) along with social, educational, and cultural environments encouraging self-promotion. However, on the ‘nature’ side of the etiological debate, twin studies have consistently revealed narcissism to be moderately heritable (Livesley, Jang, Jackson, & Vernon, 1993; Vernon, Villani, Vickers, & Harris, 2008). In a behavioral-genetic family study, Miles and Francis (2014) recently found significant near-large correlations between father and daughter levels of grandiose narcissism, but close to zero 144

Personality and Individual Differences 141 (2019) 143–151

G.J. Miles et al.

provide some rationale to explore the relevance of left-right hemispheric bias and asymmetrical dopamine D2 receptor binding (previously associated with the zBLB index through the investigations of Tomer et al., 2014) to narcissism and its subtypes. The demonstration of zBLB as a reliable index for narcissism phenotypes has the heuristic potential, therefore, to enable new and directly testable hypotheses for the neurophysiological and neurochemical bases of narcissism to be investigated.

adopted here as a study variable for assessing relationships between approach motivation bias and narcissism subtypes. 1.4.1. Narcissism and BAS Lootens (2010) theorized that narcissism would be associated with BAS, as narcissism is characterized in part by rewarding behaviors such as excessive seeking of admiration, praise and recognition. Studies have empirically examined the relationship between approach and avoidance motivation, and narcissism, finding grandiose narcissism to be positively related to BAS, but negatively related to BIS (Ackerman et al., 2011; Foster & Trimm, 2008; MacLaren & Best, 2013; Miles & Francis, 2012, unpublished data). In contrast, Lootens (2010) found no relationship to BIS – perhaps due to methodological differences. Vulnerable narcissism has also been linked to BAS, but at more moderate levels than grandiose narcissism (Foster & Trimm, 2008). More recently, Spencer, Foster, and Bedwell (2017) found grandiosity related to elevated BAS, and vulnerability associated with elevated BIS. Other authors (e.g., Foster, Misra, & Reidy, 2009; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Vazire & Funder, 2006) have linked narcissism theoretically to an approach motivation pattern. In particular, Morf and Rhodewalt's (2001) dynamic, self-regulatory model of narcissism and Campbell and Foster's (2007) agency model assert that individuals seek to maintain and increase self-esteem by utilizing approach motivation orientation behaviors to engage in self-promoting and self-protecting social behaviors (e.g., associating with high status others, attention seeking). While these authors link narcissism to BAS, they also propose that the approach behavior observed in grandiose narcissism, and to a lesser extent in vulnerable narcissism, stems from a behavioral and environmental (e.g., parenting) perspective. While the studies reported here are behaviorally based, we will seek to highlight later the concordance of our (and other's) findings with relevant biologically based theory and data, for potential biological links underlying the relationships between narcissism subtypes and BAS.

1.5. Age and gender differences in narcissism, BAS, and BIS In terms of other variables which may impact on relationships of interest in the current studies, age and gender differences in grandiose narcissism have been well documented, with young adults as a group tending to score higher than older adults (Foster, Campbell, & Twenge, 2003), and males as a group tending to score higher than females (Grijalva et al., 2014). However, Grijalva et al. (2014) found no gender difference for vulnerable narcissism, once again highlighting differences between grandiose and vulnerable subtypes, and perhaps further indicating different underlying biological influences between the subtypes. Age differences have been reported for BAS and BIS, with scores increasing with age, peaking around young adulthood, and then gradually reducing such that younger generations tend to score higher than older generations (Pagliaccio et al., 2016). Gender differences also emerge in young adulthood, particularly for BIS scores, with females, as a group, scoring higher than males (Pagliaccio et al., 2016). While actual causes and mechanisms for these differences are yet to be understood, biological factors are suspected for BAS and BIS (Sommerfeldt, 2014; Takahashi et al., 2007). Sociocultural influences, biological factors (e.g., testosterone; Grijalva et al., 2014), and multiple genetic dispositions (Campbell & Miller, 2011) are suggested as influences on gender differences in grandiose narcissism development. Accordingly, this study also investigates gender and generation differences in narcissism and approach and avoidance behavior.

1.4.2. Narcissism and BIS In contrast to BAS, BIS involves avoidance motivation, and is correlated with neuroticism and negative emotional sensitivity (Meyer, Johnson, & Carver, 1999). Grandiose narcissism on the other hand is linked to low neuroticism (Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004), low depression (Sedikides et al., 2004), and to reduced concern with punishment or harm avoidance (Campbell & Foster, 2007). Accordingly, it makes sense that grandiose narcissism should be correlated negatively to BIS, as previously reported (Ackerman et al., 2011; Foster & Trimm, 2008; MacLaren & Best, 2013). By comparison, vulnerable narcissism is characterized by internalizing and negative emotionality (Miller & Maples, 2011). Accordingly, theoretically vulnerable (or “covert”) narcissism should be linked positively to BIS and, in fact, this has been reported across several studies (Foster & Trimm, 2008; Spencer et al., 2017).

1.6. Summary, research aim, hypotheses In summary, the etiology for narcissism development is not clear with current models including behavioral, developmental, parenting, cultural, and gene X environment factors. Drawing on Campbell's agency model and prior empirical research, S1 examined relations between approach and avoidance sensitivity with grandiose narcissism. S2 replicates S1, with the inclusion of an additional measure of vulnerable narcissism. Controlling for gender and generation, it was hypothesized: H1. High BAS and low BIS would predict grandiose narcissism. H2. High “BAS less BIS” score would predict grandiose narcissism. H3. Medium BAS and high BIS would predict vulnerable narcissism.

1.4.3. Narcissism and a theorized connection to BAS-BIS motivational bias Given established positive associations between grandiose narcissism and an approach motivation pattern, combined with either a negative or nil avoidance pattern, and since Tomer et al. (2014) has reported that higher self-report motivational bias (as indexed by zBLB score) predicted a preference for goal approach versus aversion avoidance, it follows that grandiose narcissism may likely also be associated with higher zBLB score. Similarly, links have been established between vulnerable narcissism and a high avoidance - medium approach pattern, suggesting that vulnerable narcissism may be associated with a lower or negative zBLB score. Consequently, this study investigated the relationships between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and BAS, BIS and zBLB. Potential demonstration of the predictive capacity of the zBLB index for narcissism phenotypes is important insofar as (if supported) it may

H4. Low “BAS less BIS” score would predict vulnerable narcissism. Both studies reported here form part of a larger, family-based intergenerational research program investigating narcissism, parenting styles, and other psychological variables (refer to Miles & Francis, 2014). We have previously reported from S1 data, through behavioralgenetic analysis, potential X-chromosome involvement in the transmission of narcissistic traits (indexed by the NPI) between parents and offspring (Miles & Francis, 2014). 2. Method 2.1. Participants S1 data were collected between July 2012 and July 2013. Two 145

Personality and Individual Differences 141 (2019) 143–151

G.J. Miles et al.

Table 1 Participant demographics for Study 1 and Study 2 (N = 199, N = 151). Study 1

Study 2

Overall Demographics Total group Gender Male Female Highest education level Secondary Trade apprenticeship Tertiary Post graduate Other Region of birth Australia New Zealand Europe Africa India Middle East United States Missing data

Parents

Offspring

Overall

Parents

Offspring

N 199

% 100

n 113

% 100

n 86

% 100

N 151

% 100

n 74

% 100

n 77

% 100

85 114

42.7 57.3

51 62

45.1 54.9

34 52

39.5 60.5

69 82

45.7 54.3

35 39

47.3 52.7

34 43

44.2 55.8

52 34 107 4 2

26.1 17.1 53.8 2.0 1.0

28 23 59 2 1

24.8 20.4 52.2 1.8 0.8

24 11 48 2 1

27.9 12.8 55.8 2.3 1.2

28 15 54 47 7

18.5 9.90 35.8 31.2 4.6

15 6 25 25 3

20.3 8.1 33.8 33.8 4.0

13 9 29 22 4

16.9 11.7 37.7 28.6 5.2

118 4 15 4 4 1 1 4

78.2 2.6 10.1 2.6 2.6 0.7 0.7 2.6

48 1 14 2 4 1 0 4

64.8 1.4 18.8 2.8 5.4 1.4 0 5.4

70 3 1 2 0 0 1 0

90.9 3.9 1.3 2.6 0 0 1.3 0

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Note: Education levels refer to Australian education levels; N/A = Data not available.

2.2.3. Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire The SPSRQ (Torrubia, Avila, Molto, & Caseras, 2001) is a 48-item self-report measure designed to assess a participant's level of sensitivity to punishment, reflecting BIS functioning, and sensitivity to reward which reflects BAS functioning. The SPSRQ shows sound internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity (Caseras, Avila, & Torrubia, 2003). Cronbach's alphas were relatively higher for S1 (BAS, α = 0.85; BIS, α = 0.87), than for S2 (BAS, α = 0.79; BIS, α = 0.83), reflecting study sample differences.

hundred and one participants (85 males [42%]; 116 females [58%]) belonging to 52 self-reported family groups comprising mother, father, sons and daughters were recruited from a large Australian metropolitan university and the Australian general community. Ages ranged from 18 to 73 years (M = 42.42, SD = 15.77). Education levels are reported in Table 1. S2 replicated S1, with additional variables. Data were collected between March 2016 and December 2017. One-hundred and fifty-one community participants (69 males [46%]; 82 females [54%]) belonging to 40 self-reported family groups comprising mother, father, sons and daughters were recruited from an Australian university and the Australian general public via presentation to business students and other business groups, as well as Australian radio media release and snowballing. Participant ages ranged from 20 to 88 years (M = 46.28, SD = 16.95). Table 1 shows demographic details including ethnic background and education level. Sample sizes were calculated using a formal power analysis, and were based on results of previous studies (Ackerman et al., 2011; Foster & Trimm, 2008; MacLaren & Best, 2013). It was determined that the smallest sample size required to achieve the previously reported lowest significant effect size of 0.24 at power of 0.80 was one hundred and thirty-four participants. Thus, sample size for both current studies (N = 199, N = 151) was deemed more than adequate to detect the expected effects at power of 0.80.

2.3. Procedure Participants responding to advertisements were asked to recruit their interested 18+ year-old biological family members. Each family member independently and confidentially completed the survey; anonymity was maintained by having participants create their own family code. Consent was assumed once participants completed the online survey. Approval for the studies was granted by the university's Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), and prospective participants were informed about all aspects of the study via the Participant Information Sheet. 2.4. Data analyses

2.2. Measures

Data from each Study (S1, S2) were entered into two IBM SPSS (v24) spreadsheets allowing comparative analyses (S1, N = 201; S2, N = 151). Cases with missing data were excluded from all analyses, reducing S1's overall data set (n = 199). Three further S1 cases with missing BAS data were excluded from BAS analyses (n = 196). S2 had no missing data. Scores on the NPI, BAS, BIS, BLB, and HSNS (S2 only) were entered as individual variables. All continuous variables were assessed for normality by examining skewness and kurtosis, which fell well within the acceptable limits of plus and minus two, proving normal univariate distribution (George & Mallery, 2010). Transformations were not warranted. No outliers were identified as requiring deletion. Descriptive statistics for all variables are displayed in Table 2. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to evaluate gender and generation (parent or offspring) differences on all variables for both S1 and S2. Multivariate and t-test tests proved robust to violations of

2.2.1. Narcissistic Personality Inventory The NPI (Raskin & Hall, 1981) is a 40-item, forced-choice questionnaire. The NPI is based on the DSM-III criteria for narcissism, and is currently the most commonly used assessment of grandiose narcissism. The NPI demonstrates high internal consistency levels in both S1 (α = 0.87) and S2 (α = 0.88). 2.2.2. Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale The HSNS (Hendin & Cheek, 1997) is a 10-item instrument assessing vulnerable self-esteem and sensitivity to social comparison on 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Hendin and Cheek (1997) report HSNS to be uncorrelated with the NPI, supporting the distinction between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Cronbach's alpha for HSNS for this study was α = 0.71. 146

Personality and Individual Differences 141 (2019) 143–151

G.J. Miles et al.

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and confidence intervals for scores on the NPI, BAS, BIS, z-transformed BAS, BIS, and BAS less BIS, and HSNS for overall and by gender and generation for two studies. Data splits

Variable

Study 1 N

Overall

Male

Female

Parent

Offspring

NPI BAS BIS zBAS zBIS zBAS HSNS NPI BAS BIS zBAS zBIS zBAS HSNS NPI BAS BIS zBAS zBIS zBAS HSNS NPI BAS BIS zBAS zBIS zBAS HSNS NPI BAS BIS zBAS zBIS zBAS HSNS

zBIS

zBIS

zBIS

zBIS

zBIS

199 196 196 196 196 196 – 85 84 84 84 84 84 – 114 112 112 112 112 112 – 113 111 111 111 111 111 – 86 85 85 85 85 85 –

Study 2 M

11.75 9.56 10.39 0.01 0.00 0.01 – 13.55 10.51 8.61 0.21 −0.33 0.54 – 10.41 8.84 11.73 −0.15 0.25 −0.40 – 10.32 7.86 9.50 −0.36 −0.16 −0.20 – 13.64 11.76 11.56 0.48 0.22 0.27 –

SD

7.20 4.61 5.48 1.00 1.00 1.44 – 7.00 4.77 4.58 1.04 0.84 1.28 – 7.12 4.36 5.73 0.95 1.05 1.42 – 6.95 4.00 5.15 0.87 0.94 1.37 – 7.12 4.42 5.69 0.96 1.04 1.49 –

95% CI

N

LL

UL

10.80 8.91 9.62 −0.14 −0.14 −0.20 –

12.83 10.20 11.16 0.15 0.14 0.21 –

151 151 151 151 151 151 151 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 77 77 77 77 77 77 77

M

12.64 9.19 9.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.79 13.54 9.71 8.90 0.12 −0.17 0.29 26.96 11.89 8.74 10.38 −0.10 0.13 −0.23 26.65 11.43 7.91 9.09 −0.30 −0.13 −0.17 26.36 13.81 10.42 10.29 0.29 0.11 0.18 27.19

SD

7.37 4.31 5.01 1.00 1.00 1.46 5.49 6.47 4.45 5.15 1.04 1.03 1.46 5.83 8.01 4.17 4.82 0.97 0.97 1.43 5.21 7.57 4.10 4.50 0.96 0.90 1.36 5.10 7.02 4.17 5.43 0.97 1.09 1.53 5.84

95% CI LL

UL

11.46 8.49 8.90 −0.16 −0.17 −0.23 25.91

13.83 9.88 10.51 0.16 0.16 0.24 27.67

Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit, UL = upper limit; NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; HSNS = Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale; BAS = a measure of sensitivity to reward which reflects behavioral approach, BIS = a measure of sensitivity to punishment which reflects behavioral avoidance, both from the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire; zBAS = z-transformed BAS; zBIS = z-transformed BIS; zBLB = zBAS less zBIS, following Tomer et al., 2014.

3.2. Gender differences

homogeneity to variance. Pearson correlation analyses were employed to assess associations between the variables. Cohen's (1988) conventions were used to interpret the strength of all associations.

For S1, one-tailed t-tests revealed that males scored significantly higher than females on grandiose narcissism (NPI) [t(197) = 3.11, p = .001, d = 0.45], behavioral approach [t(194) = 2.55, p = .006, d = 0.37] and zBLB [t(194) = 4.75, p < .001, d = 0.69], but lower on behavioral avoidance [t(194) = −4.11, p < .001, d = 0.60]. For S2, while the direction of differences between genders were consistent with S1 (i.e., with males scoring higher than females on all variables other than behavioral avoidance), the differences were significant only for the behavioral avoidance variable [t(149) = −1.82, p = .036, d = 0.30] and zBLB [t(149) = 2.22, p = .014, d = 0.36].

3. Results 3.1. Overall correlational results Pearson correlation coefficients evaluating the hypotheses were highly consistent between the two studies. Significant, large correlations indicated that high grandiose narcissism, as indexed by the NPI, was associated with higher levels of behavioral approach sensitivity (large size), and low levels of behavioral avoidance sensitivity. Grandiose narcissism showed a positive, very large, significant correlation in both studies with the ‘zBAS less zBIS’ (zBLB) variable (Table 3). For S2, which included the HSNS variable, vulnerable narcissism was positively associated with moderate levels of behavioral approach (medium size) and higher levels of behavioral avoidance sensitivity (near-large). HSNS did not significantly associate with the zBLB variable.

3.3. Generational differences One-tailed t-tests were also used to evaluate generational differences. For S1, offspring scored significantly higher than parents on all variables: NPI [t(197) = 3.31, p < .001, d = 0.47], BAS [t (194) = 6.46, p < .001, d = 0.93], BIS [t(194) = 2.66, p = .004, d 0.38] and zBLB [t(194) = 2.28, p = .01, d = 0.33]. By contrast, for S2, while the direction of differences between means was consistent with S1, with offspring scoring higher than parents on all variables, significant differences were observed only for 147

Personality and Individual Differences 141 (2019) 143–151

G.J. Miles et al.

Trimm, 2008; Spencer et al., 2017). In accord with Hypothesis 2, greater zBAS less zBIS (zBLB) scores predicted higher NPI grandiose narcissism with very large effect size, supporting the notion of a strong approach orientation facet to NPI narcissism, and demonstrating that the BAS-BIS differential correlates more robustly with grandiose narcissism than do absolute BAS or BIS levels. Supporting Hypothesis 3, vulnerable narcissism was associated with moderate levels of behavioral approach (medium size) and higher levels of behavioral avoidance sensitivity (near-large). By contrast, lower zBLB did not predict higher levels of vulnerable narcissism, failing to support Hypothesis 4. As discussed, behavioral approach has been uniquely related to greater left than right frontal EEG activity (Amodio et al., 2008; Rodrigues et al., 2016; Sutton & Davidson, 1997), as well as greater left than right frontal dopamine D2 receptor binding (Tomer et al., 2014) rather than absolute left or right hemisphere EEG activity or dopamine D2 receptor binding levels. This is in contrast to behavioral avoidance, which has been associated uniquely with relatively greater right than left dopamine D2 receptor binding (Tomer et al., 2014) and EEG asymmetry (Amodio et al., 2008; Rodrigues et al., 2016; Sutton & Davidson, 1997). Consequently, approach-avoidance motivational bias, as indexed by z-transformed BAS less z-transformed BIS (zBLB) score has also been associated with higher left than right brain asymmetry of dopamine D2 receptors, and a corresponding preference for goal approach versus aversion avoidance stimuli (Tomer et al., 2014). The finding here that zBLB also predicts grandiose narcissism with substantial effect provides some rationale, therefore, for future studies to explore the potential role of EEG and dopamine D2 receptor binding asymmetry in the behavioral and cognitive phenomenology of grandiose narcissism. Reporting of associations between dopamine system genes and dopamine D2 receptor binding asymmetry (Zozulinsky et al., 2014), and of links between dopamine gene variation dependent frontal asymmetry and dopamine agonists and BAS (Wacker, Mueller, Pizzagalli, Hennig, & Stemmler, 2013), points further to the possibility that dopamine system genes partially underpin the approach orientation features of grandiose narcissism. Further research is required in this area. S2 supports Hypothesis 3 that HSNS vulnerable narcissism was predicted by elevated BAS and more so BIS, supporting Foster and Trimm's (2008) findings, and confirming that BIS scores appear to differentiate grandiose and vulnerable subtypes of narcissism. However, compared to the relatively large effect size associated with BAS predictions for grandiose narcissism, BIS predictions for vulnerable narcissism were of medium effect size, while BAS predictive ability for vulnerable narcissism was weak. These apparent relationship differentials highlight hypotheses suggesting narcissism subtypes may stem from differing etiologies (Miller et al., 2017). Hypothesis 4, that zBLB score would predict vulnerable narcissism, was not supported. A large significant relationship was found between zBLB and grandiose narcissism in S1, and replicated in S2 - but a nonsignificant relationship between zBLB and vulnerable narcissism was found, suggesting that while BAS-BIS bias is significantly associated with grandiose narcissism, it is not relevant to vulnerable narcissism. This finding further highlights differences between the narcissism subtypes in relation to approach and avoidance behaviors. Generational differences for NPI and BAS were consistent across studies, with the younger generation scoring significantly higher on both variables than the older generation, supporting previous findings demonstrating that both levels of NPI and BAS decrease as adults age (Foster et al., 2003; Lardi, Billieux, d'Acremont, & Van der Linden, 2008; Pagliaccio et al., 2016), and indirectly supporting evidence of the influence of age-related biological factors (e.g., testosterone levels) in BAS at least (see Sommerfeldt, 2014; Takahashi et al., 2007). Generational differences for BIS were significant in S1 with offspring scoring significantly higher than parents on BIS. S2 generational

Table 3 Correlations for NPI, HSNS, BAS, BIS, and z-transformed BAS less BIS (zBLB) overall, and split by gender and generation for two studies. Study 1

Overall NPI HSNS Males NPI HSNS Females NPI HSNS Parents NPI HSNS Offspring NPI HSNS

Study 2

n

BAS

BIS

zBLB

n

BAS

BIS

zBLB

196 –

0.60⁎⁎ –

−0.43⁎⁎ –

0.72⁎⁎ –

151 151

0.63⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎

−0.42⁎⁎ 0.47⁎⁎

0.73⁎⁎ −0.12

84 –

0.60⁎⁎ –

−0.29⁎⁎ –

0.68⁎⁎ –

69 69

0.61⁎⁎ 0.35⁎

−0.34⁎⁎ 0.52⁎⁎

0.68⁎⁎ −0.12

112 –

0.57⁎⁎ –

−0.45⁎⁎ –

0.71⁎⁎ –

82 82

0.65⁎⁎ 0.26⁎

−0.47⁎⁎ 0.44⁎⁎

0.77⁎⁎ −0.12

111 –

0.63⁎⁎ –

−0.48⁎⁎ –

0.73⁎⁎ –

74 74

0.59⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎

−0.49⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎

0.74⁎⁎ 0.00

85 –

0.51⁎⁎ –

−0.51⁎⁎ –

0.68⁎⁎ –

77 77

0.65⁎⁎ 0.26⁎

−0.42⁎⁎ 0.54⁎⁎

0.71⁎⁎ −0.22

Note. NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; HSNS = Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale; BAS = a measure of sensitivity to reward which reflects behavioral approach, BIS = a measure of sensitivity to punishment which reflects behavioral avoidance, both from the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire; zBLB = z-transformed BAS less z-transformed BIS, following Tomer et al., 2014. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01.

grandiose narcissism (NPI) [t(149) = 2.00, p < .024, d = 0.33] and BAS [t(149) = 3.73, p < .001, d = 0.61]. Significant generational differences were not observed for BIS, HSNS, or zBLB. 3.4. Predictive analyses Hierarchical regressions were performed to assess whether levels of BAS and BIS predicted NPI (grandiose) and HSNS (vulnerable) scores. Given significant gender and generation differences in NPI, BAS and BIS scores, these were entered as control variables at Step 1. BAS and BIS were entered as independent variables at Step 2. After controlling for gender and generation, for S1, NPI scores were associated significantly positively with BAS (β = 0.59, p < .001, f2 = 0.43), negatively with BIS (β = −0.46, p < .001, f2 = 0.26) and positively with zBLB (β = 0.70, p < .001, f2 = 0.88), with large, moderate, and very large effects respectively. Similarly, in S2, NPI scores were associated positively and significantly with BAS (β = 0.64, p < .001, f2 = 0.61), negatively with BIS (β = −0.44, p < .001, f2 = 0.24) and positively with zBLB (β = 0.72, p < .001, f2 = 1.07). In S2, HSNS scores were associated positively and significantly with both BAS (β = 0.31, p < .001, f2 = 0.09) and BIS (β = 0.48, p < .001, f2 = 0.29). However, the association between HSNS and zBLB, although in the expected direction, was not significant (β = −0.13, p = .105, f2 = 0.03). 4. Discussion Two studies investigated relationships between NPI-assessed grandiose narcissism, HSNS-assessed vulnerable narcissism, and the SPSRQ measures of approach motivation (BAS) and avoidance motivation (BIS). Findings supported Campbell's theoretical agency model (CAM) of grandiose narcissism as well as the utility of an index of reward-sensitivity bias (zBLB) for differentiating the two subtypes of narcissism phenomenology. Elevated BAS and low BIS predicted higher NPI grandiose narcissism scores with large and moderate effect sizes respectively, supporting Hypothesis 1 and previous findings of associations between NPI, high BAS and low BIS (e.g., Ackerman et al., 2011; Foster & 148

Personality and Individual Differences 141 (2019) 143–151

G.J. Miles et al.

an appropriate, global, and reliable (as only the total NPI score was used) measure for grandiose narcissism in the present study. The SPSRQ (Torrubia et al., 2001) is a common measure of approach and avoidance motivation, as is Carver and White's (1994) BIS/BAS Scales. Foster and Brennan (2011) used both measures to assess associations of behavioral approach and avoidance with NPI assessed narcissism with both measures resulting in remarkably stable correlations, in the same directions. The present study used the SPSRQ for consistency with a prior study by the same authors. The HSNS (Hendin & Cheek, 1997) is a commonly utilized measure of vulnerable narcissism. The Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI; Pincus et al., 2009) assesses pathological variants of both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and correlates moderately to strongly with the NPI entitlement/exploitation (E/E) subscale and the HSNS (Pincus et al.). The HSNS was found to correlate moderately with NPI E/E (Tamborski & Brown, 2011). On this basis, we might expect that similar findings would be obtained using alternative measures to those used in our study, for both grandiose and vulnerable dimensions of narcissism, however this remains an empirical question for further investigation. Another possible limitation is that participants were comprised of parent-offspring family groups, presumably exposing family members to the same family environment. It is possible that the associations between BAS, BIS and NPI and HSNS are influenced by family environment and parenting. However, since BAS and BIS are suggested to have genetic underpinnings, and previous findings suggest the lesser relevance of family factors in the development of narcissism (Miles & Francis, 2014), we suggest this was not an important confounding influence. Within this context, we note that a large number of families are involved in each study, contributing genetic and environmental heterogeneity to the samples. Nonetheless, further replication is desirable in general population samples from other cultures, although we would expect these results to be generalizable across other cultures, age groups, and gender. To further understand narcissism's etiology, future studies should investigate the extent to which parenting and other environmental stimuli are associated with the biological BAS and BIS systems, and also grandiose and vulnerable narcissism development; and whether genes suggested to underpin the biological BAS and BIS systems may also underlie grandiose and vulnerable narcissism development.

BIS differences were consistent with S1, although not significant. Overall these findings confirm research identifying BIS to be higher in adolescents and young adults than in older adults (Pagliaccio et al., 2016). Perhaps the non-significant difference from S2 reflects sample differences between the studies. Similarly, while mean levels of HSNS narcissism were higher in offspring than parents in S2 as expected, differences failed to achieve significance. As HSNS levels have been found to be more strongly associated with BIS levels than BAS levels, non-significant generational differences in HSNS would be expected in the presence of non-significant generational BIS differences. Gender differences for S1 were significant with males scoring significantly higher on NPI and BAS than females, and females scoring significantly higher on BIS than males, confirming previous studies (Grijalva et al., 2014; Torrubia et al., 2001). Males also scored higher than females on zBLB. Patterns of gender difference were consistent for S2, although only the BIS (females scored higher than males) and zBLB (males scored higher than females) variables attained significance. S2's failure to achieve significance for gender differences on NPI and BAS may perhaps be attributed to sample differences. As a group, S2 females had higher mean NPI and lower mean BIS scores than S1 females, while S2 males had a lower mean BAS score than S1 males (see Table 2). For HSNS vulnerable narcissism, no significant differences were found for gender (supporting Grijalva et al., 2014) or generation. The fact that grandiose narcissism by comparison was significantly higher for the offspring generation than the parent generation supports the notion that HSNS and NPI measure unrelated features of narcissism. In summary, the current studies report the novel finding that approach-avoidance motivation bias (indexed by zBLB) predicts grandiose narcissism with greater effect size than absolute BAS and BIS levels. In contrast, vulnerable narcissism was not predicted by zBLB, but was predicted by absolute levels of BIS and BAS, albeit with lesser effect. BIS was also found to differentially predict grandiose versus vulnerable narcissism supporting previous research (Ackerman et al., 2011; Foster & Trimm, 2008; Spencer et al., 2017), although with significantly lesser effect than zBLB. Given the strongly supported and understood biological bases of BAS and BIS, together with previous findings that approach-avoidance motivation bias (zBLB) is associated with both frontal EEG asymmetry (Amodio et al., 2008; Sutton & Davidson, 1997) and frontal dopamine D2 receptor binding asymmetry (Tomer et al., 2014), we propose that the functional biology underlying BAS and BIS also underlies the development of the approach and avoidance features of narcissism and its phenomenological subtypes. The finding here that zBLB predicts grandiose narcissism with substantial effect provides some rationale for future studies to explore the potential role of EEG and dopamine D2 receptor binding asymmetry in the behavioral and cognitive phenomenology of grandiose narcissism.

4.2. Conclusions and implications In conclusion, the current findings support approach motivation bias (zBLB), rather than absolute behavioral approach and behavioral avoidance levels, as a more robust predictor of grandiose but not vulnerable narcissism development. The findings also suggest that both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism development are differentially influenced by biologically based behavioral approach (BAS) and behavioral avoidance (BIS) systems. In this paper we highlight, as an heuristic theoretical contribution, the connections between lines of evidence indicating (1) a biological and genetic basis for BAS and BIS orientation (Sommerfeldt, 2014; Takahashi et al., 2007; Wacker et al., 2013; Zozulinsky et al., 2014); (2) that, as the current findings further confirm, BAS and BIS levels differentially predict grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, and approachavoidance motivation bias as indexed by zBLB score is significantly and substantially associated with grandiose narcissism; and that (3) zBLB scores have been associated with brain asymmetry of EEG activity as well as asymmetry of dopamine D2 receptor binding and a preference for approach behavior (Tomer et al., 2014). Together, these findings permit the hypothesis that the biology (and potentially genes) underpinning BAS and BIS also underpins development of the approach features of narcissism, and that BAS and BIS development precedes and provides a foundation for narcissism development. In essence, we propose that approach-avoidance orientation forms an important component of the bio-behavioral ‘platform’ on which narcissistic traits

4.1. Limitations and future directions In these studies, only self-report questionnaires were used for data collection, which may result in social desirability bias. However, data analyses revealed significant and consistent relationships among variables between the two studies, and across a varied demography and time, which can be taken to indicate the validity and replicability of reported relationships. Consistent with these findings, Tomer et al. (2014) demonstrated that both self-report questionnaires and behavioral learning tasks predicted dopamine D2 receptor binding asymmetry, validating self-report data as reliable in that study. Although the total NPI has adequate psychometric properties, it has been criticized as a measure of narcissism primarily due to inadequate internal reliability of the subscales and a variable factor structure (Ackerman et al., 2011). Consequently, other scales have been developed, although only measuring specific traits of narcissism such as exploitativeness (Brunell et al., 2013) and entitlement (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004). The NPI was considered 149

Personality and Individual Differences 141 (2019) 143–151

G.J. Miles et al.

narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings and treatments (pp. 89–100). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Twenge, J. M. (2003). Individual differences in narcissism: Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)0026-6. Foster, J. D., Misra, T. A., & Reidy, D. E. (2009). Narcissists are approach-oriented toward their money and their friends. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 764–769. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.05.005. Foster, J. D., & Trimm, R. F., IV (2008). On being eager and uninhibited: Narcissism and approach-avoidance motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1004–1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316688. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.). Boston: Pearson. Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8, 249–266. Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An inquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D., Robins, R. W., & Yan, T. (2014). Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 261–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038231. Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reexamination of Murray's Narcism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588–599. Hill, P. L., & Roberts, B. W. (2011). Examining “developmental me”: A review of narcissism as a life span construct. In W. K. Campbell, & J. D. Miller (Eds.). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings and treatments (pp. 191–201). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Holtzman, N. S., & Strube, M. J. (2011). The intertwined evolution of narcissism and short-term mating: An emerging hypothesis. In W. K. Campbell, & J. D. Miller (Eds.). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings and treatments (pp. 210–220). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Horton, R. S. (2011). Parenting as a cause of narcissism: Empirical support for psychodynamic and social learning theories. In W. K. Campbell, & J. D. Miller (Eds.). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings and treatments (pp. 181–190). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Krusemark, E. A. (2011). Neurophysiological correlates of narcissism and psychopathy. In W. K. Campbell, & J. D. Miller (Eds.). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings and treatments (pp. 221– 235). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Lardi, C., Billieux, J., d'Acremont, M., & Van der Linden, M. (2008). A French adaptation of a short version of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ). Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 722–725. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.019. Livesley, W. J., Jang, K. L., Jackson, D. N., & Vernon, P. A. (1993). Genetic and environmental contributions to dimensions of personality disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 1826–1831. Lootens, C. M. (2010). An examination of the relationships among personality traits, perceived parenting styles, and narcissism. Dissertation abstracts international: Section B: The sciences and engineering (pp. 72). . MacLaren, V. V., & Best, L. A. (2013). Disagreeable narcissism mediates an effect of BAS on addictive behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 101–105. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.004. Meyer, B., Johnson, S. L., & Carver, C. S. (1999). Exploring behavioral activation and inhibition sensitivities among college students at risk for bipolar spectrum symptomatology. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 21, 275–292. https:// doi.org/10.1023/A:1022119414440. Miles, G. J., & Francis, A. J. P. (2012). [An investigation into personality, perceived parenting style, and heredity]. Unpublished raw data. Miles, G. J., & Francis, A. J. (2014). Narcissism: Is parenting style to blame, or is there Xchromosome involvement? Psychiatry Research, 219, 712–713. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.psychres.2014.07.003. Miller, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2007). Narcissistic personality disorder: Relations with functional impairment and distress. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 48, 170–177. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). Controversies in narcissism. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 291–315. https://doi.org/10. 1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045244. Miller, J. D., & Maples, J. (2011). Trait personality models of narcissistic personality disorder, grandiose narcissism, and vulnerable narcissism. In W. K. Campbell, & J. D. Miller (Eds.). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings and treatments (pp. 71–89). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unravelling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196. Pagliaccio, D., Luking, K. R., Anokhin, A. P., Gotlib, I. H., Hayden, E. P., Olino, T. M., ... Barch, D. M. (2016). Revising the BIS/BAS to study development: Measurement invariance and normative effects of age and sex from childhood through adulthood. Psychological Assessment, 28, 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000186. Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G. C., & Levy, K. N. (2009). Initial construction and validation of the pathological narcissism inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016530. Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1981). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Alternative form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 159–162. Rodrigues, J., Muller, M., Muhlberger, A., & Hewig, J. (2016). Mind the movement: Frontal asymmetry stands for behavioral motivation, bilateral frontal activation for behavior. Psychophysiology, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12908.

develop and are sustained. The implications of better understanding the mechanisms by which narcissism develops and then becomes a sustained, and sometimes maladaptive behavioral set (i.e., NPD) are broad. First, it provides an informative ‘case’ from which we may further our understandings of other personality disorders and psychiatric conditions for which approach-avoidance behaviors may be an important central feature or pre-condition. Second, it may contribute to the empirical bases for the development of fresh approaches to the understanding and clinical management of clients for whom narcissism is a treatment focus. Finally, from a broader business and occupational perspective, these findings inform the development of screening tools to identify particular reward seeking and narcissistic behaviors in business founders, entrepreneurs, and employees that may be either beneficial, or in the extreme, detrimental to business success and sustainability. Declaration of conflicting interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the narcissistic personality inventory really measure? Assessment, 18, 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110382845. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing978-0-89042-5558646–649. Amodio, D. M., Master, S. L., Yee, C. M., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Neurocognitive components of the behavioral inhibition and activation systems: Implications for theories of self-regulation. Psychophysiology, 45, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14698986.2007.00609.x. Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Nelemans, S. A., Orobio de Castro, B., Overbeek, G., & Bushman, B. J. (2015). Origins of narcissism in children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 3659–3662. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.1420870112. Brunell, A. B., Davis, M. S., Schley, D. R., Eng, A. L., van Dulmen, M. H. M., Wester, K. L., & Flannery, D. (2013). A new measure of interpersonal exploitativeness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00299. Buffardi, L. E. (2011). Narcissism and the world wide web. In W. K. Campbell, & J. D. Miller (Eds.). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings and treatments (pp. 371–381). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: Phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 638–656. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.09.006. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327752jpa8301_04. Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2007). The narcissistic self: Background, an extended agency model, and ongoing controversies. The Self, 115–138. Retrieved from http:// www.joshuadfoster.com/campbellfoster2007chap.pdf. Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2011). Narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder. Six suggestions for unifying the field. In W. K. Campbell, & J. D. Miller (Eds.). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings and treatments (pp. 485–488). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–334. Caseras, X., Avila, C., & Torrubia, R. (2003). The measurement of individual differences in behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation systems: A comparison of personality scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 999–1013. Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.004. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Foster, J. D., & Brennan, J. C. (2011). Narcissism, the agency model, and approachavoidance motivation. In W. K. Campbell, & J. D. Miller (Eds.). The handbook of

150

Personality and Individual Differences 141 (2019) 143–151

G.J. Miles et al.

Twenge, J. M. (2011). Narcissism and culture. In W. K. Campbell, & J. D. Miller (Eds.). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings and treatments (pp. 202–209). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. NY: Simon and Schuster. Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76, 875–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494. 2008.00507.x (discussion 903-828). Vazire, S., & Funder, D. C. (2006). Impulsivity and the self-defeating behavior of narcissists. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 154–165. https://doi.org/10. 1207/s15327957pspr1002_4. Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic investigation of the dark triad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 445–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.007. Wacker, J., Mueller, E. M., Pizzagalli, D. A., Hennig, J., & Stemmler, G. (2013). Dopamine-D2-receptor blockade reverses the association between trait approach motivation and frontal asymmetry in an approach-motivation context. Psychological Science, 25, 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612458935. Wacker, J., & Smillie, L. D. (2015). Trait extraversion and dopamine function. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12175. Wetzel, E., Brown, A., Hill, P., Chung, J. M., Robins, R. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). The narcissism epidemic is dead; long live the narcissism epidemic. Psychological Science, 28, 1833–1847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617724208. Zozulinsky, P., Greenbaum, L., Brande-Eilat, N., Braun, Y., Shalev, I., & Tomer, R. (2014). Dopamine system genes are associated with orienting bias among healthy individuals. Neuropsychologia, 62, 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia. 2014.07.005.

Sedikides, C., Rudich, E., Gregg, A., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004). Are normal narcissists psychologically healthy? Self-esteem matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 400–416. Sommerfeldt, S. (2014). Genetics of behavioral inhibition and approach systems: A review of the literature. Undergraduate Journal of Psychology at Berkley, 7. Spencer, C., Foster, J., & Bedwell, J. (2017). 484. Structural relationships among the revised reward sensitivity theory and grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Biological Psychiatry, 81, S197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.02.968. Sutton, S. K., & Davidson, R. J. (1997). Prefrontal brain asymmetry: A biological substrate of the behavioral approach and inhibition systems. Psychological Science, 8, 204–210. Takahashi, Y., Yamagata, S., Kijima, N., Shigemasu, K., Ono, Y., & Ando, J. (2007). Continuity and change in behavioral inhibition and activation systems: A longitudinal behavioral genetic study. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1616–1625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.030. Tamborski, M., & Brown, R. P. (2011). The measurement of trait narcissism in socialpersonality research. In W. K. Campbell, & J. D. Miller (Eds.). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings and treatments (pp. 133–140). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Tomer, R., Slagter, H. A., Christian, B. T., Fox, A. S., King, C. R., Murali, D., ... Davidson, R. J. (2014). Love to win or hate to lose? Asymmetry of dopamine D2 receptor binding predicts sensitivity to reward versus punishment. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 1039–1048. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00544. Torrubia, R., Avila, C., Molto, J., & Caseras, X. (2001). The sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity to reward questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray's anxiety and impulsivity dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 837–862. Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2008). Is “generation me” really more narcissistic than previous generations? Journal of Personality, 76, 903–917. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00508.x.

151