The values of narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability

Personality and Individual Differences 150 (2019) 109478

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

The values of narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability a,⁎

a

Kelsey Anello , Daniel G. Lannin , Anthony D. Hermann a b

T

b

Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, United States of America Department of Psychology, Bradley University, United States of America

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Narcissism Grandiose Vulnerable Values FFM

Grandiose and vulnerable aspects of narcissism have been examined as a function of the five-factor model (FFM), but given narcissism's strong theoretical link to self-centered, self-enhancing motivation, personal values may be relevant predictors of both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to examine whether personal values predict grandiose and vulnerable facets of narcissism beyond the FFM. Undergraduates (N = 409) completed online measures of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, values, and FFM personality traits. In line with hypotheses, bivariate correlations between personal values and both narcissistic dimensions exhibited sinusoid patterns, with strongest positive links to self-enhancement values and strongest negative links to self-transcendence values. Results also indicated that higher order personal values predicted additional variance in both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism beyond the FFM. Relationships between selftranscendence, self-enhancement values and grandiose narcissism were stronger than for vulnerable narcissism; however, vulnerable narcissism, but not grandiose narcissism, was positively linked to conservation values.

1. Introduction The idea that narcissism is marked by dual dynamics has a long history in psychology (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Murray, 1938). Theorists such as Kernberg (1975) and Kohut (1977) noted that grandiose traits such as being interpersonally domineering and self-aggrandizing may be juxtaposed next to vulnerable traits such as feeling inferior and inadequate. Contemporary research has also noted that narcissism has a core characteristic of entitled self-importance (Krizan & Herlache, 2017) and presents a face of grandiosity that is marked by hubris, exhibitionism, arrogance, and manipulativeness. Yet, narcissism also can present a face of vulnerability that is marked by defensiveness, resentment, shame, avoidance, and shyness (e.g., Ellison, Levy, Cain, Ansell, & Pincus, 2013; Miller et al., 2011). Clinical guidelines from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) note that Narcissistic Personality Disorder—which is marked by a maladaptive, extreme, and inflexible trait narcissism—exhibits a pattern of grandiose self-importance, but also vulnerability in self-esteem, which facilitates a hypersensitivity to criticism or defeat (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). While FFM traits may provide descriptions of these narcissistic aspects (Glover, Miller, Lynam, Crego, & Widiger, 2012), personal values may provide meaningful insight into the underlying psychological processes that guide underlying processes. Therefore, the current study focuses on the grandiose and vulnerable

⁎

facets of narcissism and their relationship with personal values. The conceptualization that narcissism has two faces has received much empirical support. Although appellations vary, the underlying delineation and coherence of the distinctions between narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability are similar, e.g., well-defended vs. poorlydefended (Daig, Klapp, & Fliege, 2009); overt vs. covert (Lapsley & Aalsma, 2006; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995), and adaptive vs. maladaptive (Barry & Wallace, 2010) narcissism. Many studies utilizing factorial analyses suggest that these two conceptualizations of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism are independent of one another (Cain, Pincus, & Ansell, 2008; Russ, Shedler, Bradley, & Westen, 2008; Wink, 1991). One empirical study found that even though narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability are relatively orthogonal at subclinical levels, the facets are strongly correlated at higher levels of narcissistic grandiosity—providing validity to the DSM's conceptualization of the maladaptive nature of both grandiose and vulnerable facets of narcissism (Jauk & Kaufman, 2018). 1.1. Values and the two faces of narcissism Personal values are preferred principles that express psychological needs and guide attitudes and behavior (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992, 1994, 2012). Values are prescriptive, representing life-goals that tend to refer to a person's preferred end states—such as being wealthy

Corresponding author at: Illinois State University, Department of Psychology, Campus Box 4620, Normal, IL 61790-4620, United States of America. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Anello).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.021 Received 14 May 2019; Received in revised form 16 June 2019; Accepted 19 June 2019 0191-8869/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Personality and Individual Differences 150 (2019) 109478

K. Anello, et al.

may best be understood as self-regulatory processes that influences the relevant goals of behaviors and states (Campbell & Foster, 2011). As such, a comprehensive understanding of narcissism may need to include both FFM traits as well as personal values, the latter of which may predict grandiose and vulnerable narcissism above and beyond the FFM. Parks-Leduc, Feldman, and Bardi's (2015) meta-analysis shows that there is meaningful overlap between FFM traits and personal values as well as that the two constructs remain distinct. In order to disentangle the relative influence of personal values on narcissistic dimensions it may be important to control for FFM traits. Therefore, in the present study, we examined the relationships between personal values and narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability, controlling for FFM traits. First, because the circumplex of values represent a motivational continuum with two relatively orthogonal poles (self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence and conservation vs openness to change)—narcissistic dimensions of grandiosity and vulnerability are expected to exhibit a systematic pattern of correlations that approximates a sine curve (Parks-Leduc et al., 2015; Schwartz, 1992). In other words, if one were to graph correlations between narcissistic dimensions and all personal values—the curves would look like sine waves, with strong positive correlations corresponding to one pole of values (e.g., self-enhancement), and strong negative correlations corresponding to the opposing pole of values (e.g., self-transcendence). Thus, we hypothesized that correlations between personal values and both narcissistic dimensions would demonstrate sinusoid patterns, with strongest relationships between narcissistic dimensions and the self-transcendence/ self-enhancement axis of personal values. Second, we expected personal values to predict grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism beyond the FFM. Third, we expected both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism to demonstrate a positive relationships with self-enhancement values and negative relationships with self-transcendence values; however, we expected grandiose and vulnerable narcissism to exhibit opposing relationships with conservation and openness to change values; we predicted narcissistic grandiosity to be positively associated with openness to change values and negatively associated with conservation values, and we predicted vulnerable narcissism to exhibit positive associations with conservation and negative associations with openness to change.

or having an exciting life—or to a person's preferred way of being—such as being ambitious or polite (Rokeach, 1973). Individual values are believed to exist within a larger system of values (Maio, 2016), and the impact of these values on attitudes and behaviors occurs due to judgments of importance versus unimportance (i.e., prioritizing certain values over others). Because values prioritizations reveal salient organismic motivations that transcend situations (Schwartz, 1992) they may be core components of personal identity (Hitlin, 2003), and thus may have important implications for the expression of personality traits such as narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability (Güngör, Ekşi, & Arıcak, 2012; Rogoza, Wyszynska, Mackiewicz, & Cieciuch, 2016). Schwartz' theory of basic human values describes a circular theoretical structure associated with a set of human values that occurs across human cultures (see Schwartz, 1992, 1994, 2012), and which can be grouped into two axes. On each axis, values on one pole represent underlying motivations that oppose motivations on the other pole—a dynamic that occurs within a person and across persons (Borg, Bardi, & Schwartz, 2017). Persons prioritizing values on one pole of an axis tend to deprioritize values on the opposite pole (Maio, 2016). On one axis, self-transcendence values, which are composed of values such as benevolence and universalism that emphasize concern for others' welfare, sit opposite self-enhancement values, which are composed of values such as achievement and power that emphasize one's concern for pursuing their own success and social dominance (Schwartz, 2012). Narcissism's defining characteristic may be entitled self-importance (cf. Krizan & Herlache, 2017), which coheres with findings that grandiose aspects of narcissism has been found to be positively associated with self-enhancement values and negatively associated with self-transcendence values (Jonason, Strosser, Kroll, Duineveld, & Baruffi, 2015). One might predict that the narcissistic face of grandiosity, would be more strongly linked to values on the selftranscendence/self-enhancement axis than the face of narcissistic vulnerability, because grandiose narcissism may represent a more overt tendency to acknowledge one's self-interest (Campbell, Reeder, Sedikedes, & Elliot, 2000) and lack of concern for other (Lannin, Guyll, Krizan, & Madon, 2014) than vulnerable narcissism. We would therefore predict that grandiose narcissism would be positively associated with self-enhancement values and negatively associated with selftranscendence values (cf. Kajonius, Persson, & Jonason, 2015). On the other axis, conservation values, which are composed of values such as security, tradition, and conformity that represent self-restriction, order, and maintaining the status quo, sit opposite openness to change values, which are composed of values such as self-direction and stimulation. Narcissistic grandiosity is marked by extraversion and a tendency toward self-serving behaviors (Holtzman, Vazire, & Mehl, 2010), as well as impulsivity and approach motivation (Malesza & Kaczmarek, 2018). Therefore, we would expect grandiosity to be positively associated with openness to change values, which are marked by motivation to exert independence and pleasure—and negatively associated with conservation values, which are marked by motivation to maintain interpersonal harmony and the status quo (Rogoza et al., 2016). Because vulnerable narcissism may be undergirded by processes related to the avoidance motivation (Malesza & Kaczmarek, 2018) we would expect vulnerable narcissism to exhibit the opposite pattern of relationships—with positive associations with conservation and negative associations with openness to change. Researchers have often conceptualized narcissism in the context of the FFM (Glover et al., 2012). There is evidence that narcissistic grandiosity is positively associated with extraversion, but negatively associated with agreeableness and neuroticism (Bradlee & Emmons, 1992; Buss & Chiodo, 1991; Samuel & Widiger, 2008), whereas vulnerable narcissism is positively associated with neuroticism, but negatively associated with agreeableness and extraversion (Miller, Gentile, & Campbell, 2013; Samuel & Widiger, 2008). However, trait inventories may fail to uncover the relevant goals underlying observed traits, behaviors, and states (Fischer, 2018), and thus the narcissistic dimensions

2. Method 2.1. Participants Undergraduates (N = 409) at a large Midwestern University (Gender: Woman = 80.2%, Man = 18.6%, Self-Identify = 0.7%, Missing = 0.5%; Age: M = 19.9, SD = 2.42; Race: White = 74.6%, Hispanic = 9.8%, Black = 8.6%, Asian = 3.9%, Multiracial = 2.4%, Self-Identify = 0.5%, Missing = 0.2%) completed online questionnaires assessing personal values, narcissism, and demographic information. 2.2. Procedure Undergraduates were recruited via SONA, an online portal maintained by the psychology department at [name omitted for blind review]. After providing informed consent, undergraduates completed questionnaires assessing grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, personal values, FFM personality traits, and demographic information. Participants received course credit for their voluntary participation; all study procedures were approved by the university's institutional review board. 2.3. Measures 2.3.1. Grandiose narcissism The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988) 2

Personality and Individual Differences 150 (2019) 109478

K. Anello, et al.

exhibit a sinusoid pattern to Schwartz's personal values circumplex, we plotted bivariate correlations between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and all 19 individual values. As shown in Fig. 1, grandiose narcissism showed the strongest positive correlations with self-enhancement values (achievement, power-dominance), and the strongest negative correlations with self-transcendence values (universalism-tolerance, universalism-concern) and the individual value of humility, which is conceptually sandwiched between self-transcendence and conservation higher order values. Vulnerable narcissism exhibited a similar, but attenuated pattern; strongest positive correlations were with face—a value sandwiched between self-enhancement and conservation—self-enhancement values (power-dominance, power-resources), and the strongest negative values were self-transcendence values (benevolence-care, universalism-tolerance, universalism-concern). Interestingly, grandiose narcissism was negatively associated with conformity-interpersonal (r = −0.26), but vulnerable narcissism was positively associated (r = 0.11).

was used to assess participants' grandiose narcissism scores. The NPI is a 40-item questionnaire in which participants answer each question by selecting which of the two paired statements is closest to their feelings. Some examples of the items on this questionnaire include “A) I am assertive. B) I wish I were more assertive.” and “A) I will never be satisfied until I get all that I deserve. B) I take my satisfactions as they come.” Cronbach's α = 0.84. 2.3.2. Vulnerable narcissism The Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS; Hendin & Cheek, 1997) was used to determine participants' vulnerable narcissism scores. The HSNS is a 10-item questionnaire in which participants rate the extent to which statements describe themselves using a five-point scale where 1 = very uncharacteristic to 5 = very characteristic. Some examples of statements on the HSNS include “My feelings are easily hurt by ridicule or the slighting remarks of others” and “I easily become wrapped up in my own interests and forget the existence of others.” Cronbach's α = 0.74.

3.2. Main analyses 2.3.3. Big Five The Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999) is a 44-item questionnaire in which participants respond to statements about themselves using a five-point scale where 1 = disagree strongly and 5 = agree strongly. Some examples include “I see myself as someone who is generally trusting” and “I see myself as someone who can be cold and aloof.” The questionnaire measures participants' scores for each of the five personality domains – extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. Cronbach's α for each of the subscales were as follows: extraversion (α = 0.83), agreeableness (α = 0.79), conscientiousness (α = 0.77), neuroticism (α = 0.79), openness to experience (α = 0.71).

To examine the relative contributions of big five personality traits and higher order values to both dimensions of narcissism, we first conducted multiple regression analyses in SPSS v. 25 where each facet of narcissism was set as the outcome variable, with two steps of predictors. First, all 5 FFM traits were set as predictors, followed by the four higher order values. FFM predictors accounted for 36% of the variance in grandiose narcissism, p < .001, and the combination of FFM and higher order values predicted 50% of the variance in grandiose narcissism, ΔR2 = 0.14, p < .001. The significant change in R2 indicates that the four higher order values predicted variance in grandiose narcissism in addition to the FFM predictors. FFM predictors accounted for 21% of the variance in vulnerable narcissism, p < .001, and the combination of FFM and higher order values predicted 33% of the variance in vulnerable narcissism, ΔR2 = 0.12, p < .001. The significant change in R2 indicates that the four higher order values predicted variance in vulnerable narcissism above and beyond the FFM predictors. Next, to examine predictors of narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability concurrently, a path analysis was conducted using full-information maximum likelihood method in MPLUS 7, with grandiose and vulnerable narcissism set as outcome variables, and all possible paths included (i.e., models were fully saturated). We created 10,000 bias-corrected bootstrapped samples of the data, which in turn produced bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) for path coefficients (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Because bootstrapping allows for non-normal distributions, the resulting non-symmetric CIs preclude the calculation of exact p values, but when the corresponding 95% CIs exclude zero, they convey statistical significance with an alpha level set to 0.05. As shown in Fig. 2, when personality traits and higher order values were included in the model, only self-transcendence and self-enhancement were predictive of both narcissistic dimensions.

2.3.4. Personal values The Portrait Values-Questionnaire Revised (PVQ-RR; Schwartz, 2017) assessed personal values (Schwartz, 2012). The PVQ-RR is a 57item scale that measures each of 19 individual values and four higherorder values. The PVQ-RR describes a person in terms of values that are important to them. We adapted the PVQ-RR so that gender-specific pronouns (e.g., him/her) were replaced with gender-inclusive pronouns (e.g., they). Participants responded to the prompt, “how much is this person like you?” and rated items on a 6-point scale where 1 = Not like me at all to 6 = Very much like me, with higher scores reflect greater importance of a value. Higher order values were calculated by combining means of individual values; self-transcendence is composed of universalism-nature, universalism-concern, universalism-tolerance, benevolence-care, and benevolence-dependability; openness to change is composed of self-direction thought, self-direction action, stimulation and hedonism; self-enhancement is composed of achievement, power dominance and power resources; conservation is composed of securitypersonal, security-societal, tradition, conformity-rules, conformity-interpersonal. Individual and higher-order values correlate with theoretically consistent attitudes and demographic variables, such as age, education, and gender (Schwartz, 2012). In the current study internal consistency scores of the higher-order values subscales were selftranscendence (α = 0.90), conservation (α = 0.87), self-enhancement (α = 0.77), and openness to change (α = 0.89).

4. Discussion This study tested theoretically informed relationships of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism to personal values, while accounting for FFM traits. We first hypothesized that correlations between personal values and both narcissistic dimensions would demonstrate sinusoid patterns, with strongest relationships between narcissistic dimensions and the self-transcendence/self-enhancement axis of personal values. Results supported our hypothesis and aligned with other theoretical work (e.g., Jonason et al., 2015). Specifically, narcissistic grandiosity demonstrated a positive relationship with both self-enhancement and openness to change values and a negative relationship with self-transcendence and conservation values. As expected, narcissistic vulnerability demonstrated a similar, but attenuated, pattern of correlations.

3. Results 3.1. Preliminary analyses Table 1 displays intercorrelations and descriptive statistics of higher order values, FFM traits, and narcissistic dimensions. As shown in Table 1, the correlations between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism were small (r = 0.08, p = .112). To examine the hypothesis that both narcissistic dimensions would 3

Personality and Individual Differences 150 (2019) 109478

K. Anello, et al.

Table 1 Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics of narcissism, higher-order values, and FFM trait scales. Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1. G Narcissism 2. V Narcissism 3. S-Transcendence 4. S-Enhancement 5. Openness TC 6. Conservation 7. Extraversion 8. Agreeableness 9. Conscientious 10. Neuroticism 11. Openness Mean (SD) Range

– 0.08 −0.41⁎⁎⁎ 0.54⁎⁎⁎ 0.14⁎⁎ −0.17⁎⁎⁎ 0.46⁎⁎⁎ −0.28⁎⁎⁎ −0.03 −0.25⁎⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.37 (0.17) 0.03, 0.93

– −0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎⁎ −0.12⁎ 0.08 −0.15⁎⁎ −0.24⁎⁎⁎ −0.21⁎⁎⁎ 0.39⁎⁎⁎ 0.02 2.99 (0.59) 1.30, 4.50

– −0.61⁎⁎⁎ −0.01 −0.38⁎⁎⁎ −0.12⁎ 0.29⁎⁎⁎ 0.05 0.13⁎⁎ 0.09 0.38 (0.40) −0.69, 1.76

– −0.07 −0.23⁎⁎⁎ 0.17⁎⁎ −0.47⁎⁎⁎ −0.20⁎⁎⁎ −0.14⁎⁎ 0.02 −0.55 (0.62) −2.68, 1.15

– −0.65⁎⁎⁎ 0.17⁎⁎ 0.03 0.09 −0.11⁎ 0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.27 (0.41) −0.92, 1.47

– −0.16⁎⁎ 0.12⁎ 0.06 0.07 −0.26⁎⁎⁎ −0.19 (0.32) −1.37, 0.78

– 0.05 0.11⁎ −0.26⁎⁎⁎ 0.20⁎⁎⁎ 3.27 (0.72) 1.25, 5.00

– 0.40⁎⁎⁎ −0.04 0.09 3.88 (0.58) 2.33, 5.00

– −0.18⁎⁎⁎ 0.04 3.56 (0.59) 2.00, 5.00

– −0.07 3.26 (0.68) 1.25, 4.88

– 3.43 (0.53) 1.70, 5.00

Note. N = 409. Higher-order values Conscientious = Conscientiousness. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001.

were

mean-centered.

0.60

0.42

0.40

0.00

-0.06

-0.20

-0.09

0.17

0.18

-0.06

-0.10

0.04

0.02

TC = Openness

to

Change;

0.11

-0.09 -0.12

0.04

0.10 -0.08

Openness

Grandiosity Vulnerability 0.15

0.23

0.05

S = Self;

0.31

0.10

0.20

V = Vulnerable;

0.45

0.24

0.24

G = Grandiose;

-0.16

-0.09

-0.16 -0.26

-0.40

-0.17

-0.13

-0.07 -0.14

-0.14 -0.33

-0.23

-0.35

-0.16

-0.13

-0.36

-0.60

Fig. 1. Plots of bivariate correlations between narcissistic dimensions and 19 mean-centered values. SD = Self-Direction; P = Power; S = Security; C = Conformity; B = Benevolence; U = Universalism. Statistically significant correlations (p < .05) are bolded.

narcissism, such as the NPI (Raskin & Terry, 1988), may capture aspects of personality that emphasize behaviors as well as goal-directed thoughts. For example, an NPI forced choice item such as, “I have a strong will to power vs. Power for its own sake doesn't interest me” may capture both how characteristic power-seeking is (i.e., behavior) as well as how important power is (i.e., value). Results of the path analysis, which controlled for FFM traits, suggested that values along the self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence axis are most relevant to both faces of narcissism. This supports the central characterization of narcissism as an entitled sense of self-importance (Krizan & Herlache, 2017), as both narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability are marked by prioritizing one's relative success—as demonstrated by prioritizing values such as power and achievement, while deprioritizing the well-being of others—as demonstrated by deprioritizing self-transcendence values such as universalism and benevolence. Somewhat unexpectedly, conservation exhibited a statistically significant positive association with vulnerable narcissism, which we did not predict. It is possible that narcissistic vulnerability may represent a characteristic pattern whereby grandiose strivings are subverted by interpersonal interactions or conflicts (Given-Wilson, McIlwain, & Warburton, 2011). When FFM and personal values are simultaneously considered, a picture of the grandiose narcissist emerges as a disagreeable, not particularly distressed, extraverted, novelty-seeker—who is selfish. That is, grandiose narcissism is marked by traits of higher openness and extraversion but lower agreeableness and neuroticism; grandiose narcissism is also marked by a tendency to prioritize one's own self-

However, vulnerable narcissism demonstrated one salient difference; vulnerable narcissism correlated positively with interpersonal conformity whereas grandiose narcissism correlated negatively. It is possible that some of the “conflicted” nature (i.e., neuroticism) endemic to vulnerable narcissism may be due to opposing motivations to demonstrate their superiority to others while also avoiding upsetting them. Regardless, it is consistent with previous characterizations of the vulnerable narcissist as having an avoidant interpersonal style (e.g., Dickinson & Pincus, 2003). Results also supported our second hypothesis, that personal values would predict additional variance in grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism beyond FFM traits. Specifically, analyses indicated that personal values accounted for 14% additional variance in grandiose narcissism and 12% additional variance in vulnerable narcissism. This aligns with Campbell and Foster's (2011) conceptualization of narcissism as a self-regulatory system, suggesting that narcissism may be best conceptualized as a combination of behaviors and states, but also the underlying motivation that influences the relevant goals of those behaviors and states. If personality traits are considered to be characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, values could be conceptualized as a particular type of “trait” (cf. Johnson, 1997). That is, values may correspond to an individual's characteristic tendency to prioritize certain principles that guide one's attitudes and behavior (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 2012). While FFM traits may emphasize meaningful descriptions of narcissistic characteristics, personal values may provide meaningful insight into the underlying psychological processes that guide narcissistic goal-directed processes. Measures of 4

Personality and Individual Differences 150 (2019) 109478

K. Anello, et al.

Openness

Neuroticism

Agreeableness

−0.17 [−0.27, −0.07]

Grandiose Narcissism 2

R = .50***

Extraversion

− 0.16 [−0.28, −0.02]

Self-Transcendence

Vulnerable Narcissism 2

R = .33***

Self-Enhancement

Conservation Fig. 2. N = 409. FFM and higher order values predicting grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. For ease of interpretation, only statistically significant standardized beta paths are displayed, with 95% confidence intervals in brackets after the estimated value.

Deutchman & Sullivan, 2018).

enhancement at the expense of demonstrating compassion to others (i.e., self-transcendence). In contrast, a picture of vulnerable narcissist emerges as a disagreeable, distressed, introvert—who is selfish, but also committed to maintaining the status quo.

5. Conclusions Given narcissism's strong theoretical link to self-centered, self-enhancing motivation and goal-directed behaviors, the present study found personal values to predict both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism above and beyond the FFM. The present study identifies personal values associated with narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability, controlling for FFM traits. Both dimensions of narcissism demonstrate positive associations with self-enhancement values and negative associations with self-transcendence values—with the observed relationships being strong between grandiose narcissism and these values. The pattern of relationships between the narcissistic dimensions differs somewhat along the openness to change vs. conservation dimension of values; vulnerable narcissism, but not grandiose narcissism, exhibits a positive relationship with conservation values. Therefore, personal values may provide additional information to the FFM, in that it points to relevant underlying motivation and goals of both dimensions of narcissism.

4.1. Strengths and limitations Although this study had several strengths, it also has several limitations that require consideration. While our grandiose narcissism findings are highly consistent with those obtained by Jonason et al. (2015) from an online German sample, our vulnerable narcissism findings have yet to be replicated. Our U.S. sample, like many other university samples, consisted mostly of females between the ages of 18 and 22. Although a meta-analytic review found no gender differences regarding vulnerable narcissism; compared to women, men completing the NPI tended to exhibit higher levels of all narcissistic facets—exploitative/entitlement, leadership/authority, and grandiose/exhibitionism (Grijalva et al., 2015). It is possible that the present study's findings regarding grandiose narcissism were attenuated due to the overrepresentation of women in the sample. Future research should replicate the current study using different and more diverse samples, specifically regarding ages, genders, ethnicities, and socioeconomic statuses. Relatedly, the present sample was not sampled from a clinical population of those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder; it is conceivable that clinical populations may demonstrate less divergence between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism along the values dimension of openness to change/conservation than the present study did (cf. Jauk & Kaufman, 2018). Additionally, as with nearly all values research, all measures were self-report. Therefore, future research could profit from examining informant ratings as well as experimental studies that examine risk-taking versus risk-aversion, acquisition attraction versus loss aversion, or cooperative versus selfish behavior (e.g.,

References American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Barry, C. T., & Wallace, M. T. (2010). Current considerations in the assessment of youth narcissism: Indicators of pathological and normative development. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 479–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10862-010-9188-3. Borg, I., Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2017). Does the value circle exist within persons or only across persons? Journal of Personality, 85(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jopy.12228. Bradlee, P. M., & Emmons, R. A. (1992). Locating narcissism within the interpersonal circumplex and the five-factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(7), 821–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90056-U.

5

Personality and Individual Differences 150 (2019) 109478

K. Anello, et al.

power: Universal values that characterize the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.055. Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson. Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press. Krizan, Z., & Herlache, A. D. (2017). The narcissism spectrum model: A synthetic view of narcissistic personality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1088868316685018. Lapsley, D. K., & Aalsma, M. C. (2006). An empirical typology of narcissism and mental health in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 29(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.adolescence.2005.01.008. Lannin, D. G., Guyll, M., Krizan, Z., Madon, S., & Cornish, M. (2014). When are grandiose and vulnerable narcissists least helpful?. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.035. Maio, G. R. (2016). The psychology of human values. New York, NY: Routledge. Malesza, M., & Kaczmarek, M. C. (2018). Grandiose narcissism versus vulnerable narcissism and impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 126, 61–65. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.021. Miller, J. D., Gentile, B., & Campbell, W. K. (2013). A test of the construct validity of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(4), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.742903. Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., & Campbell, W. K. (2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality, 79(5), 1013–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494. 2010.00711.x. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age. Oxford England: Oxford University Press. Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1088868314538548. Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890 (0022-3514/88/S00.75). Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1995). Self and interpersonal correlates of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory: A review and new findings. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1995.1001. Rogoza, R., Wyszynska, P., Mackiewicz, M., & Cieciuch, J. (2016). Differentiation of the two narcissistic faces in their relations to personality traits and basic values. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 85–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2016.02.038. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free press. Russ, E., Shedler, J., Bradley, R., & Westen, D. (2008). Refining the construct of narcissistic personality disorder: Diagnostic criteria and subtypes. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(11), 1473–1481. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07030376. Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). Convergence of narcissism measures from the perspective of general personality functioning. Assessment, 15(3), 364–374. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1073191108314278. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 25. Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560. 1994.tb01196.x. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116. Schwartz, S. H. (2017). The refined theory of basic values. Values and behavior (pp. 51– 72). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56352-7_3. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422. Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 590. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.59.

Buss, D. M., & Chiodo, L. M. (1991). Narcissistic acts in everyday life. Journal of Personality, 59(2), 179–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00773.x. 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(4), 638–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.09.006. 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. Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2011). The narcissistic self: Background, an extended agency model, and ongoing controversies. In C. Sedikides, & S. J. Spencer (Eds.). The self (pp. 115–138). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Daig, I., Klapp, B. F., & Fliege, H. (2009). Narcissism predicts therapy outcome in psychosomatic patients. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 368–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-008-9122-0. Deutchman, P., & Sullivan, J. (2018). The Dark Triad and framing effects predict selfish behavior in a one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma. PLoS One, 13(9), e0203891. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203891. 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. Ellison, W. D., Levy, K. N., Cain, N. M., Ansell, E. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2013). The impact of pathological narcissism on psychotherapy utilization, initial symptom severity, and early-treatment symptom change: A naturalistic investigation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.742904. Fischer, R. (2018). Personality, values, culture: An evolutionary approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Presshttps://doi.org/10.1017/9781316091944. Given-Wilson, Z., McIlwain, D., & Warburton, W. (2011). Meta-cognitive and interpersonal difficulties in overt and covert narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(7), 1000–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.014. Glover, N., Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). The five-factor narcissism inventory: A five-factor measure of narcissistic personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(5), 500–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012. 670680. Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D., Robins, R. W., & Yan, T. (2015). Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 261–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038231. Güngör, I. H., Ekşi, H., & Arıcak, O. T. (2012). Value preferences predicting narcissistic personality traits in young adults. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(2), 1281–1290 (doi:20.500.12294/305). 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. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2204. Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 118. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 1519843. Holtzman, N. S., Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. (2010). Sounds like a narcissist: Behavioral manifestations of narcissism in everyday life. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 478–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.001. Jauk, E., & Kaufman, S. (2018). The higher the score, the darker the core: The nonlinear association between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01305. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2(1999), 102–138. Johnson, J. A. (1997). Units of analysis for description and explanation in psychology. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.). Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 73–93). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Jonason, P. K., Strosser, G. L., Kroll, C. H., Duineveld, J. J., & Baruffi, S. A. (2015). Valuing myself over others: The Dark Triad traits and moral and social values. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2014.10.045. Kajonius, P. J., Persson, B. N., & Jonason, P. K. (2015). Hedonism, achievement, and

6