Brittany Gentile

Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissism: A Nomological Network Analysis

Evidence has accrued to suggest that there are 2 distinct dimensions of narcissism, which are often labeled grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Although individuals high on either of these dimensions interact with others in an antagonistic manner, they differ on other central constructs (e.g., Neuroticism, Extraversion). In the current study, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis of 3 prominent self-report measures of narcissism (N=858) to examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the resultant factors. A 2-factor structure was found, which supported the notion that these scales include content consistent with 2 relatively distinct constructs: grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. We then compared the similarity of the nomological networks of these dimensions in relation to indices of personality, interpersonal behavior, and psychopathology in a sample of undergraduates (n=238). Overall, the nomological networks of vulnerable and grandiose narcissism were unrelated. The current results support the need for a more explicit parsing of the narcissism construct at the level of conceptualization and assessment.

Birth cohort increases in psychopathology among young Americans, 1938-2007: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the MMPI☆

Two cross-temporal meta-analyses find large generational increases in psychopathology among American college students (N=63,706) between 1938 and 2007 on the MMPI and MMPI-2 and high school students (N=13,870) between 1951 and 2002 on the MMPI-A. The current generation of young people scores about a standard deviation higher (average d=1.05) on the clinical scales, including Pd (Psychopathic Deviation), Pa (Paranoia), Ma (Hypomania), and D (Depression). Five times as many now score above common cutoffs for psychopathology, including up to 40% on Ma. The birth cohort effects are still large and significant after controlling for the L and K validity scales, suggesting that the changes are not caused by response bias. The results best fit a model citing cultural shifts toward extrinsic goals, such as materialism and status and away from intrinsic goals, such as community, meaning in life, and affiliation.

Gender differences in domain-specific self-esteem: A meta-analysis

This meta-analysis examines gender differences in 10 specific domains of self-esteem across 115 studies, including 428 effect sizes and 32,486 individuals. In a mixed-effects analysis, men scored significantly higher than women on physical appearance (d = 0.35), athletic (d = 0.41), personal self (d = 0.28), and self-satisfaction self-esteem (d = 0.33). Women scored higher than men on behavioral conduct (d = −0.17) and moral–ethical self-esteem (d = −0.38). The gender difference in physical appearance self-esteem was significant only after 1980 and was largest among adults. No significant gender differences appeared in academic, social acceptance, family, and affect self-esteem. The results demonstrate the influence of reflected appraisals on self-esteem.

Birth cohort differences in self-esteem, 1988–2008: A cross-temporal meta-analysis.

Three meta-analyses find increases over the generations in Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale (RSE) scores between 1988 and 2008 among American middle school (d = 0.78, n = 10,119), high school (d = 0.39, n = 16,669), and college students (d = 0.30, n = 28,918). The changes are consistent with an increasing emphasis on self-worth in American culture and, for high school students, with small increases in academic competence over time. College students’ scores change only when the RSE is administered with a 4-point Likert scale with no midpoint. By 2008, a score of 40 (perfect self-esteem) was the modal response of college students, chosen by 18% of participants; 51% scored 35 or over. Given these shifts in responses, the possibility of revising the RSE is discussed.

Generational Increases in Agentic Self-evaluations among American College Students, 1966–2009

Compared to previous generations, more American college students now rate themselves as above average on attributes such as academic ability, drive to achieve, leadership ability, public speaking ability, self-confidence, and writing ability (based on a nationally representative sample collected 1966–2009; N = 6.5 million). These birth cohort differences are similar with controls for race and gender and occurred despite the college population becoming less selective. Trends in positive self-views are correlated with grade inflation (which increased d = 0.81), but are not explained by changes in objective performance (e.g., SAT scores have declined, d = −0.22) or effort (time spent studying is down, d = − 0.31). Broad cultural shifts emphasizing positive self-views have apparently resulted in enhanced self-evaluations on agentic domains. Self-evaluations on communal attributes, such as understanding others, cooperativeness, and spirituality, either decreased or were unchanged.

A test of two brief measures of grandiose narcissism: the narcissistic personality inventory-13 and the narcissistic personality inventory-16.

The most widely used measure of trait narcissism is the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), which can provide both total and subscale scores. However, with a length of 40 items, this measure may not be ideal in settings in which time or participant attention may limit the types of measures that can be administered. In response, Ames, Rose, and Anderson (2006) created the NPI-16, which provides a shorter, unidimensional measure of the construct. In the present research, we examine the reliability and validity of the NPI-16 in conjunction with a new short measure of narcissism, the NPI-13, which provides both a total score and 3 subscale scores (Leadership/Authority; Grandiose Exhibitionism; Entitlement/Exploitativeness). Across 2 studies, we demonstrate that both short measures manifest good convergent and discriminant validity and adequate overall reliability. The NPI-13 may be favored over the NPI-16 because it allows for the extraction of 3 subscales, consistent with the use of its parent measure.

A Comparison of the Criterion Validity of Popular Measures of Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder via the Use of Expert Ratings

The growing interest in the study of narcissism has resulted in the development of a number of assessment instruments that manifest only modest to moderate convergence. The present studies adjudicate among these measures with regard to criterion validity. In the 1st study, we compared multiple narcissism measures to expert consensus ratings of the personality traits associated with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD; Study 1; N = 98 community participants receiving psychological/psychiatric treatment) according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) using 5-factor model traits as well as the traits associated with the pathological trait model according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). In Study 2 (N = 274 undergraduates), we tested the criterion validity of an even larger set of narcissism instruments by examining their relations with measures of general and pathological personality, as well as psychopathology, and compared the resultant correlations to the correlations expected by experts for measures of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Across studies, the grandiose dimensions from the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory (FFNI; Glover, Miller, Lynam, Crego, & Widiger, 2012) and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Terry, 1988) provided the strongest match to expert ratings of DSM-IV-TR NPD and grandiose narcissism, whereas the vulnerable dimensions of the FFNI and the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (Pincus et al., 2009), as well as the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (Hendin & Cheek, 1997), provided the best match to expert ratings of vulnerable narcissism. These results should help guide researchers toward the selection of narcissism instruments that are most well suited to capturing different aspects of narcissism.

Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissism and the DSM–5 Pathological Personality Trait Model

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Personality Disorders (4th ed., American Psychiatric Association, 2000) personality disorders (PDs) that will be included in the DSM–5 will be diagnosed in an entirely different manner; the explicit criterion sets will be replaced with impairments in self and interpersonal functioning and personality traits from a 25-trait dimensional model of personality pathology. From a trait perspective, narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), the focus of this study, is assessed using 2 specific traits: grandiosity and attention seeking. Using a sample collected online from Amazons Mechanical Turk (MTurk; N = 306), we examined the relations among traits from a new measure of DSM–5s trait model—the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, in press)—and grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. The 25 traits from PID5 captured a significant portion of the variance in grandiose and vulnerable factors, although the 2 specific facets designated for the assessment of NPD fared substantially better in the assessment of grandiose rather than vulnerable narcissism. These results are discussed in the context of improving the DSM–5s ability to capture both narcissism dimensions.

Changes in Pronoun Use in American Books and the Rise of Individualism, 1960-2008:

Change over time in culture can appear among individuals and in cultural products such as song lyrics, television, and books. This analysis examines changes in pronoun use in the Google Books ngram database of 766,513 American books published 1960-2008. We hypothesize that pronoun use will reflect increasing individualism and decreasing collectivism in American culture. Consistent with this hypothesis, the use of first person plural pronouns (e.g., we, us) decreased 10% first person singular pronouns (I, me) increased 42%, and second person pronouns (you, your) quadrupled. These results complement previous research finding increases in individualistic traits among Americans.

Increases in Individualistic Words and Phrases in American Books, 1960–2008

Cultural products such as song lyrics, television shows, and books reveal cultural differences, including cultural change over time. Two studies examine changes in the use of individualistic words (Study 1) and phrases (Study 2) in the Google Books Ngram corpus of millions of books in American English. Current samples from the general population generated and rated lists of individualistic words and phrases (e.g., “unique,” “personalize,” “self,” “all about me,” “I am special,” “I’m the best”). Individualistic words and phrases increased in use between 1960 and 2008, even when controlling for changes in communal words and phrases. Language in American books has become increasingly focused on the self and uniqueness in the decades since 1960.