126x Filetype PDF File size 0.15 MB Source: people.uncw.edu
Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(5), 500–512, 2012 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 online DOI:10.1080/00223891.2012.670680 SPECIALSECTION:MeasurestoAssessMaladaptiveVariantsoftheFive-FactorModel TheFive-Factor Narcissism Inventory: A Five-Factor Measure of Narcissistic Personality Traits NATALIE GLOVER,1 JOSHUA D. MILLER,2 DONALD R. LYNAM,3 CRISTINA CREGO,1 AND THOMAS A. WIDIGER1 1 Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky 2 Department of Psychology, University of Georgia 3 Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University This study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of narcissistic personality traits created from the perspective of the Five-factor model (FFM) of general personality structure. Fifteen scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of respective facets of the FFM (e.g., Reactive Anger as a narcissistic variant of angry hostility), with item selection made on the basis of a criterion-keying approachusingresultsfrom167undergraduates.Onthebasisofdatafrom166additionalundergraduates,theconvergentvalidityofthese15scales wastestedwithrespectto8establishedmeasuresofnarcissism(includingmeasuresofbothgrandioseandvulnerablenarcissism)andtherespective facets of the FFM. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to facets from other FFM domains. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM narcissism trait scales to account for variance in 2 alternative measures of narcissism, after variance accounted for by respective NEO PI–R facet scales and other established measures of narcissism were first removed. The findings support the validity of these new scales as measures of narcissistic personality traits and as maladaptive variants of the FFM. Asdescribedintheintroductiontothisspecialsection(Widiger, Thepurposeofthisarticleistodescribethedevelopmentofand Lynam,Miller, & Oltmanns, this issue), a considerable body of provideinitialvalidationforaself-reportmeasurefortheassess- research has suggested that the personality disorders described mentofnarcissisticpersonalitytraitsfromtheperspectiveofthe within the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and FFM.Theintroduction begins with a discussion of narcissistic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision personality disorder (NPD), in particular its heterogeneity and [DSM–IV–TR];AmericanPsychiatricAssociation,2000)canbe assessment, followed by a description of how narcissism could understood as maladaptive variants of the domains and facets be understood from the perspective of the FFM. of the five-factor model (FFM) of general personality structure (Clark, 2007; Samuel & Widiger, 2008b). Studies have even THEHETEROGENEITYOFNARCISSISM demonstrated that the correlation of a person’s profile in terms of the 30 facets of the FFM with the profile for a prototypic Many problems have been noted with respect to the caseofnarcissisticpersonalitydisorder(e.g.,Lynam&Widiger, DSM–IV–TR categorical classification, including excessive 2001) can serve as an effective index of the extent to which the diagnostic comorbidity, inadequate coverage, an arbitrary person is likely to be narcissistic (Miller, Reynolds, & Pilkonis, boundary with normal psychological functioning, and inad- 2004). equate scientific foundation (Clark, 2007; Widiger & Trull, However, existing measures of the FFM are confined largely 2007). One particular limitation is the provision of only one to the assessment of FFM traits within the normal range of per- term to describe a heterogeneous construct consisting of a sonalityfunctioning.Suchmeasureshaveevidentutilityforgen- constellation of maladaptive personality traits. Like virtually eral personality research, but they lack adequate fidelity for the every other personality disorder, NPD does not appear to be assessment of the FFM maladaptive variants (Haigler & Widi- a homogeneous construct (Ackerman et al., 2011; Miller & ger, 2001; Reynolds & Clark, 2001). Therefore, researchers are Campbell, 2008; Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010; Russ, Shedler, beginning to develop measures that are focused on maladap- Bradley, & Westen, 2008) and is perhaps best understood as tive variants of the domains and facets of the FFM (e.g., De a constellation of maladaptive personality traits (Clark, 2007; Clercq, De Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, & Mervielde, 2006; Edmund- Lynam&Widiger,2001;Widiger&Trull,2007). son, Lynam,Miller,Gore,&Widiger,2011;Lynametal.,2011; NPD was first included in the third edition of the Ameri- Piedmont, Sherman, Sherman, Dy-Liacco, & Williams, 2009). can Psychiatric Association (1980) diagnostic manual and as- sessment instruments were subsequently developed. The most prominent measure is the Narcissistic Personality Inventory Received August 13, 2011; Revised December 14, 2011. (NPI), which was developed by Raskin and Hall (1981) on AddresscorrespondencetoNatalieGlover,DepartmentofPsychology,Uni- the basis of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental versity of Kentucky, 111 E Kastle Hall, Lexington, KY 40506–0044; Email: Disorders (3rd ed. [DSM–III]; American Psychiatric Associa- natalie.glover@uky.edu tion, 1980) criterion set. Factor analysis of the NPI item pool 500 THEFIVE-FACTORNARCISSISMINVENTORY:AFIVE-FACTORMEASURE 501 yielded seven factors that became commonly used NPI scales Expert Opinion (Raskin & Terry, 1988). As suggested by Cain, Pincus, and Widiger, Trull, Clarkin, Sanderson, and Costa (2002) pro- Ansell(2008),“forthepasttwodecades,theNPIhasdominated vided an FFM description of DSM–IV–TR NPD by coding its social/personality research on narcissistic personality traits” diagnostic criteria and text description in terms of a respec- (p. 642). The NPI continues to be used effectively in research tive facet of the FFM. They hypothesized that DSM–IV–TR on narcissism (e.g., Foster, Misra, & Reidy, 2009; Horvath & NPD consisted of low modesty (e.g., grandiose sense of self- Morf, 2010; Zeigler-Hill, Myers, & Clark, 2010), although sig- importance), low altruism (interpersonally exploitative), and nificant questions have been raised regarding its factor structure tough-mindedness (lacks empathy) from the domain of antag- (Ackerman et al., 2011; Cain et al., 2008) and its failure to onism, and high openness to fantasy (preoccupation with fan- adequately assess “vulnerable” narcissism (Cain et al., 2008; tasies of success, power, and brilliance). On the basis of the Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010). text of DSM–IV–TRtheyalsocodedforhighself-consciousness The authors of the DSM criterion sets for NPD have them- (hypersensitivity to criticism) and high angry hostility (react- selves vacillated in their effort to represent vulnerable nar- ing with rage or anger in response to criticism) from the do- cissism. For example, the DSM–III criterion set referred to main of neuroticism. NPD was also coded as being high in humiliation and rage, as well as cool indifference, in response achievement-striving (conscientiousness) because “overween- to criticism (American Psychiatric Association, 1980). The ing ambition and confidence may lead to high achievement” reference to cool indifference was removed in the Diagnos- (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 716), although it tic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., re- was also noted in the text of DSM–IV–TR that the ambition is vised [DSM–III–R]; American Psychiatric Association, 1987) often greater than the actual accomplishments. in the belief that there had been too much emphasis on ar- Lynam and Widiger (2001) surveyed 197 personality disor- rogant grandiosity in DSM–III (Widiger, Frances, Spitzer, & der researchers, asking them to describe a prototypic case of a Williams, 1988). DSM–IV (American Psychiatric Association, respective personality disorder, 12 of whom described NPD on 2000), however, shifted back with the removal of the hypersen- ascalefrom1(extremely low)to5(extremely high) for each of sitivity to criticism (Gunderson, Ronningstam, & Smith, 1991). the 30 facets of the FFM. If one uses the (arbitrary) cutoff of 2 Cain et al. (2008) subsequently criticized this decision, sug- or below for low, and 4 or above for high, the prototypic case of gesting that “the lack of sufficient vulnerable DSM–IV criteria NPDwouldbesaidtobehighinangryhostility (neuroticism), contrasts with much of the clinical literature and structural so- assertiveness and excitement seeking (extraversion), and open- cial/personality research” (p. 648). ness to actions, and low in self-consciousness (neuroticism), There have indeed been a number of references to a warmth (extraversion), and openness to feelings, and low in all vulnerable narcissism within the clinical literature, including facets of agreeableness. A marginally high score of 3.83, how- such traits as feelings of shame and insecurity (Cain et al., ever, was also provided for gregariousness (extraversion), and 2008; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010). a score of 3.92 for achievement-striving (conscientiousness). A Hendin and Cheek (1997) developed the Hypersensitive noteworthy discrepancy with Widiger et al. (2002), who con- Narcissism Scale (HSNS) partly in response to the absence fined their ratings to traits included within the DSM–IV–TR, of sufficient representation of a more vulnerable narcissism was the inclusion of facets of extraversion, such as excitement within existing measures (the HSNS is generally uncorrelated seeking. Samuel and Widiger (2004) surveyed 154 clinicians, with the total NPI score). Pincus et al. (2009) most recently using the same methodology of Lynam and Widiger (2001), 22 developed the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI–52), of whomdescribed NPD. The clinicians described a prototypic consisting of seven scales assessing constructs that they felt, case of NPD as being high in assertiveness, activity, and excite- on the basis of their review of the theoretical and clinical mentseekingfromextraversion,lowinself-consciousnessfrom literature, constitute both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. neuroticism,andlowinallsixfacetsofagreeableness.However, The three scales of Exploitative, Grandiose Fantasies, and the clinicians also provided relatively high scores for the facets Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancement are combined to form a of angry hostility, gregariousness, and openness to fantasy. measure of grandiose narcissism, whereas the four scales of Devaluing, Entitlement Rage, Contingent Self-Esteem, and Hiding the Self are combined to form a measure of vulnerable Empirical Research narcissism (Wright, Lukowitsky, Pincus, & Conroy, 2010). Samuel and Widiger (2008b) conducted a meta-analysis of studies relating a measure of the FFM (at the domain and facet FIVE-FACTOR MODELOFNARCISSISM level)withmeasuresofNPD.Atthefacetlevelthereweresignif- There have been prior conceptualizations of narcissism from icant effect sizes for angry hostility (r = .23) from neuroticism; the perspective of the FFM, such as Paulhus’s (2001) refer- trust (r = –.20), straightforwardness (r = –.31), altruism (r = ence to “disagreeable extraverts,” which emphasizes extraver- –.20), compliance (r = –.26), modesty (r = –.37) and tender- sion and antagonism. “Unmitigated agency,” “which includes mindedness (r = –.17) from agreeableness; and assertiveness being hostile, cynical, greedy, and arrogant” (Helgeson & Fritz, (r = .19) from extraversion. Samuel and Widiger (2008a) compared five narcissism in- 1999, p. 132) has similarly been associated with FFM antago- ventories with respect to their relationship to the domain nism(Ghaed&Gallo,2006)andextraversion(Foster&Trimm, and facet scales of the revised NEO Personality Inventory 2008). However, the FFM conceptualization developed herein (NEO PI–R; Costa & McCrae, 1992): the Million Clinical will be at the lower order level of facets, which will allow Multiaxial Inventory (3rd ed. [MCMI–III]; Millon, Millon, for a more specific and nuanced description. Two sources for Davis, & Grossman, 2009), Minnesota Multiphasic Person- identifying these facets were expert opinion and the empirical ality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2; Morey, Waugh, & Blashfield, relationship of measures of narcissism with the FFM. 1985), NPI (Raskin & Terry, 1988), Personality Diagnostic 502 GLOVERETAL. Questionnaire (4th ed. [PDQ–4]; Bagby & Farvolden, 2004), until he OR she gets what is perceived to be deserved, or and the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality expectation of favorable treatment. (SNAP; Simms & Clark, 2006). It is noteworthy that none 13. Arrogance (low FFM modesty), assessing haughty, snob- of them correlated positively with the domain of neuroticism, bish, imperious, pretentious, conceited, pompous, and dis- inconsistent with the vulnerability conceptualization (Cain dainful beliefs and behaviors. et al., 2008; Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010). All of these NPD 14. LackofEmpathy(lowFFMtender-mindedness),assessing scaleswouldbeconsideredtobeassessinggrandiosenarcissism the extent to which the person fails to be aware of, ap- (Cain et al., 2008). Miller and colleagues (Miller et al., 2010; preciate, or acknowledge the feelings of others, displaying Milleretal.,2011)reportedpositivecorrelationsofPNI–52vul- attitudes that are generally uncaring and unsympathetic. nerable narcissism with the domain of neuroticism, including 15. Acclaim-Seeking (FFM achievement-striving), assessing the facets of self-consciousness and vulnerability. narcissistic aspirations, working toward acclaim, and an On the basis of the expert consensus ratings and the empir- excessive driving ambition to achieve. ical research, there appears to be a need and support for as Presented herein are first the results of the construction of 13 many as 15 FFM narcissism trait scales to adequately cover new FFMnarcissism scales, followed by data concerning their the heterogeneity of the construct of narcissism (both vulnera- validity. The validation analyses will also include the two EPA ble and grandiose). Two of these scales, though, have already scales (i.e., EPA Thrill-Seeking and Cynicism/Distrust) so as been developed and validated in the course of the construction not to presume their validity for the assessment of narcissism. of the Elemental Psychopathy Inventory (EPA; Lynam et al., Validationwillincludeinternalconsistency,convergentanddis- 2011), consistent with the considerable overlap of narcissism criminant validity with respect to NEO PI–R facet scales, con- and psychopathy (Widiger, 2011): vergentvaliditywithrespecttoexistingmeasuresofnarcissism, 1. Reactive Anger (narcissistic variant of FFM angry hostil- incremental validity with respect to NEO PI–R facet scales, ity), concerning anger and rage in response to perceived and incremental validity with respect to existing measures of slights, criticism, failure, or rebuke. narcissism. 2. Shame (high FFM self-consciousness), concerning shame METHOD or humiliation in response to perceived slights, criticism, Participants failure, or rebuke. 3. Indifference (low FFM self-consciousness), concerning in- Participants were 412 undergraduates currently enrolled in differenceinresponsetoperceivedslights,criticism,failure, introductory psychology courses at the University of Kentucky. or rebuke. The results for 13 participants were excluded due to failing 4. NeedforAdmiration(FFMvulnerability),involvingasense to complete a substantial portion of the items. Forty-seven of of inner weakness, uncertainty, and insecurity with respect the remaining 399 participants failed to respond to just a few to a desired or perceived greatness. scattereditems.Nineteenoftheremaining352participantswere 5. Exhibitionism(FFMgregariousness),aseekingofconstant alsoexcludedduetoelevatedresponsesonavalidityscale,leav- admiration,showingoffwheninthepresenceofothers,and ing a final sample of 333 participants, which was then divided attention-seeking, without reference to feelings of insecu- (167 for item construction, 166 for scale validation). rity. The item selection sample was 68% female and 32% male 6. EPA Thrill-Seeking (FFM excitement seeking), assessing with a mean age of 18.9 (SD = 2.05). The sample was 90% a tendency to engage in high-risk behavior for the sake of Caucasian, 7% African American, and 1% Hispanic; the re- thrills and excitement. maining participants endorsed other ethnic identities. Ninety- 7. Authoritativeness (FFM assertiveness), assessing a ten- nine percent were unmarried. The validation sample was 66% dency to take charge of situations, to authoritatively take female and 34% male with a mean age of 19.4 (SD = 2.53). responsibility for making decisions, and to perceive oneself The sample was 90% Caucasian, 8% African American, and as a leader. 1% Hispanic; the remaining participants endorsed other eth- 8. Grandiose Fantasies (FFM fantasy), assessing fantasies of nic identities. Ninety-eight percent were unmarried. Estimated grandeur and success, preoccupation with fantasies of fu- values were obtained for these missing data using the expecta- ture glory, and a tendency to distort reality to achieve an tion maximizationprocedure,whichhasbeenshowntoproduce overly positive view of past, current, or future accomplish- more accurate estimates of population parameters than other ments. methods,suchasmeansubstitutionordeletionofmissingcases 9. EPA Cynicism/Distrust (low FFM trust), assessing a sense (Enders, 2006). ofcynicismandmistrustconcerningthemotives,intentions, Materials and reliability of others. 10. Manipulativeness (low FFM straightforwardness), assess- Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory. The initial item pool ing a tendency to skillfully and characteristically manipu- for the FFNI consisted of 390 items, with 30 draft items per late, ply, shape, beguile, machinate, or maneuver the feel- subscale, answered on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly ings or opinions of others. disagree)to5(strongly agree). Items were written using a ra- 11. Exploitativeness (low FFM altruism), assessing a tendency tional approach for item construction (Clark & Watson, 1995) to exploit, take advantage of, and use others for his or her to assess narcissistic maladaptive variants of each respective owngain. FFM facet. For example, the narcissistic variant of FFM an- 12. Entitlement (low FFMaltruism),involvingfeelingsandac- gry hostility (i.e., FFNI Reactive Anger) is not a nonspecific tions of entitlement, presumptuousness, not being satisfied disposition for feelings of anger (Costa & McCrae, 1992) but THEFIVE-FACTORNARCISSISMINVENTORY:AFIVE-FACTORMEASURE 503 is instead confined to feelings of anger in response to rebuke, 12. Entitlement (e.g., “I believe I am entitled to special accom- criticisms, or slights (e.g., “I hate being criticized so much that modations”). I can’t control my temper when it happens,” and “I feel enraged 13. Arrogance (e.g., “I only associate with people of my cal- whenpeople disrespect me”). Similarly, the narcissistic variant iber”). of FFM self-consciousness is not simply a disposition to feel 14. Lack of Empathy (e.g., “I’m not big on feelings of sympa- “uncomfortable around others, sensitive to ridicule, and prone thy”). to feelings of inferiority” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 16), but 15. Acclaim-Seeking(e.g.,“Ihavedevotedmylifetosuccess”). is instead feelings of shame and embarrassment specifically in response to rebuke, failure, criticism, or slights (e.g., “It’s re- NEO Personality Inventory–Revised. The NEO PI–R ally quite shameful to publicly fail,” and “I feel ashamed when (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240-item self-report inventory people judge me”). designed to assess normal personality domains according to the Data from the first half of the participants (n = 167) were FFM. It uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly used to correlate each potential FFNI item with its respective disagree to5(strongly agree). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha NEO PI–R facet scale and the eight measures of narcissism for facet scales ranged from .53 (self-consciousness) to .81 (al- using a criterion-keying approach to item selection and scale truism). construction (Clark & Watson, 1995; Garb, Wood, & Fiedler, 2011).Tenitemswereselectedforthefinalversionofeachsub- scale on the basis of obtaining the relatively highest correlations Narcissistic Personality Inventory. The NPI (Raskin & acrossallmeasures,yetalsoavoidingexplicitlyredundantitems. Terry, 1988) is a 40-item forced-choice self-report measure of Note that items assessing vulnerable narcissism, such as FFNI narcissism based on the DSM–III clinical criteria for NPD. It is Shame items, were not expected to correlate with measures of the most popular measure of narcissism in social psychological grandiosenarcissism,suchastheNPI;similarly,itemsassessing research (Cain et al., 2008). Cronbach’s alpha for total score in grandiose narcissism, such as FFNI Acclaim-Seeking, were not this sample was .88. expected to correlate with measures of vulnerable narcissism, such as the HSNS. Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III. TheMCMI–III It was also the intention of the test authors to have 30% of (Millon et al., 2009) is a 175-item true–false self-report in- the items in each scale be reverse-keyed. However, the reverse- ventory designed to assess DSM–IV–TR (American Psychiatric keyed items generally performed less well than the other items, Association, 2000) personality disorders and some Axis I disor- resulting in only five scales having three reverse-coded items, ders.Thisstudyincludedonlythe19MCMI–IIIitemspertaining seven having just two, and three having only one. Nevertheless, to NPD(Cronbach’s α = .63). this might be advantageous, as there is an accumulating body of research to suggest that reverse-keyed items tend to weaken the validity of scales and might not be sufficiently beneficial Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2. The withrespecttooffsettingresponsebiases(Lindwalletal.,2012; MMPI–2isa567-itemtrue–false self-report measure designed Rodebaugh, Woods, & Heimberg, 2007). in part to assess dysfunctional personality at the clinical level. The final version of the FFNI consists of 15 subscales (in- Moreyetal.(1985)selectedthoseitemsfromtheinventorythat cluding two from the EPA): appearedtorepresentNPDanddemonstratedgoodinternalcon- sistency. The resulting scale contained 31 items. Somwaru and Ben-Porath (1995) subsequently created their own NPD scale 1. ReactiveAnger(e.g.,“Ihaveattimesgoneintoaragewhen from the MMPI–2 utilizing seven of the items from Morey not treated rightly”). et al. as well as adding an additional nine items. Because these 2. Shame (e.g., “When I realize I have failed at something, I two scales overlap substantially, the MMPI–2 NPD scale used feel humiliated”). in this study is represented by the entire pool of their 40 items 3. Indifference (e.g., “Others’ opinions of me are of little con- (Cronbach’s α = .70). cern to me”). 4. Need for Admiration (e.g., “I want so much to be admired Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire. The PDQ–4 by others”). (Bagby & Farvolden, 2004) is a 99-item true–false self-report 5. Exhibitionism (e.g., “I enjoy being in front of an audience inventory intended to measure the 10 DSM–IV–TR (American or big crowd”). Psychiatric Association, 2000) personality disorders and two 6. EPA Thrill-Seeking (e.g., “I like to have new and exciting personality disorders listed in its appendix. This study included experiences, even if they are a little frightening”). only the nine PDQ–4 items pertaining to NPD (Cronbach’s α 7. Authoritativeness (e.g., “I tend to take charge of most situ- =.78). ations”). 8. Grandiose Fantasies (e.g., “I daydream about someday be- coming famous”). OMNI Personality Inventory–IV. The OMNI–IV (Lor- 9. EPACynicism/Distrust(e.g.,“Youhavetolookoutforyour anger, 2001) is a 390-item self-report inventory intended to owninterests because no one else will”). assess both normal personality (25 scales) and DSM–IV (Amer- 10. Manipulativeness (e.g., “I will mislead people if I think it ican Psychiatric Association, 1994) personality disorders (10 is necessary”). scales). It uses a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (definitely 11. Exploitativeness (e.g., “If people are ignorant enough to let agree)to7(definitely disagree). Only the 27 OMNI–IV items metakeadvantage of them, so be it”). pertaining to NPD were included (Cronbach’s α = .76).
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.