2019 Wiggins Award Winner: Elizabeth Edershile
(This is an abridged version of a manuscript currently under in press at Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: https://psyarxiv.com/8gkpm/)
Recent empirical evidence does indirectly support theories regarding fluctuations between grandiosity and vulnerability in narcissism (e.g., Gore & Widiger 2016; Hyatt et al., 2017). Some researchers have investigated dynamic fluctuations within narcissism more directly, most often at the daily level. These studies have examined dynamic associations between narcissism, self-esteem, life satisfaction, and/or affect (Giacomin & Jordan, 2016; Akhtar & Thomson, 1982; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995; Bosson et al., 2008; Geukes et al., 2016). Broadly, these results suggest there are specific patterns of variability with regard to narcissism, though this has not been examined at the momentary level with grandiosity and vulnerability.
Current Study. The present study is a naturalistic exploratory study designed to examine patterns of fluctuation within and across grandiosity and vulnerability in daily life using ambulatory assessment (i.e., ecological momentary assessment) of state narcissism. In the present study, fluctuation in state narcissism is articulated in three different quantitative indices of variability: gross variability (i.e., individual standard deviation; iSD), instability (i.e., mean square of successive differences; iMSSD), and inertia (i.e., autoregressive effects). Additionally, we estimate the lagged effect of state grandiosity on vulnerability and vice versa. Dispositional measures of narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability are used as predictors of these different articulations of fluctuations in narcissistic states to determine whether those higher in dispositional narcissism vary more or less across time compared to those lower in dispositional narcissism.
Methods
Participants. The sample was comprised of community members (N=261). The majority were female (67.6%) and the age range was 20 to 39 (M = 27.56, SD = 4.70). The majority of participants identified as White (88.4%; 7.1% identified as Asian; 5.1% as Black).
Procedure. Participants completed a battery of self-report measures via the computer and then began the ambulatory assessment portion. Participants could complete up to 70 assessments (M =54.15; SD =13.75) with a maximum of seven per day over ten days between 9:00 and 21:00 each day. Surveys were designed to appear at random times throughout the day with the stipulation that they had to be 90 minutes apart. Compliance rates were high for the ambulatory assessment portion (77%; 13,104 out of 16,940 total possible).
Measures. The Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory—Short Form (FFNI-SF; Sherman et al., 2015) was used to examine dispositional narcissism at baseline. For the ambulatory assessment portion, participants completed the Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale (NGS; Rosenthal et al., 2007) and the Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale (Crowe et al., 2018). These are adjective-based scales designed to assess grandiosity and vulnerability at the state or trait level.
Results
Gross Variability
Correlations
Dispositional scales were associated with variability in their matched domain (e.g., dispositional grandiosity and variability in grandiosity). Momentary grandiosity variables (i.e., momentary mean and variability) were associated with variability in vulnerability and the reverse pattern was true as well (momentary vulnerability variables with variability in vulnerability).
Controlling for the momentary mean
Controlling for the momentary mean
Patterns of associations maintained within domains, such that dispositional grandiosity was associated with variability in grandiosity and dispositional vulnerability was associated with variability in vulnerability. No significant cross-associations emerged.
Instability
Instability
Dispositional grandiosity was associated with larger successive difference scores in grandiosity states. The same was true with dispositional vulnerability and difference scores in vulnerability. Modest effects emerged for cross-domain variability.
Inertia and cross-lagged paths
Inertia and cross-lagged paths
Few significant associations emerged with cross-lagged and inertia effects. In particular, only vulnerability was associated with “getting stuck” in states of vulnerability.
Conclusion
Though clinical theory suggests that narcissistic individuals may fluctuate between states of grandiosity and vulnerability, empirical evidence does not yet support this fully. Individuals do fluctuate within states for which they exhibit higher levels (e.g., dispositional grandiosity and variability in grandiosity). This may be indicative of regulatory patterns in which the grandiose or vulnerable individual is engaging in attempts to regulate the self. Future research may want to examine fluctuation patterns under different timeframes. Further, it will be important to understand situational contexts surrounding fluctuations in grandiosity and vulnerability.
References
Akhtar, S., & Thomson, J.A. (1982). Overview: Narcissistic personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 12–20.
Bosson, J.K., Lakey, C.E., Campbell, W.K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Jordan, C.H., & Kernis, M.H. (2008). Untangling the links between narcissism and self-esteem: A theoretical and empirical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1415–1439.
Crowe, M.L., Edershile, E.A., Wright, A.G.C., Lynam, D.R., & Miller, J.D. (2018). Development and validation of the Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale: An adjective rating scale. Psychological Assessment, 30(7), 978-983.
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Hutteman, R., Dufner, M., Kufner, A.C.P., Egloff, B., Denissen, J.J.A., & Back, M.D. (2016). Puffed-up but shaky selves: State self-esteem level and variability in narcissists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Personality Processes and Individual Differences, doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000093
Giacomin, M., & Jordan, C.H. (2016). Self-focused and feeling fine: Assessing state narcissism and its relation to well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 63, 12–21.
Gore, W.L., Widiger, T.A. (2016). Fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7, 363-371.
Hyatt, C.S., Sleep, C.E., Lynam, D.R., Widiger, T.A., Campbell, W.K., & Miller, J.D. (2017). Ratings of affective and interpersonal tendencies differ for grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: a replication and extension of Gore and Widiger (2016). Journal of Personality, 1-13.
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.
Rosenthal, S.A., Hooley, J.M., Steshenko, Y. (2007). Distinguishing grandiosity from self-esteem: Development of the Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale. Unpublished Manuscript.
Sherman, E. D., Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Campbell, W. K., Widiger, T. A., Crego, C., & Lynam, D. R. (2015). Development of a short form of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory: The FFNI-SF. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 1110-1116.
Conclusion
Though clinical theory suggests that narcissistic individuals may fluctuate between states of grandiosity and vulnerability, empirical evidence does not yet support this fully. Individuals do fluctuate within states for which they exhibit higher levels (e.g., dispositional grandiosity and variability in grandiosity). This may be indicative of regulatory patterns in which the grandiose or vulnerable individual is engaging in attempts to regulate the self. Future research may want to examine fluctuation patterns under different timeframes. Further, it will be important to understand situational contexts surrounding fluctuations in grandiosity and vulnerability.
References
Akhtar, S., & Thomson, J.A. (1982). Overview: Narcissistic personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 12–20.
Bosson, J.K., Lakey, C.E., Campbell, W.K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Jordan, C.H., & Kernis, M.H. (2008). Untangling the links between narcissism and self-esteem: A theoretical and empirical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1415–1439.
Crowe, M.L., Edershile, E.A., Wright, A.G.C., Lynam, D.R., & Miller, J.D. (2018). Development and validation of the Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale: An adjective rating scale. Psychological Assessment, 30(7), 978-983.
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Hutteman, R., Dufner, M., Kufner, A.C.P., Egloff, B., Denissen, J.J.A., & Back, M.D. (2016). Puffed-up but shaky selves: State self-esteem level and variability in narcissists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Personality Processes and Individual Differences, doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000093
Giacomin, M., & Jordan, C.H. (2016). Self-focused and feeling fine: Assessing state narcissism and its relation to well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 63, 12–21.
Gore, W.L., Widiger, T.A. (2016). Fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7, 363-371.
Hyatt, C.S., Sleep, C.E., Lynam, D.R., Widiger, T.A., Campbell, W.K., & Miller, J.D. (2017). Ratings of affective and interpersonal tendencies differ for grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: a replication and extension of Gore and Widiger (2016). Journal of Personality, 1-13.
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.
Rosenthal, S.A., Hooley, J.M., Steshenko, Y. (2007). Distinguishing grandiosity from self-esteem: Development of the Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale. Unpublished Manuscript.
Sherman, E. D., Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Campbell, W. K., Widiger, T. A., Crego, C., & Lynam, D. R. (2015). Development of a short form of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory: The FFNI-SF. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 1110-1116.