Preregistration
Study Information
Title: Narcissism from Every Angle: An Interpersonal Analysis of Narcissism
Authorship
Elizabeth A. Edershile, William C. Woods, Trevor F. Williams, Leonard J. Simms, Aidan C.G.
Wright
Research Questions
Narcissism’s definition is much debated. As a result, there has been a proliferation of
measures designed to assess the construct. Broadly, narcissism has been approached from both
social/personality and clinical perspectives. In the social/personality tradition, narcissism is often
considered to be a mixture of both maladaptive and relatively adaptive features (Cain, Pincus, &
Ansell, 2008). The bulk of social/personality literature has relied on the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory (NPI), such that it’s scales have become nearly synonymous with narcissism in the
social/personality field. The NPI has been found to associate with high self-esteem, social
dominance, and achievement striving. In contrast, in the clinical literature narcissism is described
as a pathological construct, and the maladaptive features are emphasized. Clinical theory has not
only emphasized grandiose manifestations of narcissism, but also narcissistic vulnerability.
Grandiosity is reflected in arrogant attitudes, inflated self-esteem, and interactions marked by
exploitativeness, entitlement, and exhibitionism. Vulnerability is manifested in fragile selfesteem, emotional reactivity, and internalizing pathology (Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010). Several
measures have been developed to assess both grandiosity and vulnerability (e.g. Pathological
Narcissism Inventory and Five-Factory Narcissism Inventory). Moreover, other measures that
capture additional perspectives on narcissism have recently joined the mix (e.g., Communal
Narcissism Inventory and Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire).
With the diversity in definitions of narcissism and an ever-expanding list of associated
measures, it has become evident that the measurement of this construct might pose challenges. In
particular, given that narcissism is defined across all perspectives as an interpersonal disorder,
this raises the question of whether the various measures of narcissism accurately capture the
intended style of interpersonal functioning? For example, does the Communal Narcissism
Inventory (CNI) accurately assess communal behaviors? Do definitions, such as grandiosity,
change across the measures of narcissism and, if so, what does this mean for the overarching
definition of the construct? This study aims to evaluate and compare extant measures of
narcissism in terms of their relationship with diverse aspects of interpersonal functioning (i.e.,
values, strengths, problems, and sensitivities). We hypothesized that narcissism measures vary
widely in the aspects of interpersonal functioning with which they are associated. We expect that
even measures of narcissism that putatively assess the same features in fact exhibit differential
associations with measures of interpersonal functioning depending on the measure being used.
Hypotheses
In the current study, the interpersonal content of several measures of narcissism will be
evaluated using the structural summary method to assess their interpersonal profiles on the
1
Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP) and the Interpersonal Sensitivities Circumplex (ISC),
Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values (CSIV), and the Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths
(IIS). Below are our predictions for the structural summary parameters from different narcissism
scales on the IIP. The angular displacement predictions for the ISC are not shown below but are
hypothesized to fall 180 degrees from the predicted IIP displacements. The specific angular
displacement predictions for the CSIV and IIS are not shown but are assumed to match those of
the IIP. Both the CSIV and the IIS were developed to compliment the IIP and, thus, the eight
octants of the circumplex are assumed to behave in much the same way. However, it is possible
that both the CSIV and the IIS may be rotated systematically from the IIP (e.g. Hopwood,
Koonce, & Morey, 2009). How we will address this potential rotation is discussed in “inference
criteria”.
Unlike the IIP, the IIS also captures an adaptive, rather than a maladaptive phenotype. As
a result, elevation predictions (either positive (+), negative (-), or neutral (0)) are provided for
both the IIP and the IIS. In prior unpublished work we have observed that the elevation
parameter of the CSIV tends to associate with maladaptivitiy, and therefore our predictions about
CSIV elevations are the same as the IIP. In contrast, the ISC’s elevation parameter has not
demonstrated consistent associations with self-rated impairment (e.g., Hopwood et al., 2011).
Therefore, we did not make predictions for the ISC’s elevation parameter.
•
•
•
Narcissism Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ)
§ With regard to the IIP-SC, NARQ projections are as follows:
1. Admiration will fall somewhere in PA space (angle
measurements from 67.5-112.5 degrees)
o IIP/CSIV elevation—0
o IIS elevation—0
• Grandiosity PA (67.5-112.5 degrees)
• Uniqueness PA (67.5-112.5 degrees)
• Charmingness NO/PA (22.5-112.5 degrees)
2. Rivalry will fall somewhere in BC/DE space (angle
measurements from 112.5-202.5 degrees)
o IIP/CSIV elevation—+
o IIS elevation— • Devaluation DE (157.5-202.5 degrees)
• Supremacy BC (112.5-157.5 degrees)
• Aggressiveness PA (67.5-112.5 degrees)
Communal Narcissism Inventory (CNI)
§ With regard to the IIP-SC, CNI projections are NO (22.5-67.5
degrees)
• IIP/CSIV elevation—0
• IIS elevation—0
The Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory (FFNI)
§ With regard to the IIP-SC, FFNI projections are as follows
1. Antagonism will fall somewhere in DE space (angle
measurements from 157.5-202.5 degrees)
o IIP/CSIV elevation— +
o IIS elevation— 2
•
•
• Exploitativeness DE (157.5-202.5 degrees)
• Lack of Empathy DE (157.5-202.5 degrees)
• Entitlement DE (157.5-202.5 degrees)
• Arrogance DE (157.5-202.5 degrees)
• Manipulativeness BC (112.5-157.5 degrees)
• Reactive anger DE (157.5-202.5 degrees)
• Distrust DE (157.5-202.5 degrees)
• Thrill Seeking BC (112.5-157.5 degrees)
2. Neuroticism will fall somewhere in FG space (angle
measurements 202.5-247.5 degrees)
o IIP/CSIV elevation— +
o IIS elevation— • Shame HI (247.5-292.5 degrees)
• Indifference DE (157.5-202.5 degrees)
• Need for admiration FG (202.5-247.5 degrees)
3. Extraversion will fall somewhere in PA space (angle
measurements from 67.5-112.5 degrees)
o IIP/CSIV elevation—0
o IIS elevation—0
• Acclaim Seeking NO (22.5-67.5 degrees)
• Authoritativeness PA (67.5-112.5 degrees)
• Grandiose Fantasies BC (112.5-157.5 degrees)
• Exhibitionism PA (67.5-112.5 degrees)
The Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI)
§ With regard to the IIP-SC, PNI projections are as follows:
1. Grandiosity will fall somewhere in NO space (angle
measurements 22.5-67.5)
o IIP/CSIV elevation—+
o IIS elevation— • Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancement (SSSE) LM
(337.5-22.5 degrees)
• Grandiose Fantasy (GF) NO (22.5-67.5 degrees)
• Exploitativeness (EXP) PA (67.5-112.5 degrees)
2. Vulnerability will fall somewhere in FG space (angle
measurements 202.5-247.5 degrees)
o IIP/CSIV elevation—+
o IIS elevation— • Contingent Self-Esteem (CSE) JK (292.5-337.5
degrees)
• Hiding the Self (HS) FG (202.5-247.5 degrees)
• Devaluing (DEV) BC (112.5-157.5 degrees)
• Entitlement Rage (ER) BC (112.5-157.5 degrees)
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI)
§ With regard to the IIP-SC, NPI projections are as follows:
1. Grandiose/Exhibitionism (GE) NO (22.5-67.5 degrees)
3
• IIP/CSIV elevation—0
• IIS elevation—0
2. Leadership/Authority (LA) PA (67.5-112.5 degrees)
• IIP/CSIV elevation—0
• IIS elevation—0
3. Entitlement/Exploitativeness (EE) BC (112.5-157.5 degrees)
• IIP/CSIV elevation—0
• IIS elevation—0
Sampling Plan
Existing data
These analyses will be run on both pre-existing data and data that is currently being
collected. For the existing data set, this preregistration was written after the data were collected
but before they have been analyzed.
Explanation of existing data
The fifth (AGCW), third (TFW), and fourth (LJS) authors designed and collected the
existing data set. The third and fourth authors have had access to the data since its collection,
and they have analyzed some of the data planned for inclusion in this study for other unrelated
studies. Specifically, they have used the IPC measures to examine structural summaries of other
excluded constructs. The existing data has been shared with the fifth author, although he has
never analyzed it. Most importantly, the first author, who will be the principal data analyst for
this study, has not had access to the data prior to pre-registration.
Data collection procedures
• The pre-existing data was collected from University at Buffalo (SUNY
Buffalo) during the Spring semester of 2014. Surveys were completed in an
online format and students were given course credit for 90 minutes of
participation.
• The data that is currently being collected began on 11/7/2016 at The
University of Pittsburgh (Pitt). The study will end in mid-December.
Sample size
• For the existing data set, the total sample, prior to data cleaning, is made up
716 freshmen through seniors (M Age = 19). Participants were mostly white
(76% Caucasian) and gender was equally represented (55% male).
• For the data currently being collected, an estimated 800+ participants will
have completed the study procedures prior to the end of the semseter.
Sample size rationale
For both the existing data and the data currently being collected, this was based off the
greatest number of credit hours that could be obtained given that there is a shared participant
study pool that places limits on the total number of hours allotted to any one investigator (this is
true of both SUNY Buffalo and Pitt).
4
Stopping rule
For both data sets, the stopping rule was the end of the semester.
Analysis plan
Statistical models
The structural summary method (SSM) for circumplex data (Gurtman, 1992; Gurtman &
Pincus, 2003) was developed to evaluate external variables’ patterns of association within
existing nomological networks. The general SSM procedure has recently been updated to include
bootstrapped-based confidence intervals that are calculated using R package SSSM
(Zimmermann & Wright, 2017).
In this study, the SSM will be used to summarize profiles of correlations between
different measures of narcissism and the IPC. Profiles of correlations will be decomposed in to
the following parameters:
• Elevation—this value is the average association of the external construct
and the IPC octants, and can be understood, roughly, as the association to
the general factor of the IPC measure, if it is present.
• Amplitude—this value is the distance from average to the peak of the profile
of correlations, and can be understood as the degree of differentiation in a
profile.
• Angular Displacement—This value is the location of a particular variable on
the circumference of the IPC, and can be understood as the interpersonal
theme of a profile.
• R2—This goodness-of-fit statistic has been interpreted as prototypically of
relation.
Inference criteria
Inferences will be drawn from examination of confidence intervals (CIs) around point
estimates within a measure. Values from our predicted angular displacements (see above) falling
within the CI of our observed angular displacements will be considered a “hit”. For elevation,
our predictions are directional (i.e., above, below, or inclusive of 0). For elevation and amplitude
predictions will be considered meaningfully different from 0 if the effect size is ≥ to the 50th
percentile of values as reported in Zimmerman and Wright (2017). The 50th percentile for
elevation is |.11| and for amplitude it is .16. As previously discussed, both the CSIV and the IIS
should match the pattern of above angular displacement projections on the IIP, however, they
may be a rotated. Due to the paucity of research of projections within the CSIV and IIS, we
cannot make strong predictions of where various narcissism scales will fall. As mentioned, we
believe the CSIV and the IIS will follow a similar pattern to the IIP but acknowledge that
systematic variation could occur and have no hypotheses of how to account for it up front.
Data exclusion
Participants’ data will be excluded largely on the basis of inconsistency scales in an
included (but un-analyzed) measure, the CAT-PD-SF, or when it appears that they have quit part
way through the study (e.g., large portions of missingness).
5
Missing data
•
•
In the SUNY Buffalo sample, data was imputed based on other variables.
In the Pitt sample, data will be imputed as well.
Exploratory analysis
No hypotheses were formed for the elevation of the narcissism scales on the ISC. These
will be examined through exploratory analyses.
Other
Measures:
Interpersonal Measures:
Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Short Circumplex (IIP-SC):
The IIP-SC (Soldz et al., 1996) is an eight-octant, 32-item measure with demonstrated
circumplex properties. The IIP measures interpersonal problems in each octant of the
circle using a 5-point Likert scale (not at all to extremely).
Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values (CSIV):
The CSIV (Locke, 2000) is a 32-item measure of valued interpersonal behaviors. The
CSIV measures interpersonal values by measuring the association with the octants of the
IPC.
Interpersonal Sensitivities Circumplex (ISC):
The ISC (Hopwood et al., 2011) is a 64-item self-report measure of sensitivities to
various interpersonal behaviors used in The University of Buffalo sample. The University
of Pittsburgh sample was given a 32-item (?) measure. Respondents rate how much a
given behavior bothers them when another person exhibits that behavior on a scale
ranging from 1 (Never, Not at all), to 8 (Extremely, Always bothers me).
Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths (IIS):
The IIS (Hatcher & Rogers, 2009) is a 64-item self-report measure of interpersonal
strengths and was used in the existing data set from The University of Buffalo. The 32item version (Hatcher & Rogers, 2012) is used in the data currently being collected from
The University of Pittsburgh. This scale is used to convert the IPC, largely thought to be
divided by an adaptive side (the right) and maladaptive side (the left), as a measurement
of adaptive strengths in all octants. IIS items are rated on a 6-point scale, ranging from
very little like me to always like me.
Narcissism Measures:
Narcissism Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaires (NARQ)
The NARQ (Back et al., 2013) is an 18 item self-report of two higher order factors of
narcissism: admiration and rivalry. Each higher order factor has three sub factors. For
6
admiration, lower order factors are Grandiosity, Uniqueness, and Charmingness. Rivalry
consists of the lower order factors Devaluation, Superiority, and Aggressiveness.
The Five Factor Narcissism Inventory (FFNI-SF)
The FFNI-SF (Sherman et al., 2015) is a 60-item self-report inventory composed of 15
scales corresponding to vulnerable and grandiose narcissism. Items are rated on a scale of
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (agree strongly). Each scale assesses a maladaptive variant of a
Five Factor Model trait that correlates with either or both grandiose and vulnerable
narcissism.
The Communal Narcissism Inventory (CNI)
The CNI (Gebauer et al., 2012) reflects individual differences on communal narcissism.
This 16-item self-report questionnaire is considered descriptive of communal grandiose
self-views. Answer choices range from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly).
The Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI)
The PNI (Pincus et al., 2009), used in The University of Buffalo sample, is a 52-item
self-report measure of traits related to vulnerable narcissism and grandiose narcissism.
The Brief-Pathological Narcissism Inventory (B-PNI) (Schoenleber et al., 2015) is a 28item version of the original PNI used in The University of Pittsburgh sample. The four
vulnerable narcissism subscales are Contingent Self-Esteem (CSE), Hiding the self (HS),
Devaluing (Dev), and Entitlement rage (ER). The three subscales related to grandiose
narcissism are Self-sacrificing Self-enhancement (SSSE), Grandiose Fantasies (GF), and
Exploitativeness (E).
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI)
The NPI (Raskin & Terry, 1988) is a 40-item self-report measure of trait narcissism. We
focus here on the three NPI subscales (Ackerman et al., 2011) which result in a 25-item
measure. The three subscales are Leadership/Authority (LA: 11 items), Grandiose
Exhibitionism (GE: 10 items), Entitlement/Exploitativeness (EE: 4 items).
7
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(1), 67-87.
Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., Pincus, A. L. (1990). Construction of Circumplex Scales for the
inventory of interpersonal problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55(3&4), 521536.
Back, M. D., Kufner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., Denissen, J. J. A.
(2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of
narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1-25.
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.
Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., Verplanken, B., Maio, G. R. (2012). Communal Narcissism.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 854-878.
Glover, N., Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Crego, C., Widiger, T. A. (2012). The Five-Factory
Narcissism Inventory: A Five-Factor measure of narcissistic personality traits. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 94(5), 500-512.
Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Construct validity of interpersonal personality measures: The
interpersonal circumplex as a nomological net. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 105-118.
8
Hatcher, R. L., & Rogers, D. T. (2009). Development and Validation of a Measure of
Interpersonal Strengths: The Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths. Psychological
Assessment, 21(4), 554-569.
Hatcher, R. L., & Rogers, D. T. (2012). The IIS-32: A brief inventory of interpersonal strengths.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 638-646.
Hopwood, C. J., Ansell, E. B., Pincus, A. L., Wright, A. G. C., Lukowitsky, M. R., Roche, M. J.
(2011). The circumplex structure of Interpersonal Sensitivities. Journal of Personality, 79
(3), 1-33.
Hopwood, C. J., Koonce, E. A., Morey, L. C. (2009). An exploratory study of integrative
personality pathology systems and the interpersonal circumplex. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31 (4), 331-339.
Hopwood, C. J., Koonce, E. A., Morey, L. C. (2009). Erratum to: An exploratory study of
integrative personality pathology systems and the interpersonal circumplex. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 35 (3), 404-406.
Locke, K. D. (2000). Circumplex scales of interpersonal values: Reliability, validity, and
applicability to interpersonal problems and personality disorders. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 75, 249-267.
Pincus, A., Ansell, A. 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.
Pincus, A. L., & Gurtman, M. B. (2003). Interpersonal assessment. In J.S. Wiggins (ed.),
Paradigms of personality assessment (pp.246-261). New York, NY: Guilford.
Pincus, A. L., & Lukowitsky, M. R. (2010). Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality
9
disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 421–446.
Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45,
590.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principle-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 890-902
Schoenleber, M., Roche, M. J., Wetzel, E., Pincus, A. L., Roberts, B. W. (2015). Development of
a brief version of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment,
27(4), 1520-1526.
Sherman, E. D., Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Campbell, K. W., Widiger, T. A. (2015). Development
of a short form of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory: The FFNI-SF. Psychological
Assessment, 27(3), 1110-1116.
Soldz, S., Budman, S., Demby, A., Merry, J. (1995). A short form of the Inventory of
Interpersonal Problems Circumplex Scales. Assessment, 2(1), 53-63.
Zimmermann, J. & Wright, A.G.C. (2017). Beyond description in interpersonal construct
validation: Methodological advances in the circumplex structural summary approach.
Assessment, 24(1), 3-23.
10