Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
University of Kentucky
Current literature on narcissistic personality disorder has emphasized a distinction between grandiose and
vulnerable narcissism. Some researchers have further suggested that narcissistic persons fluctuate
between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. However, this perception has been confined largely to
clinical experience with no systematic research testing the hypothesis. Clinicians and clinical psychology
professors in the current study identified 143 persons who fit a description of either a grandiose or a
vulnerable narcissist and indicated the extent to which these persons ever demonstrated traits of the
complementary variant. The results supported the fluctuation hypothesis, particularly for episodes of
vulnerable narcissism in persons identified as a grandiose narcissist. Correlations of the grandiose and
vulnerable narcissism traits with a brief five-factor model measure corroborated past trait descriptions of
the 2 respective variants of narcissism. The results of the current study are compared with existing
cross-sectional and longitudinal research, and suggestions for future research are provided.
Keywords: narcissism, vulnerable, grandiose, five-factor model, narcissistic personality disorder
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
364
scales are identifying the same persons (Miller, Widiger, & Campbell, 2014).
However, it has apparently been the experience of clinicians
treating persons with NPD that a vacillation between grandiosity
and vulnerability occurs during the course of treatment. Our
clinical experience with narcissistic patients indicates they virtually always exhibit both covert and overt grandiosity and covert
and overt vulnerability (Pincus, Cain, & Wright, 2014, p. 440).
Ronningstam (2009), based on her clinical experience, has similarly suggested that NPD is a pervasive pattern of fluctuating
self-esteem ranging from grandiosity and assertiveness to inferiority and insecurity (p. 118).
There has not yet, however, been a direct test of this hypothesis. Indirect evidence comes from studies that indicate that
persons with a fragile, contingent, and/or unstable self-esteem
will at times respond with excessive anger, hostility, and/or
retaliation to threats to their self-esteem (Bosson et al., 2008;
Kernis, 2005). However, it is unclear whether these persons
would in fact meet DSMIV diagnostic criteria for NPD or
would be accurately characterized as being grandiose or even
vulnerable narcissists (Bosson et al., 2008).
There have been longitudinal, prospective studies specific to
narcissism and/or NPD. However, these studies were not designed
to actually address the question of whether grandiose narcissists
are vulnerable for significant periods of time or, in a similar
fashion, whether vulnerable narcissists are at times grandiose. For
example, Ronningstam, Gunderson, and Lyons (1995) provided
what is generally considered to be the first systematic longitudinal
study of NPD, following over a 3-year period, 20 persons diagnosed with NPD. Their primary finding was a clear decrease in
levels of narcissism across the 3 years. There was no indication
that participants experienced deteriorations in functioning. Nine
participants were said to have improved secondary to successful
life achievements (that resulted in an acceptance of more realistic
expectations) and four secondary to developing more meaningful,
durable relationships. In fact, even the three who experienced
significant setbacks in life also improved. There was one instance
in which a too-harsh disillusioning experience resulted in a
worsening narcissistic psychopathology (p. 255), but no further
details were provided. In sum, no evident occurrence of a
grandiose-vulnerable fluctuation was noted.
Block (1971) reported that between the ages of 18 and 30,
women identified as dominant narcissists increased in socialization and continued to be domineering and exploitative. There was
no suggestion that they ever evidenced significant feelings of
vulnerability. Wink (1992) reported the results of a longitudinal
study of 81 narcissistic women, assessed in their senior year at
college (age 20 22) with the California Q-Set (CQS; Block,
1978), and reassessed again approximately 5 years later, and then
once again at approximately age 43. The women were classified as
either willful (characterized by overt grandeur, power orientation,
exhibitionism, poor impulse control, and a pleasure seeking orientation, p. 9); hypersensitive (overt inhibition, introversion, and
lack of self-confidence mask [of] an underlying covert grandiose
sense of self-importance, entitlement, and exhibitionism, p. 9); or
autonomous (healthy narcissism). There was no indication that the
willful narcissists became vulnerable, or the hypersensitive became grandiose. At the first follow-up, the hypersensitive had
become more vulnerable and alienated (p. 24), and by 43 were
Method
Participants
Professors in clinical psychology and clinicians from American
Psychiatric Association Division 42, for psychologists in independent practice, were invited by mail to participate in the present
study. Addresses for participants were obtained via publicly available websites. Participants were offered the option of participating
in a lottery to win $250. Participants indicated their interest in
participating in the lottery by identifying themselves on a business
reply envelope. Two professors and two clinicians were each
awarded $250 by check at the end of two waves of data collection.
Exactly 82 professors and 61 clinicians participated (an additional 108 persons returned questionnaires but indicated that they
had never known any such respective person). Of the professors,
approximately half (52%) were female, 85% Caucasian/White,
with a mean age of 47.3. Most of the professors (83%) were also
licensed psychologists. Of the clinicians, approximately half
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(52%) were male, 92% were Caucasian/White, and mean age was
62.3. They reported that they had been clinicians on average for 31
years. Commonly reported theoretical orientations included
cognitive behavioral (48%), eclectic/integrative (11%), and psychodynamic (15%). Some clinicians (11%) indicated multiple theoretical orientations.
The results for three professors and one clinician were deleted
because they were each missing a significant portion of data. For
the remaining participants, only a few scattered items were missing
(less than 5% of items). Missing data were imputed using the
expectation maximization procedure, which has been shown to
produce accurate estimates of population parameters (Enders,
2006).
Procedure
Participants were randomly selected to be in either the grandiose
or vulnerable condition. In the grandiose condition, participants
were asked to identify a client or person they knew as fitting the
description of a grandiose narcissist. Then, they rated this person
with respect to 14 traits of grandiose narcissism and subsequently
rated the same person with respect to 14 traits of vulnerable
narcissism. The converse occurred in the vulnerable condition. If
participants were not aware of a person meeting the description
provided, they could return the questionnaires without completing
any narcissism ratings and still be included in the lottery (108
persons did so). In each condition, after rating the persons on traits
of narcissism, the participants then described the target with respect to the FFM.
The descriptions of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism were
created on the basis of descriptors provided in Pincus and colleagues (2009). Presented below are the descriptions provided to
the participants:
Grandiose: This person has an inflated self-image without
the requisite accomplishments and skills (i.e., arrogance or
conceit). He or she may engage in fantasies of unlimited
power, superiority, perfection, or adulation. This person may
also lack empathy, have a sense of entitlement, and may even
exploit others for his or her own benefit. This person believes
that others are envious of him/her and can also at times be
aggressive or exhibitionistic.
Vulnerable: This person has low self-esteem, often feels
helpless, empty, and shameful. He or she does not respond
well to criticism or rebuke. He or she may also feel that
his/her long-standing distress allows for a special status that
he or she is resistant to give up. When this special status is
threatened, he or she may react with anger or shame. This
person withdraws from others when he or she feels that his or
her special needs or demands are not being met.
Materials
Grandiose and vulnerable traits. The list of grandiose traits
(e.g., has an inflated self-image, lacks empathy, believes that
others are envious, and exploits others for own gain) and vulnerable traits (e.g., reacts with anger or shame when special status is
threatened, feels empty and shameful, does not respond well to
365
Results
The professors and clinicians identified 143 persons who fit the
description of either a vulnerable or a grandiose narcissist. The
professors identified persons they had known for (on average) 13
years as colleagues (33%), relatives (23%), friends (11%), patients
(16%), or partners (4%) or through another, unspecified circumstance (15%). Approximately half (51%) of these individuals were
female. The majority (79.27%) were Caucasian/White. The professors also reported that, to their knowledge, 52% of these individuals had been in psychological treatment. The clinicians were
specifically asked to identify a current or past client fitting the
description of grandiose or vulnerable narcissism. More than half
(56%) of the persons they identified were female, most (91%) were
White/Caucasian, and their mean estimated age was 44.0 years.
The length of time the clinicians reported knowing their client
ranged from 2 months to 20 years (M 5.7 years).
Table 1 displays the mean trait scores for the grandiose traits in
the grandiose condition. The following traits were considered by
both the professors and the clinicians to be present a significant
period of time (i.e., traits identified as bold within the table): has
an inflated self-image, attention seeking, and feels entitled to
certain benefits. The professors also considered being driven to
succeed, believing that others are envious of them, and feels
special and can only be understood by those with high-status, to be
present a significant period of time, whereas the clinicians consid-
366
Table 1
Mean Grandiose Trait Scores in Grandiose Condition
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Means
Item
Professor
Clinician
1.89a
1.43
1.26
1.48
1.11
1.59
1.77
1.30
.86
.48
1.45
1.61
1.50
1.55
1.37
1.75
1.34
1.38
1.50
1.19
1.72
1.78
1.03
.56
.69
1.59
.78
1.25
1.28
1.27
1.56
.58
.81
.16
.45
.99
.09
1.38
1.74
1.38
.96
5.46
1.45
1.60
p .01.
ered lacks empathy and manipulates others to be present a significant period of time.
The professor and clinician ratings were very convergent in how
they described their grandiose narcissists, r .74, p .01. There
was a statistically significant difference between the professors
and clinicians with respect to the magnitude of their ratings,
F(14, 61) 2.94, p .01; Wilks .597, partial 2 .40, but
when individual traits were examined, only one significant difference was found, with the professors reporting significantly higher
scores than the clinicians for being driven to succeed.
Table 2 displays the mean scores for the vulnerable traits in the
vulnerable condition. Both the professors and the clinicians considered the following traits to be present a significant period of
time: feels helpless, low self-esteem, does not respond well to
criticism or rebuke, and feels extremely upset when treated unjustly. The professors also considered the vulnerable narcissist, for
a significant period of time, to be reluctant to give up status, to
react with anger or shame when status is threatened, and to
withdraw from people when special needs or demands are not met.
The clinicians considered the vulnerable narcissist to also feel
empty and shameful, and to feel incredibly embarrassed if others
knew of failures. There was though convergence of the two sets of
ratings, r .61, p .01, with no statistically significant overall
difference in vulnerable narcissism trait scores across the 14 traits,
F(14, 48) 1.58, p .05; Wilks .684, partial 2 .32.
Table 3 displays the mean grandiose trait scores within the
vulnerable condition. It is evident that neither the professors nor
the clinicians considered any one of the grandiose traits to have
Table 2
Mean Vulnerable Trait Scores in Vulnerable Condition
Mean
Item
1. . . . feels helpless.
2. . . . has low self-esteem.
3. . . . feels empty and shameful.
4. . . . does not respond well to criticism or rebuke.
5. . . . is reluctant to give up the special status that his or her long-standing distress allows him or her.
6. . . . reacts with anger or shame when his or her special status is threatened.
7. . . . withdraws from other people when his or her special needs or demands are not met.
8. . . . avoids others when he or she feels he or she will not be admired.
9. . . . can become very angry when he or she does not get what he or she deserves.
10. . . . would be incredibly embarrassed if others knew about his or her failures.
11. . . . feels extremely upset when treated unjustly.
12. . . . craves admiration from others.
13. . . . does not trust others readily.
14. . . . feels envious of others.
Mean score averaged across items
Note. professor n 35; clinician n 28.
a
Trait scores above 1.50 are bolded to indicate high scores.
Professor
a
1.51
1.54
1.31
1.74
1.60
1.63
1.51
1.06
1.46
1.20
1.74
1.29
1.14
1.09
1.42
Clinician
1.54
1.75
1.57
1.71
1.36
1.46
1.21
1.14
1.29
1.50
1.71
1.36
1.39
1.18
1.44
367
Table 3
Mean Grandiose Trait Scores in Vulnerable Condition
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Mean
Item
Professor
Clinician
.74a
.57a
.51a
.60a
.71b
1.40
1.49
.37a
.43b
.40
.80a
.83a
.34a
.80a
.71
.89a
.54a
.54a
.96a
.54a
1.14a
1.32b
.11a
.32
.39
.75a
.89
.43a
.79b
.68
ever been evident to a significant degree for persons they considered to be vulnerable narcissists. A number of the grandiose traits
were considered never to be present, including indifference to the
criticism of others, being a natural leader, engaging in dangerous
activities, and believing that others are envious of them. However,
the professors and clinicians did feel that some of the grandiose
traits were evident some of the time, including even an inflated
self-image, attention-seeking, feeling entitled, manipulating others, driven to succeed, and feeling special. The professor and
clinician ratings were strongly convergent, r .88, p .01, with
no significant mean differences across the 14 ratings, F(14, 48)
1.56, p .05; Wilks .687, partial 2 .31.
Table 4
Mean Vulnerable Trait Scores in Grandiose Condition
Mean
Item
Professor
Clinician
1. . . . feels helpless.
2. . . . has low self-esteem.
3. . . . feels empty and shameful.
4. . . . does not respond well to criticism or rebuke.
5. . . . is reluctant to give up the special status that his or her long-standing distress allows him or her.
6. . . . reacts with anger or shame when his or her special status is threatened.
7. . . . withdraws from other people when his or her special needs or demands are not met.
8. . . . avoids others when he or she feels he or she will not be admired.
9. . . . can become very angry when he or she does not get what he or she deserves.
10. . . . would be incredibly embarrassed if others knew about his or her failures.
11. . . . feels extremely upset when treated unjustly.
12. . . . craves admiration from others.
13. . . . does not trust others readily.
14. . . . feels envious of others.
Mean score averaged across items
.41a
.36a
.59a
1.70
1.28b
1.52
1.09b
1.00
1.45
1.30
1.50
1.68c
1.34
1.05
1.16
.81a
1.00a
.75a
1.81
1.47
1.69
1.50
1.19
1.66c
1.22
1.84
1.59
1.56
1.34
1.39
2.38
3.81
.88
1.00
1.07
1.31
2.54
1.14
1.46
.41
2.53
.68
1.62
1.72
p .05. p .01.
Signifi-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
368
Table 5
Correlations Between Narcissism Traits and FFMRF Traits
Vulnerable
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Grandiose
Professor
Clinician
Professor
Clinician
.57
.07
.07
.11
.11
.51
.12
.15
.16
.06
.58
.42
.02
.75
.24
.28
.49
.10
.66
.22
p .05. p .01.
Discussion
A primary finding of the current study is that clinical psychologists, and even clinical psychology professors describing (for the
most part) colleagues, relatives, or friends, did consider persons
they identified as being grandiose narcissists (i.e., persons with an
inflated self-image; engaging in fantasies of unlimited power or
superiority, perfection, or adulation; having a sense of entitlement;
and lacking in empathy), to have displayed for significant periods
of time, traits of vulnerable narcissism. It should be acknowledged
that many of the vulnerable traits did not appear to be evident
within the grandiose narcissists for a significant period of time by
both the professors and the clinicians. However, the four traits that
were evident to both the professors and the clinicians (i.e., reacting
with anger or shame when they felt their status was threatened,
feeling extremely upset when they felt they were treated unjustly,
not responding well to criticism or rebuke, and craving admiration
from others) do appear to be suggestive of a clinically significant
vulnerability. In fact, two vulnerable traits even received higher
ratings within the grandiose condition than within the vulnerable
condition (i.e., craves admiration from others for the professors
and becomes angry when not getting what one deserves for the
clinicians). Further, additional vulnerable traits were evident to the
clinicians within the grandiose narcissists they had seen in clinical
treatment (discussed further below). Plus, both the professors and
the clinicians felt that the grandiose narcissists evidenced a number
of additional traits of vulnerable narcissism for at least some of the
time (e.g., withdraws from people when needs or demands are not
met, would feel embarrassed if others knew of failures, and feels
envious of others). Only two traits were considered by the professors to never occur. These traits (i.e., feels helpless and low
self-esteem) would appear to be those that are most inconsistent
with a strong, invulnerable grandiose narcissism. However, even
these traits were observed by the therapists for at least some of the
time.
There was considerable agreement between the professors and
clinicians as to the grandiose traits of the grandiose narcissists and
with respect to many of the vulnerable traits for the grandiose
narcissists. However, the clinicians did consistently rate their
grandiose narcissists higher on the vulnerable traits than did the
professors and identified more of these traits as being present a
significant period of time. This would be consistent with the fact
that the grandiose narcissists were being seen by the clinicians
within psychological treatment. Approximately half of the persons
identified by the professors were known by the professor to have
been in some form of clinical treatment, but it is likely that
whatever vulnerability would be expressed by a grandiose narcissist would be more evident to his or her clinician than to a
professional colleague.
There was clearly less support for the presence of grandiose
traits to be evident in persons identified as vulnerable narcissists.
None of the grandiose traits were seen for a significant period of
time within the vulnerable narcissists by either the professors or
the clinicians. Neither the professors nor the clinicians observed
their vulnerable narcissists ever being indifferent to the criticism of
others, being a leader, engaging in dangerous activities, or believing that others are envious of them. Quite a few grandiose traits
though were seen by both populations to be evident for at least
some of the time, including attention-seeking, having an inflated
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
self-image, being aggressive, being driven to succeed, and manipulating others for own gain. Nevertheless, whereas the grandiose
narcissists evidence vulnerable traits a significant period of time,
the vulnerable narcissists evidenced considerably less grandiosity.
These results might be understood as being inconsistent with the
existing cross-sectional research on grandiose and vulnerable narcissism obtaining relatively low to nonexistent correlations between the respective scales (Glover et al., 2012; Miller, Dir et al.,
2010; Pincus et al., 2009; Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010). However,
in many respects, the results of the current study are perhaps in fact
congruent with this research. The FFM profile for the grandiose
and vulnerable narcissists obtained in the current study was quite
consistent with the correlations generally obtained with the selfreport measures, with grandiose narcissism being characterized by
antagonism, extraversion, and low neuroticism, and vulnerable
narcissism confined largely to high neuroticism (Miller & Campbell, 2008; Miller et al., 2011; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). These
findings are helpful in suggesting that the grandiose and vulnerable
narcissism assessed in the current study is consistent with the
assessments provided by such measures as the FFNI and PNI.
However, it should also be noted that the negative correlation of
grandiose narcissism with neuroticism within the clinician group
was appreciably lower than was obtained for the professors. This
would again appear to reflect that the clinicians identified relatively more vulnerability (i.e., more neuroticism) within the grandiose narcissistic patients than was identified by the professors
within their grandiose colleagues, relatives, and friends.
In addition, the current study replicated as well a lack of
correlation of the traits of grandiose narcissism with vulnerable
narcissism, which in the current study correlated only .21 (p .05)
for the clinicians and .13 (p .05) for the professors. In sum, the
current study replicated the FFM profile for grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and their weak correlation yet, inconsistent with
the self-report findings previously reported, the current study suggested that persons elevated on grandiose narcissism will display
traits of vulnerable narcissism for a significant period of time, and
persons elevated on vulnerable narcissism will display many of the
traits of grandiose narcissism at least some of the time.
One potential explanation for the apparent inconsistency is that
the self-report studies are cross-sectional, essentially a snapshot of
grandiose and vulnerable narcissism at one point in time or, at best,
aggregated across a period of time. Longitudinal research would
have the potential to indicate changes across time, but even the
longitudinal studies to date could be said to provide little more
than cross-sectional pictures at different points in time (e.g., Block,
1971; Grilo, Becker, Edell, & McGlashan, 2001; Ronningstam et
al., 1995; Wink, 1992). It would not be surprising to discover that
grandiose narcissists are predominantly grandiose aggregated over
time and evidence little vulnerability when assessed at particular
points in time. Perhaps more pertinent to the question of whether
grandiose narcissists evidence vulnerability at least some of the
time or significant periods of time are studies that assess for large
amounts of momentary periods within a persons life, as is the case
in ecological momentary assessment (Trull & Ebner-Priemer,
2009).
Ecological momentary assessment (EMA; Santangelo, EbnerPriemer, & Trull, 2013) focuses on individuals current or very
recent states or behaviors, with multiple assessments over time.
These assessments can be conducted with paper diaries, electronic
369
diaries, smartphones, and other comparable media for brief, immediate assessments. EMA research might be particularly well
suited for addressing the question whether there is a significant
fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism (Wright,
2014). EMA studies are designed to capture momentary ratings of
experiences, and this makes them especially important for the
assessment of moods, thoughts, symptoms, or behaviors believed
to change over time (Santangelo et al., 2013, p. 189). One could
assess, for instance, whether persons who meet criteria for NPD
experience significant episodes of low self-esteem or emptiness,
and are particularly prone to perceiving criticism and rebuke and,
most importantly, their immediate response to such experiences,
perhaps including shame or embarrassment rather than a presumed
grandiose rejection or indifference. Quite a few EMA studies have
been done with personality disorders, although this research has
been confined largely to the borderline (Santangelo, Bohus, &
Ebner-Priemer, 2014) and schizotypal (Barrantes-Vidal & Kwapil,
2014) personality disorders.
A difficulty for this EMA research, however, will be determining the optimal time frame for any such fluctuations. The precise
timing, duration, context, and nature of these oscillations are not
known (Wright, 2016). Similarly, in the current study, the precise
frequency or amount of time that would represent a significant
period of time or just some of the time was not precisely defined
for each trait, as this would likely vary across traits and would be
difficult to specify precisely for many of them.
Another potential implication of the current study is the possible
revision of existing self-report measures of narcissism to assess for
a narcissistic fluctuation. Predominant measures of the five-factor
model of general personality were justifiably criticized for failing
to include an assessment of emotional instability (Bradley et al.,
2011; Kamen, Pryor, Gaughan, & Miller, 2010; Westen & Shedler,
2007). Existing measures of the FFM, such as the NEO Personality
InventoryRevised (Costa & McCrae, 1992), assess for anxiousness, depressiveness, and/or angry hostility, but as traits with
stable, consistent levels in their expression of this negative affectivity. The affective instability of borderline personality disorder is
characterized instead by a fluctuation in the level and nature of
negative emotionality (American Psychiatric Association, 2013;
Westen & Shedler, 2007). Subsequently developed measures of
the FFM and its maladaptive variants have since addressed this
failing, as in the volatility subscale of the Big Five Aspects Scale
of DeYoung, Quilty, and Peterson (2007) and the affective dysreglation scale of the Five Factor Borderline Inventory (MullinsSweatt et al., 2012).
Existing measures of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism might
be similarly insensitive to a potential, if not apparent, fluctuation in
respective traits of narcissism. Although both the PNI (Pincus et
al., 2009) and the FFNI (Glover et al., 2012) include scales to
assess for both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, neither inventory specifically assesses for a potential fluctuation between
grandiose and vulnerable states. The PNI and FFNI includes such
grandiose scales as grandiose fantasies, arrogance, and indifference, and vulnerability scales such as entitlement rage, contingent
self-esteem, shame, and need for admiration, but in each instance,
the respective items presume or at least assess for a stable, consistent expression of each respective trait. If grandiose narcissists
do indeed experience episodes of significant shame, emptiness,
and/or embarrassment, it might be useful to include within mea-
370
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Limitations
The current study obtained ratings on traits of grandiose and
vulnerable narcissism from professors and clinicians concerning
persons identified as either a grandiose or vulnerable narcissist.
However, there was no control group of persons with no personality disorder (or another personality disorder), nor were ratings
obtained for normal traits (or traits of another personality disorder). In the absence of a comparison group, it is not certain that the
high ratings for the respective narcissistic traits are in fact descriptive of or specific to the respective personality syndromes. The
results of the current study would be understood quite differently
if an average person would be said to have an inflated self-image,
to be attention-seeking, or to feel helpless for a significant period
of time. It would be rather surprising to obtain such a finding.
Nevertheless, it would have been useful to have included comparison groups and additional traits for the sake of discriminant
validity.
The current study was confined to informant ratings. There are
evident advantages of using informants, particularly for the assessment of narcissism (Cooper et al., 2012). However, it is possible
that the professors were not sufficiently well trained or skilled to
identify a grandiose or a vulnerable narcissism. Perhaps only
practicing clinicians would have sufficient expertise. However, the
professors were clinical psychologists. They had doctoral degrees
in clinical psychology and would likely have a credible understanding of what is meant by a grandiose and/or a vulnerable
narcissist. Otherwise, it is unlikely that they would have participated or would have known someone they considered to be a
grandiose or a vulnerable narcissist. In addition, the professors
were provided a reasonably clear definition of what was meant by
a grandiose and a vulnerable narcissist. In support of the validity
of their ratings, they closely paralleled the FFM description of a
grandiose and a vulnerable narcissist obtained within other studies.
The description of the vulnerable narcissist that was provided
might not have been the optimal description. However, there does
not exist an official or consensus set of diagnostic criteria for the
diagnosis of a vulnerable narcissist. There is overlap among alternative descriptions, but there are many such alternatives (Bosson et
al., 2008; Cain et al., 2008; Caligor et al., 2015; Miller, Dir et al.,
2010, 2011; Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010; Wink, 1991). There is
not, as yet, a consensus or official set of diagnostic criteria that
could have been used.
The trait ratings were also confined to overt features of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. It might have also been useful to
ask the participants to rate the participants with respect to covert
features (e.g., fantasies, or a shyness that conceals an underlying
grandiosity). However, it would perhaps be likely that the professor sample would have had even less access to or awareness of
these features. On the other hand, the clinicians might have been
aware of covert features. The results of the current study did
indicate that the clinicians were more aware of the overt traits of
vulnerable narcissism within their overtly grandiose patients. The
results of the current study might be extended in future research
through the consideration of covert features.
Conclusions
Recent research has emphasized a distinction between grandiose
and vulnerable narcissism. It has been hypothesized that narcissistic persons may in fact fluctuate between a grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. The results of the current study support this
hypothesis, particularly for the occurrence of episodes of vulnerable narcissism within persons identified as grandiose narcissists.
It is suggested that future research replicate and extend these
findings with longitudinal studies that are sensitive to momentary
episodes of grandiose and vulnerable states.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Barrantes-Vidal, N., & Kwapil, T. R. (2014). The application of experience
sampling methodology for the study of individual differences in real life.
Personality and Individual Differences, 60, S6.
Block, J. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley, CA: Bancroft Books.
Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
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, 14151439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1751-9004.2008.00089.x
Bradley, B., DeFife, J. A., Guarnaccia, C., Phifer, J., Fani, N., Ressler,
K. J., & Westen, D. (2011). Emotion dysregulation and negative affect:
Association with psychiatric symptoms. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry,
72, 685 691. http://dx.doi.org/10.4088/JCP.10m06409blu
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.cpr.2007.09.006
Caligor, E., Levy, K. N., & Yeomans, F. E. (2015). Narcissistic personality
disorder: Diagnostic and clinical challenges. The American Journal of
Psychiatry, 172, 415 422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014
.14060723
Cooper, L. D., Balsis, S., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2012). Self- and informantreported perspectives on symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder.
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 140 154.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026576
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets
and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 93, 880 896. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.93.5.880
Enders, C. K. (2006). A primer on the use of modern missing-data methods
in psychosomatic medicine research. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68, 427
436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000221275.75056.d8
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,
500 512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.670680
Grilo, C. M., Becker, D. F., Edell, W. S., & McGlashan, T. H. (2001).
Stability and change of DSMIIIR personality disorder dimensions in
adolescents followed up 2 years after psychiatric hospitalization. Com-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
371