Personality and Individual Differences 177 (2021) 110780

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Narcissism through the lens of performative self-elevation

Mary Kowalchyk a, Helena Palmieri a, Elena Conte a, Pascal Wallisch a, b, *
a
Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, United States of America
b
Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, NY, United States of America

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is conceptualized as excessive self-love and divided into subtypes known
Narcissism as grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Psychopathy is also characterized by a grandiose sense of self. Here, we
Psychopathy aim to refine the understanding of how these conditions relate. We developed a scale to assess performative self-
Self-esteem
elevation (FLEX), designed to probe insecurity driven self-conceptualizations that manifest as impression man­
Insecurity
Self-elevation
agement lead to self-elevating tendencies. We correlated the FLEX scale with commonly used measures to
Pain investigate social desirability, self-esteem, and psychopathy in a high-powered sample of participants. We find
that FLEX correlates highly with narcissism, but not psychopathy. We conclude that narcissism corresponds most
closely to vulnerable narcissism and is characterized by self-elevating behaviors that are well captured by FLEX.

1. Introduction conceptualized as part of a constellation of “dark” personalities and

traits such as manipulativeness and psychopathy (Paulhus & WIlliams,
We are interested in the nature of narcissism. Narcissism is a per­ 2002; Anderson & Kiehl, 2014). This raises the possibility that these
sonality disorder that is conceptualized as excessive self-love and man­ conditions are more closely related than previously believed. It is
ifests as a grandiose sense of self-importance, entitlement, and important to recognize that there is considerable overlap in how these
superiority (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Auerbach, 1993; disorders manifest behaviorally and emotionally. For instance, a
Freud, 1914). narcissist may manipulate others to increase their status (Vaknin, 2019),
More recently, two subtypes of narcissism have been distinguished. and they may exhibit low empathy for others. However, such behavior
“Vulnerable narcissism” characterized by low self-esteem, anxiety about exhibited by a narcissist might be due to a focus on protection of self-
attachments and extreme sensitivity to criticism and “grandiose worth, even though these traits are primarily associated with psychop­
narcissism”, which manifests as high self-esteem, self-aggrandizement athy. Moreover, vulnerable - but not grandiose - narcissists experience
and self-importance (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Rohmann, Neumann, emotional dysregulation and false attribution of hostile disposition
Herner, & Bierhoff, 2012; Wink, 1991). This distinction has shown itself (Hansen-Brown & Freis, 2019; Zhang, Luo, Zhao, Zhang, & Wang,
to be fruitful - vulnerable narcissism is associated with low self-esteem, 2017).
life-satisfaction, and interdependent self-construct. Conversely, gran­ Grandiose narcissism seems to resemble psychopathy in many re­
diose narcissism is associated with high self-esteem and life-satisfaction spects, which raises the possibility that the tessellation of these condi­
and an independent self-construction (Rohmann, Hanke, & Bierhoff, tions could be improved. It appears to be the case that grandiose
2019; Rose, 2002). These differential attitudes also present behavior­ narcissism might be better understood as a manifestation of psychopa­
ally. Both grandiose and vulnerable narcissists have a tendency to thy. This notion is supported by the finding that individuals who
deliberately induce jealousy in their romantic partners, but for different strongly exhibit psychopathic traits also tend to have a grandiose sense
reasons - a vulnerable narcissist is motivated by insecurities and seeks of self-worth (Gustafson & Ritzer, 1995; Miller, Sleep, Crowe, & Lynam,
reassurance to compensate for low self-esteem whereas a grandiose 2020). Conversely, vulnerable narcissism might be better conceived of
narcissist induces jealousy primarily to gain power and control in the as “narcissism proper” or “primary narcissism”.
relationship (Tortoriello, Hart, Richardson, & Tullett, 2017). Thus, in this research, we aim to further refine the distinction be­
Considering differential underlying motivations opens up a broader tween vulnerable and grandiose narcissism. First, we note that the
perspective. Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is often distinction between vulnerable and grandiose narcissism resulted from

* Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, Room 401, New York, NY 10003, United States of America.
E-mail address: pascal.wallisch@nyu.edu (P. Wallisch).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110780
Received 13 October 2020; Received in revised form 10 February 2021; Accepted 12 February 2021
Available online 12 March 2021
0191-8869/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Kowalchyk et al. Personality and Individual Differences 177 (2021) 110780

statistical – not conceptual – considerations, namely the low internal Scale (SSS, Zuckerman, Kolin, Price, & Zoob, 1964) and the Stress Re­
consistency of commonly used narcissism scales (Wink, 1991). One action and Harm Avoidance: subscales of the Multidimensional Personality
problem with such an approach is that all of these measures derive from Questionnaire (MPQ, Tellegen, 1982).
direct self-reports. This is problematic because it is unclear what features
of the condition are primary and which are simply behavioral adapta­ 2.2.3. The Dark Triad Dirty Dozen*
tions. Someone who expects special favors from others or wants others This self-report scale was designed to measure “dark triad” traits
to admire them, as narcissists are known to do, could exhibit such be­ with a brief scale (Jonason & Webster, 2010), and we will refer to it as
haviors because they genuinely feel special and superior. Conversely, “DD” from now on. It contains 12 Likert items which consists of the four
manifesting such an attitude could be a behavioral adaptation to items which loaded most strongly on narcissism (NPI, Raskin & Terry,
compensate for insecurities related to a perceived inferiority by the in­ 1988), Machiavellianism (Match IV, Christie & Geis, 1970), and psy­
dividual. Here, we aim to improve on the current state of the literature chopathy (Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III, Paulhus, Hemphill, & Hare,
by assessing self-elevative behavioral tendencies directly. Whereas the 2012), respectively. DD has good internal consistency overall (ɑ = 0.83),
distinction between vulnerable and grandiose narcissists on the basis of as well as good internal consistency for each subscale: narcissism (ɑ =
self-esteem is compelling, many measures of self-esteem are not un­ 0.79), Machiavellianism (ɑ = 0.72), psychopathy (ɑ = 0.63). Addi­
problematic psychometrically. In addition, they are possibly contami­ tionally, DD showed a consistent pattern of convergent and discriminant
nated by considerations of social desirability (Falkenbach, Howe, & validity - for instance, it correlates well with the 12-item Aggression
Falki, 2013). Thus, we attempt to account for such tendencies in this Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and not with the Labile Self-Esteem
research as well. Scale (Dykman, 1998).
We predict that – in order to compensate for the perceived internally
low status – a vulnerable narcissist would profess higher appreciation of 2.2.4. Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe,
taste markers to gain perceived social status (Rodger, 2014). In contrast, 1960)
a grandiose narcissist would not do this, as from their perspective, there This 33-item, true-false, self-report scale was created to measure
is nothing to compensate for. Thus, revealing such preferences should tendencies of giving socially desirable answers in questionnaires. It has
allow us to differentiate between these two possibilities, beyond direct shown good internal reliability (ɑ = 0.88) and test-retest consistency (r
self-report. = 0.89). Additionally, the scale was shown to be valid as it correlates
with other social desirability scales, including the Edwards Social Desir­
2. Method ability Scale (r = 0.35). For the purpose of this study, we used an 18-items
subset that seemed most relevant to the current study and least dated,
2.1. Participants which we will term “SDS”.

Study participants were adults speaking English fluently that were 2.2.5. Authentic vs. Artificial Appearance Scale (AAAS)
recruited through the NYU “SONA” System. Study participation was We designed an instrument to assess whether participants prefer real
compensated with class credit. All participants (N = 310) gave informed or perceived gains to their quality of life or social standing. In the AAAS,
consent and received debriefing. We used data from 270 participants we elicited responses to forced choice questions (e.g. “Would you rather
(87 + %) for the analyses presented in this study. Data from the receive an award for work that you are not proud of or do work that you are
remaining participants were discarded for a variety of reasons, impor­ proud of but that goes unrecognized?”). This measure was inspired by
tantly failure to complete the task and failure to comply with study in­ social comparison theory (Wheeler, 1991) and includes eight scenarios
structions. The median age of participants whose data were used in from a wide range of social settings. See Appendix A for the items we
further analysis was 20 years old and the gender composition was 39% used.
male, 63% female; one participant did not disclose a gender.
2.2.6. Performative Refinement to soothe Insecurities about SophisticatioN
2.2. Measures (PRISN) Scale
We developed an instrument to measure performative refinement to
We used the following six measures and one task in the study re­ soothe deep seated insecurities about one’s cultural sophistication, a
ported here. specific kind of self-elevation tendency. It consists of relevant items
taken from other scales as well as items we created de novo to probe for
2.2.1. Rosenberg’s Self-esteem Scale (RSES)* cultural self-elevation tendencies. We incorporated a total of 23 items
This self-report scale, one of the most widely used measures for from previously developed scales, each with good reliability scores
global self-esteem in psychological research (Sinclair et al., 2010), when compared to the IPIP (Goldberg, 1992). Specifically, we used the
consists of ten Likert items. Half of the items are positively worded (e.g. following source-scales: four items from the Values in Action scale (VIA;
“On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”), while the other half are du Plessis & de Bruin, 2015; ɑ = 0.80), eight items from the NEO-PI-R
negatively worded (e.g. “I feel I do not have much to be proud of”) and (Costa Jr. & McCrae, 1992; ɑ = 0.94), seven items from the Balanced
reverse scored. This scale is considered reliable - at a reproducibility of Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1988; ɑ = 0.96, ɑ =
92%. It is also considered to be valid, as it correlates with the Leary 0.99), three items from the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan &
cScale of being gloomy and disappointed as well as depressive affect, as laid Hogan, 1992; ɑ = 0.87, ɑ = 0.87, ɑ = 0.86), and one item from the Self-
out in Society and the Adolescent Self-Image (Rosenberg, 1965). Consciousness scale (Buss, 1980; ɑ = 0.97, ɑ = 0.89). These items consist
of statements regarding how the participant feels about art (e.g. “I crave
2.2.2. Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP)* the experience of great art”), how they feel about themselves (e.g. “I just
This self-report scale was designed to identify psychopathic traits in a know I will be successful”) and how they feel about other people (e.g. “I
nonclinical population with 26 Likert items (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitz­ worry what other people think of me”). We created an additional 29 items
patrick, 1995). The underlying factor structure of this scale distinguishes along similar lines (e.g.“It is important for me to be seen with elite groups”),
primary (16 items) from secondary psychopathy (ten items). The LSRP including some items regarding attitudes and activities other than visual
primary psychopathy scale has been shown to have good reliability (ɑ = art (e.g. “I have a rich vocabulary”; “I go to the ballet”). All 52 statements
0.82) and the secondary scale has shown good reliability given its were presented as five-point Likert items (1 = Disagree strongly, 2 =
brevity (ɑ = 0.63). The LSRP also has validity, as it correlates with other Disagree a little, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree a little, 5 - Agree
scales predicting psychopathic traits, including the Sensation Seeking strongly.). Seven of the 52 items (statements such as “I feel insecure”, “I

2
M. Kowalchyk et al. Personality and Individual Differences 177 (2021) 110780

Demographic Information
0.7 0.35

0.6 0.3

0.5 0.25

0.4 0.2

0.3 0.15

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.05

0 0
Female Male Non-binary Demigirl Demiboy 19 20 18 21 22 24 23 25+

Gender Age
0.4 0.8

0.35 0.7

0.3 0.6

0.25 0.5

0.2 0.4

0.15 0.3

0.1 0.2

0.05 0.1

0 0
Asian White Hispanic Black South Asian Other Heterosexual Bisexual Pansexual Homosexual Asexual Other

Ethnicity Sexual Orientation

0.5 0.2

0.45 0.18

0.4 0.16

0.35 0.14

0.3 0.12

0.25 0.1

0.2 0.08

0.15 0.06

0.1 0.04

0.05 0.02

0 0
Progressive Liberal Moderate Conservative Libertarian Independent Agnostic Catholic Atheist Muslim Spiritual Protestant Jewish Buddhist Hindu Other

Political Orientation Religion

Fig. 1. Bar graph representing proportions of demographic information for 270 NYU undergraduate participants. Bar height represents proportion.

sometimes feel like a fraud”, or “I worry what other people think of me”) Agree a little, 5 - Agree strongly.
were used to assess insecurity. See Appendix A for the items we used in
this scale. 2.3. Task and study design

2.2.7. Moral dilemmas Participants were seated comfortably at a normal viewing distance
We asked participants to make binary choices in five moral di­ from a computer screen. They first completed a training session in which
lemmas. In each of these, the choice was either between a utilitarian they responded to mock questions that were not used in the study in
choice (saving many people) versus a self-serving choice (saving your­ order to familiarize themselves with the question and answer format for
self or people close to you). We crossed each scenario with five levels each question type. For instance, we asked them to respond to the
(saving [5 10 20 40 80] people) of utilitarianism each, yielding 25 statement “I am creative” using a Likert response format to familiarize
distinct trials. For instance, in one scenario the participant was con­ them with the general format of Likert items. Each participant respon­
fronted with a scenario where there are 2 burning buildings, one con­ ded to a total of 163 trials drawn from the six measures and the moral
taining their best friend and the other containing a large number of dilemma task described above, interleaved randomly. The sequence of
strangers and they have to pick which of the two fires to extinguish, if presentation was uniquely generated for each participant to prevent
there is only one hose available. We assessed both which choice was order effects. To also prevent carryover effects, we used a distractor task
made as well as how guilty making this choice made participants feel. where we asked participants to judge the quality of a piece of art be­
Some of these scenarios originate from the literature on moral cognition tween each question, alternating art and personality questions
such as the Trolley problem (Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & throughout. We ended the study with a demographic questionnaire
Cohen, 2001), others were created de novo by the researchers to tap where we assessed self-identity in terms of age, ethnicity, political
similar moral qualities without the confound of familiarity. affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religious affiliation.
*We decided to present these three scales (RSES, LSRP, and DD) with See Fig. 1 for a composition of our participant pool in these dimensions.
a five-point Likert scale, to prevent response polarization. The specific This study - including all measures and tasks we used - was approved by
implementation that we used for these questionnaires is as follows: 1 = the NYU Institutional Review Board (UCHAIS).
Disagree strongly, 2 = Disagree a little, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 =

3
M. Kowalchyk et al. Personality and Individual Differences 177 (2021) 110780

Table 1
Internal validity of PRISN facets.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Social Dominance Motivation 3.67 0.74 1.00 0.28* 0.28* 0.43* 0.00 0.15 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.06
2. Performative Self-Elevation 2.87 0.41 1.00 0.23 0.32* − 0.32 0.37* 0.04 0.05 0.30* 0.12
3. Explicit Impression Management 3.08 0.45 1.00 0.42* − 0.07 0.11 − 0.03 0.13 0.06 − 0.03
4. Need for Social Validation 3.38 0.59 1.00 − 0.01 0.26 0.18 0.22 0.04 0.24
5. Live Impression Management 3.30 1.09 1.00 0.04 0.02 − 0.14 0.04 0.08
6. Art Appreciation 3.50 0.53 1.00 − 0.02 0.21 0.26 0.13
7. Art Engagement 2.77 0.40 1.00 0.08 0.05 0.02
8. Self-Deception 3.61 1.09 1.00 0.02 0.05
9. Cultural Engagement 2.04 0.76 1.00 − 0.05
10. Neutral Statements 3.93 1.02 1.00
*
p < 1e− 5.

Statistical Properties of All Binary Sequences

A. 90 B. 90

80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50
Count

Count

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Correlation with Narcissism Cronbach's Alpha

Fig. 2. Omniverse histograms of all 1024 binary sequences of PRISN. A: Correlation between binary sequences and narcissism. B: Cronbach’s Alpha. Arrows indicate
where FLEX falls in this histogram. It is the only binary sequence in the far-right tail of both distributions.

2.4. Data analysis - the binary sequence corresponding to FLEX is the only one out of 1024,
where both internal consistency and correlation with narcissism is
All data were analyzed using MATLAB (Natick, MA). Specifically, we jointly high.
performed an omniverse analysis to assess the internal structure of the This yields a four item FLEX scale, see Fig. 3.
PRISN scale. In the omniverse analysis, we used all 1024 binary se­ Whereas the internal consistency of FLEX might appear somewhat
quences of the ten facets of PRISN to assess which had the highest in­ low in absolute terms, it is actually rather high, considering the fact that
ternal consistency and at the same time a high correlation with the this is an extremely brief, four-item scale, which will lend itself to rapid
external criterion - narcissism to identify the perFormative seLf- deployment (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann Jr., 2003; Kline, 2000). To
Elevation indeX (FLEX) subfactor. We then correlated FLEX scores assess the validity of FLEX, we correlated it with the other measures in
with the other measures in our study to validate the construct. To correct our study, see Table 2 for results.
for multiple comparisons and maintain a conservatively low false dis­ Additionally, FLEX correlates highly and specifically with another
covery rate at high power, we set alpha to 1e− 5. measure which has been validated to measure narcissism reliably.
Importantly, it does not correlate significantly with several measures of
3. Results psychopathy. Conversely, different measures of psychopathy correlate
very highly with each other, see Fig. 4.
We correlated all ten facets of PRISN (need for social validation, self- This suggests that - allowing for the reliabilities involved - our FLEX
deception, self-elevation behaviors, etc.) with each other, see Table 1. measure effectively measures an identical construct to narcissism, albeit
As you can see, there is a cluster of four facets that seem to correlate a different aspect of narcissism. The narcissism measures of the Dirty
strongly with each other. These facets make up a factor which we call Dozen scale we used do not mention anything about self-elevation or
FLEX. social dominance motivations, they simply ask for attitudes, e.g.
We assessed the internal consistency and correlation with an external whether one deserves special favors or is a special person. Note that the
criterion - narcissism - of FLEX with an Omniverse analysis. Specifically, difference between the correlation of 0.67 between LSRP and Dirty
we calculated internal consistency and correlation for each possible Dozen Psychopathy and the correlation between Dirty Dozen Narcissism
binary sequence of PRISN. We display the histogram of these metrics in and FLEX of 0.63 is not statistically significant. Note also that the cor­
Fig. 2. relation structure of the table is overall plausible. For instance, insecu­
As shown, determining FLEX as the relevant subfactor is not arbitrary rity is significantly and negatively correlated with self-esteem, but

4
M. Kowalchyk et al. Personality and Individual Differences 177 (2021) 110780

significantly and positively with guilt as evoked by the moral dilemmas.

Conversely – and highlighting the difference between vulnerable
EXPLICIT narcissism and psychopathy – LSRP scores are negatively and signifi­
IMPRESSION cantly correlated with moral guilt. Reinforcing our notion that narcis­
MANAGEMENT sism is born of insecurity and is linked to self-elevating behavior, both
r = .64 narcissism and FLEX also significantly correlate with insecurity.
Finally, it is reasonably that AAAS correlate negatively and signifi­
cantly with LSRP and manipulativeness and that people who are
exhibiting high levels of FLEX are willing to be manipulative.
NEED FOR
SOCIAL
VALIDATION 4. Discussion
SELF
r = .78
ELEVATION FLEX
r = .58 Here, we show a strong correlation between FLEX - a component of
PRISN - and narcissism. This correlation is surprising as it is born of
insecurities and is not better explained by socially desirable behavior. It
suggests that narcissism is better understood as a compensatory adap­
tation to overcome and cover up negative self-worth, instead of genuine
grandiosity and grandeur. The overall pattern of our results supports this
SOCIAL interpretation, as guilt is evoked differentially by moral dilemmas –
DOMINANCE individuals scoring high on measures of psychopathy exhibit low guilt
r = .79 whereas insecure individuals exhibit high guilt.
This research has several limitations. First, we developed two of the
six scales used here de novo, so it is important to validate them in other -
more diverse - participant populations (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan,
Fig. 3. FLEX and its components. Center: FLEX. Wedges: Components of FLEX - 2010). Similarly, we take these correlations at a snapshot in time - it
width represents the correlation between FLEX and any given component. would be more compelling to show how an increase in FLEX follows the
development of insecurities over time, establishing that it is indeed a
coping behavior and does not occur coincidentally. Third, the RSES scale
we deployed - while widely used - does seem rather dated at this point. It

Table 2
FLEX validity correlation results.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. FLEX 12.99 1.57 1.00 0.63* 0.38* 0.13 0.22 0.35* 0.11 − 0.17 − 0.19 − 0.10 − 0.11
2. Narcissism 3.43 0.73 1.00 0.50* 0.24 0.35* 0.51* − 0.03 − 0.29* − 0.21 − 0.07 − 0.06
3. Insecurity 3.46 0.55 1.00 0.18 0.20 0.24 − 0.36* − 0.39* − 0.08 0.18 − 0.02
4. Psychopathy 2.62 0.82 1.00 0.67* 0.47* − 0.23 0.31* − 0.14 − 0.17 − 0.12
5. LSRP 2.54 0.51 1.00 0.59* − 0.21 − 0.26 − 0.30* − 0.30* − 0.11
6. Manipulativeness 2.80 0.83 1.00 − 0.03 − 0.35* − 0.30* − 0.18 − 0.07
7. RSES 3.23 0.74 1.00 0.28* 0.03 − 0.16 − 0.05
8. Marlowe-Crowne 38.68 15.58 1.00 0.17 − 0.07 0.05
9. AAAS 6.48 1.31 1.00 0.05 0.01
10. Moral Guilt 0.65 0.23 1.00 0.13
11. Utilitarianism 1.36 0.39 1.00
*
p < 1e− 5.

A. r = 0.63 B. r = 0.67
5 5

4.5 4.5

4 4

3.5 3.5
Psychopathy
Narcissism

3 3

2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 1 2 3 4 5
FLEX LSRP

Fig. 4. The highest correlations in our study. A: FLEX vs. Narcissism. B: LSRP vs. Dirty Dozen Psychopathy. Dots represent participants.

5
M. Kowalchyk et al. Personality and Individual Differences 177 (2021) 110780

PHASE ONE: PHASE TWO: PHASE THREE:

PAIN SELF-ELEVATION PARADOXICAL SOCIAL REJECTION

WHERE THEY WANT WHERE THEY WANT WHERE THEY WANT

OTHERS TO PERCEIVE OTHERS TO PERCEIVE OTHERS TO PERCEIVE
THEM TO BE THEM TO BE THEM TO BE

INSECURITY
WHERE THEY THINK
OTHERS PERCEIVE
THEM TO BE
FEED
BACK
WHERE THEY THINK
OTHERS PERCEIVE
THEM TO BE

SELF-ELEVATION

WHERE THEY THINK

OTHERS PERCEIVE
THEM TO BE

Fig. 5. The self-elevation cascade. Phase One: There is a gap between how the individual wants others to perceive them, and how they think they are currently
perceived, which is experienced as insecurity, which causes pain. Phase Two: To reduce the pain quickly the individual engages in self-elevating behavior, which
raises the way how they think others perceive them, moving it closer to the aspirational state. Phase Three: However, this behavior leads to a repellent effects - others
de facto think less of the person than before, which - if communicated to the person by feedback increases the insecurities and the pain, leading to the last step of the
cascade: The now increased gap and insecurity will be felt even more acutely, which makes future self-elevating behavior even more likely.

would increase our confidence in these findings if they were replicated conditions drives any given behavior? Psychopaths are known to be
with more contemporary measures of self-esteem. Fourth, whereas this motivated by a desire to attain power (Hare, 1999). In contrast,
study was not designed to ascertain the source of narcissism, it would be narcissism manifests as a desire to pursue status (Zeigler-Hill et al.,
interesting to investigate what predisposes an individual to both in­ 2019). Of course, power and status are often correlated in the real world,
securities and self-elevating tendencies. We observe that not everyone which is presumably why this issue has been conflated in the existing
who experiences severe insecurities does develop a self-elevating coping literature on narcissism. One could design a study that juxtaposes power
style. Different coping styles are conceivable, for instance, one could seeking and status seeking motivations explicitly, for instance by
engage in strategic self-depreciation to lower expectations. creating an instrument with items that force a choice between outcomes
Finally, there are psychometric limitations. The narcissism scale we that entail high status/visibility but no real power (e.g. being head of
used contains only four items from the Dirty Dozen Scale, so we have state) vs. relative obscurity but a high-powered position (e.g. prime
only a relatively coarse metric for narcissism. To address concerns minister).
regarding using such a brief narcissism scale, future research should We predict that both psychopathic and narcissistic individuals will
employ a more differentiated narcissism scale, although our results are score high on classic measures of narcissism, but that individuals high on
so robust that we are confident that they will replicate with other psychopathic traits will prefer outcomes conferring power, whereas in­
narcissism scales. dividuals high on narcissistic traits will prefer outcomes conferring
Despite these limitations of the current study, we believe that our status.
pattern of findings suggests an interesting relationship between narcis­ Shifting the lens from psychopathy back to vulnerable narcissism,
sism and psychopathy, that has not been fully appreciated in the existing one remaining issue pertains to the motivations for self-elevating
literature. Specifically, we posit that what was previously seen as behavior specifically. It has been observed that the prevalence of
grandiose narcissism is actually better understood as one behavioral narcissistic behaviors seem to be on the rise (Brailovskaia & Margraf,
manifestation of psychopathy. Individuals with psychopathic traits tend 2016; Dingfelder, 2011). An increase in such behaviors – specifically
to genuinely believe in their own grandiosity (Hare, 1999; Hare & self-elevation – makes sense within the framework we propose here, as
Neumann, 2006) and do not present with any hint of insecurities (Kiehl, engaging with social media inherently inflicts constant social compari­
2015). In contrast, narcissism per se might be inherently vulnerable – son and appraisal, which could exacerbate insecurities about self-worth
characterized by insecurities and self-elevating behavior – in nature. (Vogel, Rose, Okdie, Eckles, & Franz, 2015). Thus – in turn – the FLEX
To validate such an understanding of the relationship between framework could also illuminate the rise in narcissistic behaviors, see
narcissism and psychopathy, it is important to recognize that the Fig. 5
interpretation of behavior is inherently ambiguous. Motivations and
intentions matter. So how would one distinguish which of the two

6
M. Kowalchyk et al. Personality and Individual Differences 177 (2021) 110780

5. Conclusion 7) Buy a laptop that you can afford but that is not as nice as that of your
friends
We conclude that grandiose narcissism is better understood as one Or
manifestation of the high self-regard exhibited by a related condition - Buy a laptop that you cannot afford but that is the same one as that
psychopathy. Conversely, vulnerable narcissism actually is narcissism of your friends.
proper, a behavioral adaptation to cope with and to mitigate the 8) Donate money anonymously for disaster relief
suffering imposed by insecurities about oneself. Or
Post a donation link for disaster relief to your social media
Author statement account.

This study was not pre-registered with or without an analysis plan in Performative Refinement to soothe Insecurities about SophisticatioN
an independent, institutional registry. (PRISN) Scale

Data sharing 1) I crave the experience of great art

1 Completely Disagree
Upon publication of this paper, data will become publicly available. 2 Somewhat Disagree
3 Neutral
Funding source 4 Somewhat Agree
5 Completely Agree
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding 2) I feel it is important to live in a world of beauty
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. 1 Completely Disagree
2 Somewhat Disagree
3 Neutral
Declaration of competing interest 4 Somewhat Agree
5 Completely Agree
The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests 3) I experience deep emotions when I see beautiful things
or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work 1 Completely Disagree
reported in this paper. 2 Somewhat Disagree
3 Neutral
Acknowledgements 4 Somewhat Agree
5 Completely Agree
Thank you to our research assistants for obtaining the data: Zhou 4) I fail to notice beauty until others comment on it
Fang, Ana Patricia Aguirre, Alexis Egazarian, Megan Cheung, Christall 1 Completely Disagree
Pierre and Caroline Myers. 2 Somewhat Disagree
3 Neutral
Appendix A 4 Somewhat Agree
5 Completely Agree
Authentic vs. Artificial Appearance Scale (AAAS) 5) I believe in the importance of art
1 Completely Disagree
Would you rather… 2 Somewhat Disagree
3 Neutral
1) Receive an award for work that you’re not proud of 4 Somewhat Agree
Or 5 Completely Agree
Do work that you are proud of, but goes unrecognized. 6) I do not like art
2) Be at a VIP event with celebrities that you don’t really respect 1 Completely Disagree
Or 2 Somewhat Disagree
Be with people that you respect but are nobodies. 3 Neutral
3) Pretend to be interested in something even though you’re not, in 4 Somewhat Agree
order to fit in 5 Completely Agree
Or 7) I do not enjoy going to art museums
Explore your genuine interests, even if others think they are 1 Completely Disagree
strange. 2 Somewhat Disagree
4) Pretend to know more about subjects than you actually do in order to 3 Neutral
impress a date 4 Somewhat Agree
Or 5 Completely Agree
Admit your lack of knowledge on some subjects even if you know 8) I am likely to show off if I get the chance
that people might judge you. 1 Completely Disagree
5) Increase your IQ by 15 points but have no one recognize that 2 Somewhat Disagree
Or 3 Neutral
Have everyone think that your IQ increased by 15 points even if it 4 Somewhat Agree
didn’t. 5 Completely Agree
6) Have an apartment that is half the size of your current one but twice 9) I am not always honest with myself
the size of those of your friends 1 Completely Disagree
Or 2 Somewhat Disagree
Have an apartment that is twice the size of your current one but 3 Neutral
half the size of those of your friends. 4 Somewhat Agree

7
M. Kowalchyk et al. Personality and Individual Differences 177 (2021) 110780

5 Completely Agree 5 Completely Agree

10) I put on a show to impress people 21) I feel comfortable with myself
1 Completely Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
2 Somewhat Disagree 2 Somewhat Disagree
3 Neutral 3 Neutral
4 Somewhat Agree 4 Somewhat Agree
5 Completely Agree 5 Completely Agree
11) I always admit when I make a mistake 22) I am not concerned with making a good impression
1 Completely Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
2 Somewhat Disagree 2 Somewhat Disagree
3 Neutral 3 Neutral
4 Somewhat Agree 4 Somewhat Agree
5 Completely Agree 5 Completely Agree
12) I see beauty in things that others might not notice 23) I have exquisite taste
1 Completely Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
2 Somewhat Disagree 2 Somewhat Disagree
3 Neutral 3 Neutral
4 Somewhat Agree 4 Somewhat Agree
5 Completely Agree 5 Completely Agree
13) I worry what other people think of me 24) Image is very important to me
1 Completely Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
2 Somewhat Disagree 2 Somewhat Disagree
3 Neutral 3 Neutral
4 Somewhat Agree 4 Somewhat Agree
5 Completely Agree 5 Completely Agree
14) I have a rich vocabulary 25) It matters to me that people think that I know what I’m talking
1 Completely Disagree about
2 Somewhat Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
3 Neutral 2 Somewhat Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 3 Neutral
5 Completely Agree 4 Somewhat Agree
15) I just know that I will be successful 5 Completely Agree
1 Completely Disagree 26) I strive to be the best in all areas
2 Somewhat Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
3 Neutral 2 Somewhat Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 3 Neutral
5 Completely Agree 4 Somewhat Agree
16) I feel threatened easily 5 Completely Agree
1 Completely Disagree 27) My friends and I are always up to date on the latest trends
2 Somewhat Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
3 Neutral 2 Somewhat Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 3 Neutral
5 Completely Agree 4 Somewhat Agree
17) I love to read challenging material 5 Completely Agree
1 Completely Disagree 28) It matters to me that I am seen at important events
2 Somewhat Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
3 Neutral 2 Somewhat Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 3 Neutral
5 Completely Agree 4 Somewhat Agree
18) I know that my decisions are usually correct 5 Completely Agree
1 Completely Disagree 29) It matters that I am seen with important people
2 Somewhat Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
3 Neutral 2 Somewhat Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 3 Neutral
5 Completely Agree 4 Somewhat Agree
19) I need the approval of others 5 Completely Agree
1 Completely Disagree 30) I sometimes feel like I am the only civilized person among brutes
2 Somewhat Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
3 Neutral 2 Somewhat Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 3 Neutral
5 Completely Agree 4 Somewhat Agree
20) I know the answers to many questions 5 Completely Agree
1 Completely Disagree 31) I am ignorant about art
2 Somewhat Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
3 Neutral 2 Somewhat Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 3 Neutral

8
M. Kowalchyk et al. Personality and Individual Differences 177 (2021) 110780

4 Somewhat Agree 4 Somewhat Agree

5 Completely Agree 5 Completely Agree
32) I am supremely able to recognize famous art 43) It is important for me to be an expert in many areas
1 Completely Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
2 Somewhat Disagree 2 Somewhat Disagree
3 Neutral 3 Neutral
4 Somewhat Agree 4 Somewhat Agree
5 Completely Agree 5 Completely Agree
33) I know more about art than most people 44) I sometimes feel inadequate and make up for it by pretending to
1 Completely Disagree be better than I am
2 Somewhat Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
3 Neutral 2 Somewhat Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 3 Neutral
5 Completely Agree 4 Somewhat Agree
34) I know more about art than my friends 5 Completely Agree
1 Completely Disagree 45) I sometimes feel like a fraud
2 Somewhat Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
3 Neutral 2 Somewhat Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 3 Neutral
5 Completely Agree 4 Somewhat Agree
35) I go to art galleries 5 Completely Agree
1 Completely Disagree 46) I feel the need to compensate for my lack of knowledge
2 Somewhat Disagree 1 Completely Disagree
3 Neutral 2 Somewhat Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 3 Neutral
5 Completely Agree 4 Somewhat Agree
36) I go to wine tastings 5 Completely Agree
1 Completely Disagree 47) I sometimes pretend to know more about subjects than I actually
2 Somewhat Disagree do
3 Neutral 1 Completely Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 2 Somewhat Disagree
5 Completely Agree 3 Neutral
37) I go to the theatre 4 Somewhat Agree
1 Completely Disagree 5 Completely Agree
2 Somewhat Disagree 48) I like feeling important
3 Neutral 1 Completely Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 2 Somewhat Disagree
5 Completely Agree 3 Neutral
38) I go to the ballet 4 Somewhat Agree
1 Completely Disagree 5 Completely Agree
2 Somewhat Disagree 49) I like feeling impressive
3 Neutral 1 Completely Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 2 Somewhat Disagree
5 Completely Agree 3 Neutral
39) Who you surround yourself with is a reflection of who you are 4 Somewhat Agree
1 Completely Disagree 5 Completely Agree
2 Somewhat Disagree 50) I feel insecure
3 Neutral 1 Completely Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 2 Somewhat Disagree
5 Completely Agree 3 Neutral
40) It is important for me to be seen with elite groups 4 Somewhat Agree
1 Completely Disagree 5 Completely Agree
2 Somewhat Disagree 51) I don’t care what people think of me
3 Neutral 1 Completely Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 2 Somewhat Disagree
5 Completely Agree 3 Neutral
41) I pride myself in my refined tastes 4 Somewhat Agree
1 Completely Disagree 5 Completely Agree
2 Somewhat Disagree 52) Image is very important to me
3 Neutral 1 Completely Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree 2 Somewhat Disagree
5 Completely Agree 3 Neutral
42) I like knowing more than other people 4 Somewhat Agree
1 Completely Disagree 5 Completely Agree
2 Somewhat Disagree
3 Neutral

9
M. Kowalchyk et al. Personality and Individual Differences 177 (2021) 110780

References Kiehl, K. A. (2015). The psychopath whisperer: The science of those without conscience.
Broadway Books.
Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing. Psychology Press.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic
disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association, 2013.
attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social
Anderson, N. E., & Kiehl, K. A. (2014). Psychopathy: Developmental perspectives and
Psychology, 68(1), 151.
their implications for treatment. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 32(1),
Miller, J. D., Sleep, C. E., Crowe, M. L., & Lynam, D. R. (2020). Psychopathic boldness:
103–117.
Narcissism, self-esteem, or something in between? Personality and Individual
Auerbach, J. S. (1993). The origins of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: A
Differences, 155, 109761.
theoretical and empirical reformulation. In J. M. Masling, & R. F. Bornstein (Eds.),
Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Balanced inventory of desirable responding (BIDR). In , Measures
Psychoanalytic perspectives on psychopathology: Vol. 4. Empirical studies of
Package: 41. Acceptance and commitment therapy (pp. 79586–79587).
psychoanalytic theories (pp. 43–110). American Psychological Association.
Paulhus, D. L., Hemphill, J. F., & Hare, R. D. (2012). Self-report psychopathy scale (SRP-
Brailovskaia, J., & Margraf, J. (2016). Comparing Facebook users and Facebook non-
III). Toronto: Multi-health systems.
users: Relationship between personality traits and mental health variables–an
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
exploratory study. PLoS One, 11(12), Article e0166999.
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality., 36, 556–563.
Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. Freeman.
du Plessis, G. A., & de Bruin, G. P. (2015). Using Rasch modelling to examine the
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and
international personality item pool (IPIP) values in action (VIA) measure of
Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459.
character strengths. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 25(6), 512–521.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic
Raskin, R. N., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal components analysis of theNarcissistic
Press.
personality inventory and further evidence of its constructvalidity. Journal of
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (neo-PI-R) and
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890–902.
NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Rodger, E. (2014). My twisted world. https://bit.ly/2Ycq3bC.
Assessment Resources.
Rohmann, E., Hanke, S., & Bierhoff, H. W. (2019). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
in relation to life satisfaction, self-esteem, and self-construal. Journal of Individual
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349.
Differences., 40, 194–203.
Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and
Rohmann, E., Neumann, E., Herner, M. J., & Bierhoff, H. W. (2012). Grandiose and
vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17(3), 188–207.
vulnerable narcissism. European Psychologist, 17(4), 279–290.
Dingfelder, S. F. (2011). Reflecting on narcissism. Science, 1(1).
Rose, P. (2002). The happy and unhappy faces of narcissism. Personality and Individual
Dykman, B. M. (1998). Integrating cognitive and motivational factors in depression:
Differences, 33(3), 379–391.
Initial tests of a goal-orientation approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, New Jersey:
Psychology, 74, 139–158.
Princeton University Press.
Falkenbach, D. M., Howe, J. R., & Falki, M. (2013). Using self-esteem to disaggregate
Sinclair, S. J., Blais, M. A., Gansler, D. A., Sandberg, E., Bistis, K., & LoCicero, A. (2010).
psychopathy, narcissism, and aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(7),
Psychometric properties of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Overall and across
815–820.
demographic groups living within the United States. Evaluation & the Health
Freud, S. (1914). On narcissism. In The standard edition of the complete psychological works
Professions, 33(1), 56–80.
of Sigmund Freud, volume XIV (1914–1916): On the history of the psycho-analytic
Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. 8 pp.
movement, papers on metapsychology and other works (pp. 67–102).
1010–1031). Minneapolis: Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
Tortoriello, G. K., Hart, W., Richardson, K., & Tullett, A. M. (2017). Do narcissists try to
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
make romantic partners jealous on purpose? An examination of motives for
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the big
deliberate jealousy-induction among subtypes of narcissism. Personality and
five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.
Individual Differences, 114, 10–15.
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An
Vaknin, S. (2019). Narcissists, narcissistic supply and source of supply. http://samvak.
fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science., 293(5537),
tripod.com/faq76.html#narcissisticsupply.
2105–2108.
Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Okdie, B. M., Eckles, K., & Franz, B. (2015). Who compares and
Gustafson, S. B., & Ritzer, D. R. (1995). The dark side of normal: A psychopathy-linked
despairs? The effect of social comparison orientation on social media use and its
pattern called aberrant self-promotion. European Journal of Personality, 9(3),
outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 249–256.
147–183.
Wheeler, L. (1991). A brief history of social comparison theory. In J. Suls, & T. A. Wills
Hansen-Brown, A. A., & Freis, S. D. (2019). Assuming the worst: Hostile attribution bias
(Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 3–21). Inc: Lawrence
in vulnerable narcissists. Self and Identity, 1–13.
Erlbaum Associates.
Hare, R. D. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us.
Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61
Guilford Press.
(4), 590.
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006). The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy. Handbook
Zeigler-Hill, V., Vrabel, J. K., McCabe, G. A., Cosby, C. A., Traeder, C. K., Hobbs, K. A., &
of Psychopathy, 58–88.
Southard, A. C. (2019). Narcissism and the pursuit of status. Journal of Personality, 87
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?
(2), 310–327.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.
Zhang, H., Luo, Y., Zhao, Y., Zhang, R., & Wang, Z. (2017). Differential relations of
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1992). Hogan personality inventory manual (2nd ed.). Tulsa, OK:
grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism to emotion dysregulation: Self-
Hogan Assessment Systems.
esteem matters. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 20(3–4), 232–237.
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark
Zuckerman, M., Kolin, E. A., Price, L., & Zoob, I. (1964). Development of a sensation-
triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420.
seeking scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28(6), 477.

10