Are there such things as “Narcissists” in social psychology? A taxometric analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
Introduction
Narcissism has an extensive history as both a clinical and social psychological construct (see Campbell and Foster, 2007, Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001). As a clinical construct, narcissism grew to prominence with the writings of Freud (1914/1957). Kernberg, 1974, Kernberg, 1975, Kohut, 1977 continued this clinical tradition, which ultimately led to the inclusion of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) in the DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980).
Freud’s (1931) essay on libidinal types and Murray’s (1938) work on “narcism” or egophilia mark classic examples of narcissism conceptualized as a component of normal personality. A recent surge in narcissism research by social psychologists was prompted by the development of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979). The development of the NPI was based on the clinical criteria for NPD, with the idea being that non-disordered persons often exhibit cognitive/behavioral patterns similar to those with NPD. The NPI has now been used in well over 100 investigations, has proven to be a reliable and valid assessment of narcissism as it occurs in the general population (del Rosario and White, 2005, Raskin and Terry, 1988), and is the primary measure of narcissism in the social psychological literature.
The clinical and social psychology concepts of narcissism share many similarities, but differ on one important aspect. In clinical psychology, narcissism is specified as a personality disorder. Based upon a set of diagnostic criteria individuals either have NPD or they do not. Put differently, the structure of clinical narcissism is taxonic. In contrast, social psychologists generally view narcissism as a dimension. According to this view, there is no categorical property to the structure of narcissism. There exists no point along the narcissism continuum where one shifts from “normal” to “narcissist.”
The view that NPD, and personality disorders in general, have underlying taxa is controversial in the clinical domain. Many argue that personality disorders are extensions of normal personality continua and thus dimensional (e.g., Livesley et al., 1994, Markon et al., 2005, Widiger and Costa, 1994, Widiger et al., 2005). The taxonic orientation remains prominent, however, and has received empirical support (e.g., Haslam, 2003). Indeed, with specific respect to NPD, the current evidence favors a taxonic view (Fossati et al., 2005). That is, NPD appears to be a qualitatively distinct personality syndrome.
In social psychology, there has been far less debate over the dimensional/taxonic structure of personality traits. The general assumption is that personality is dimensional and the research generally supports this position. There are examples of proposed taxonic personality traits (e.g., self-monitoring, Gangestad & Snyder, 1985; type-A personality, Strube, 1989), but more often than not, personality exhibits dimensional properties (e.g., five-factor model of personality, Arnau et al., 1999, Green et al., 1999). Although the dimensional/taxonic properties of narcissism have not been investigated in the social psychology literature, the assumption seems to be that it too should be conceptualized as a dimension.
In summary, the taxonic view of narcissism has received empirical support in the clinical literature (Fossati et al., 2005). Little is known, however, about the structure of narcissism as it pertains to social psychology. The assumption then perhaps should be that narcissism is categorical, which would fit with the clinical evidence. This assumption is at odds, however, with how narcissism is viewed in social psychology. Indeed, to the extent that narcissism is categorical, changes to method, analysis, and theory may be necessitated. For example, some narcissism correlations may be driven by individuals with elevated NPI scores, but who are nevertheless members of a putative “non-narcissist” group. These findings may say very little about the functioning of “narcissists”. If the putative “narcissist” group is relatively small, it is even possible that some research on narcissism fails to capture any “narcissists” at all. This would be like studying gender differences in a female-only sample.
It is noteworthy that Fossati et al. (2005) investigated narcissism from a clinical perspective. They assessed narcissism using measures that capture NPD (e.g., Structured Clinical Interview for DSM; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 1995) administered to a clinical sample. It is unknown whether their results might generalize to narcissism as it is assessed by the NPI and in individuals selected from the general population, which is more representative of social psychological research. However, considering that (i) the content of the NPI was designed to reflect the diagnostic criteria for NPD (Raskin and Hall, 1979, Raskin and Terry, 1988) and (ii) scores on the NPI are strongly correlated with clinically valid measures of NPD that are administered to clinical samples (Prifitera & Ryan, 1984), there is reason to expect Fossati et al.’s (2005) results to generalize to the NPI. Consequently, there is a real need to formally test the structural properties of the NPI and specifically to determine whether social psychologists should conceptualize narcissism as a category or continuum.
Section snippets
Present study
The present study was conducted to remedy the lack of evidence concerning the taxonic/dimensional nature of narcissism as it is operationalized within the social psychology literature. To this end, the NPI was administered to 3895 participants. Responses were analyzed using three analytic procedures designed to distinguish taxa from dimensions—collectively referred to as taxometrics (Ruscio et al., 2006, Waller and Meehl, 1998).
Participants and procedure
A total of 3895 participants (75% female; 81% Caucasian; M age = 25.0, SD = 8.9; range = 17–70) completed an online version of the NPI (see Foster, Campbell, & Twenge, 2003 for details). All participants reported being American and English speaking and were part of a larger international study on narcissism (n = 5965) that was conducted between the years 2001 and 2003. A portion of these data was reported in Foster et al. (2003). Although it is likely that some of these participants were receiving
Results
We present the results of the taxometric procedures in three sections: evidence stemming from (i) visual inspection of plots, (ii) comparisons between research and simulated data, and (iii) consistency of putative taxon base rate estimates.1 Again, taxonicity is evidenced by (i) plots that visually reflect taxonic distributions (e.g., MAMBAC and MAXEIG plots that are peaked; L-Mode plots that
Discussion
Evidence from three independent taxometric procedures strongly supported the dimensional perspective of narcissism. Graphically, the shapes of the plots produced by the procedures were indicative of dimensionality. Comparing the research data to multiple sets of simulated taxonic and dimensional data showed that the research data more closely matched the simulated dimensional data. Finally, base rate estimates varied within and among the procedures and were unrealistic. Based upon these
References (36)
- et al.
The narcissistic personality inventory: Test–retest stability and internal consistency
Personality and Individual Differences
(2005) - et al.
A latent structure analysis of diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th ed., Narcissistic personality disorder criteria
Comprehensive Psychiatry
(2005) - et al.
Individual differences in narcissism: Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world
Journal of Research in Personality
(2003) The dimensional view of personality disorders: A review of the taxometric evidence
Clinical Psychology Review
(2003)- et al.
Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reexamination of Murray’s Narcism Scale
Journal of Research in Personality
(1997) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(1980)Diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders, revised
(1987)- Arnau, R. C., Green, B. A., & Tubre, T. (1999). Taxometric analysis of Goldberg’s five-factor markers. Poster presented...
- et al.
Is depression taxonic, dimensional, or both?
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
(2003) - et al.
Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure
Journal of Personality Assessment
(2004)
The narcissistic self: Background, an extended agency model, and ongoing controversies
Narcissism: Theory and measurement
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
The structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R personality disorders (SCID-II): I. Description
Journal of Personality Disorders
On narcissism: An introduction
Libidinal types
To carve nature at its joints: on the existence of discrete classes in personality
Psychological Review
Barriers to falling and remaining in love
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association
Cited by (178)
Vice-chancellor narcissism and university performance
2024, Research PolicyNarcissism in the workforce: How employees respond to contract frame
2023, Accounting, Organizations and SocietyUpsetting the apple cart: Within-team profiles of intragroup conflict and their associations with narcissism
2022, Psychology of Sport and ExerciseModerating impact of narcissism on the link between contextual variables and perceptions of fairness
2021, Personality and Individual DifferencesJoint trajectories of adolescent narcissism and self-esteem predict interpersonal features in young adulthood
2021, Journal of Research in Personality