Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder.

Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology (Impact Factor: 12.92). 12/2009; 6:421-46. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131215
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We review the literature on pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) and describe a significant criterion problem related to four inconsistencies in phenotypic descriptions and taxonomic models across clinical theory, research, and practice; psychiatric diagnosis; and social/personality psychology. This impedes scientific synthesis, weakens narcissism's nomological net, and contributes to a discrepancy between low prevalence rates of NPD and higher rates of practitioner-diagnosed pathological narcissism, along with an enormous clinical literature on narcissistic disturbances. Criterion issues must be resolved, including clarification of the nature of normal and pathological narcissism, incorporation of the two broad phenotypic themes of narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability into revised diagnostic criteria and assessment instruments, elimination of references to overt and covert narcissism that reify these modes of expression as distinct narcissistic types, and determination of the appropriate structure for pathological narcissism. Implications for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the science of personality disorders are presented.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study was designed to clarify the associations between covert narcissism, overt narcissism, negative affect, and child physical abuse (CPA) risk. It was hypothesized that covert (but not overt narcissism) would be significantly associated with parental CPA risk and that negative affect would partially mediate this association. General population parents (N = 178; 33 % male) with varying degrees of CPA risk completed self-report measures of covert narcissism, overt narcissism, and negative affect. Results revealed that at the bivariate level, covert narcissism and two subscales of the overt narcissism measure (exploitativeness and entitlement) were significantly correlated with CPA risk. However, when covert narcissism and overt narcissism were considered simultaneously in a regression analysis, only covert narcissism emerged as a significant predictor of CPA risk. Results of a path analysis supported the prediction that negative affect partially mediated the association between covert narcissism and CPA risk. Findings from the present study illustrate the value of assessing both overt and covert narcissistic features in research investigating the role of narcissism in interpersonal violence. Moreover, the results revealed that covert narcissism was associated with CPA risk, even after accounting for their mutual associations with negative affect. Additional research is needed to explicate the other cognitive/affective mechanisms through which covert narcissism increases risk of aggressive parenting behavior.
    Journal of Family Violence 04/2015; 30(3). DOI:10.1007/s10896-015-9672-3 · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: When an individual estimates the temporal interval between a voluntary action and a consequent effect, their estimates are shorter than the real duration. This perceived shortening has been termed "intentional binding", and is often due to a shift in the perception of a voluntary action forward towards the effect and a shift in the perception of the effect back towards the action. Despite much work on binding, there is virtually no consideration of individual/personality differences and how they affect it. Narcissism is a psychological trait associated with an inflated sense of self, and individuals higher in levels of subclinical narcissism tend to see themselves as highly effective agents. Conversely, lower levels of narcissism may be associated with a reduced sense of agency. In this exploratory study, to assess whether individuals with different scores on a narcissism scale are associated with differences in intentional binding, we compared perceived times of actions and effects (tones) between participants with high, middle, and low scores on the narcissistic personality inventory (NPI). We hypothesized that participants with higher scores would show increased binding compared to participants with lower scores. We found that participants in our middle and high groups showed a similar degree of binding, which was significantly greater than the level of binding shown by participants with the lowest scores. To our knowledge, these results are the first to demonstrate that different scores on a personality scale are associated with changes in the phenomenological experience of action, and therefore underscore the importance of considering individual/personality differences in the study of volition. Our results also reinforce the notion that intentional binding is related to agency experience.
    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 02/2015; 9:13. DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00013 · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study examined the characteristics of individuals (N = 104 undergraduate couples) who date grandiosely or vulnerably narcissistic individuals, including the experience of developmental trauma, general and pathological personality traits, and psychopathology, using multiple data sources. In addition, relationship duration was tested as a moderator of the relations between the narcissism dimensions and relationship adjustment. Actor–Partner Interdependence Models indicated that negative relationship adjustment was found when both partners had higher entitlement/exploitativeness traits and had been together for a longer period of time. Overall, there were no clear patterns of partner characteristics, although some evidence for homophily emerged for traits related to grandiose narcissism.
    Personality and Individual Differences 06/2015; 79. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.029 · 1.86 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 20, 2014