Interpersonal Perception of Pathological Narcissism: A Social Relations Analysis

Abstract

Impairments in self and interpersonal functioning are core features of personality pathology. Clinical theory and research indicate that compromised self-awareness and distorted interpersonal perceptions are particularly prominent in individuals exhibiting pathological narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Therefore we conducted a study to gain a better understanding of interpersonal perception of pathological narcissism. A large sample (N = 437) of moderately acquainted individuals assigned to 1 of 93 small mixed-sex groups completed self- and informant ratings on the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI) in a round-robin design. The social relations model (SRM) was used to partition the variance in dyadic ratings to investigate several hypotheses about interpersonal perception of pathological narcissism. SRM analyses demonstrated evidence of assimilation (the tendency to perceive and rate others similarly) and consensus (the extent to which multiple observers form similar impressions of another person) in interpersonal perception of pathological narcissism. Results also indicated modest self-other agreement and assumed similarity (the tendency for people to perceive others as similar to themselves) for PNI higher order factors and subscale ratings. Finally, results suggested that individuals high in pathological narcissism had some awareness of how peers would rate them (metaperception) but believed that others would rate them similarly to how they rated themselves.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]
On: 17 April 2013, At: 13:01
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Personality Assessment
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
Interpersonal Perception of Pathological Narcissism: A
Social Relations Analysis
Mark R. Lukowitsky a & Aaron L. Pincus b
a Department of Psychiatry, Albany Medical College
b Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University
Version of record first published: 13 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Mark R. Lukowitsky & Aaron L. Pincus (2013): Interpersonal Perception of Pathological Narcissism: A Social
Relations Analysis, Journal of Personality Assessment, 95:3, 261-273
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.765881
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Personality Assessment,95(3), 261–273, 2013
Copyright C
Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 online
DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2013.765881
Interpersonal Perception of Pathological Narcissism:
A Social Relations Analysis
MARK R. LUKOWITSKY1AND AARON L. PINCUS2
1Department of Psychiatry, Albany Medical College
2Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University
Impairments in self and interpersonal functioning are core features of personality pathology. Clinical theory and research indicate that com-
promised self-awareness and distorted interpersonal perceptions are particularly prominent in individuals exhibiting pathological narcissism and
Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Therefore we conducted a study to gain a better understanding of interpersonal perception of pathological narcis-
sism. A large sample (N=437) of moderately acquainted individuals assigned to 1 of 93 small mixed-sex groups completed self- and informant
ratings on the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI) in a round-robin design. The social relations model (SRM) was used to partition the variance
in dyadic ratings to investigate several hypotheses about interpersonal perception of pathological narcissism. SRM analyses demonstrated evidence
of assimilation (the tendency to perceive and rate others similarly) and consensus (the extent to which multiple observers form similar impressions of
another person) in interpersonal perception of pathological narcissism. Results also indicated modest self–other agreement and assumed similarity
(the tendency for people to perceive others as similar to themselves) for PNI higher order factors and subscale ratings. Finally, results suggested
that individuals high in pathological narcissism had some awareness of how peers would rate them (metaperception) but believed that others would
rate them similarly to how they rated themselves.
The question of what one knows about oneself dates back to an-
tiquity and early Greek philosophers who mused about the na-
ture and importance of self-awareness (Vazire & Carlson, 2010).
The importance of self-awareness has also been exalted by reli-
gious leaders, contemporary philosophers, and psychologists as
a hallmark of psychological health. Consistent with this perspec-
tive, impairments in self and interpersonal functioning are core
features of personality pathology (Caligor & Clarkin, 2010; Pin-
cus & Hopwood, 2012; Skodal et al., 2011) and individuals diag-
nosed with personality disorders (PDs) often display limited in-
sight about their self-functioning and impact on others. Clinical
theory and research indicate that compromised self-awareness
and distorted interpersonal perceptions are particularly promi-
nent in individuals exhibiting pathological narcissism and Nar-
cissistic Personality Disorder (NPD; Dimaggio et al., 2007; Olt-
manns, Gleason, Klonsky, & Turkheimer, 2005). Research also
suggests that individuals with high scores on narcissistic traits
have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, possess overly
positive self-impressions of personal qualities and performance,
and see themselves as engaging in many socially desirable be-
haviors (Clifton, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, 2004; Gosling, John,
Craik, & Robins, 1998; John & Robins, 1994; Robins & Beer,
2001). To maintain their positive self-perception, narcissistic
individuals often use interpersonal relations to help bolster their
sense of self and might minimize or disregard information that
contradicts their positive self-assessment (Morf & Rhodewalt,
2001).
Limited self-awareness and distorted interpersonal percep-
tions are also likely to affect responses to self-report question-
naires that ask individuals to describe their personality and in-
Received January 15, 2012; Revised June 1, 2012.
Address correspondence to Mark R. Lukowitsky, Department of Psychia-
try, Albany Medical College, 25 Hackett Blvd., Albany, NY 12208; Email:
lukoson@gmail.com
teractions with others, resulting in potentially biased informa-
tion. This seems particularly true when individuals are asked to
endorse socially undesirable aspects of the self, including nar-
cissistic traits (John & Robins, 1993; Paulhus, 1998). Thus, self-
report data provide important information about individuals, but
not a complete picture. Because much of what is considered cen-
tral to personality is interpersonal in nature, informant ratings
are often considered to be an important criterion and a critical
methodological tool in personality assessment (Kenny, 1994;
Vazire & Carlson, 2010; Watson & Clark, 1991). Increasing
evidence supports recommendations to supplement self-report
measures with informant ratings of adult psychopathology for
both clinical assessment and research purposes (e.g., Achen-
bach, Krukowski, Dumenci, & Ivanova, 2005; Clark, Livesley, &
Morey, 1997; Klonsky, Oltmanns, & Turkheimer, 2002; Meyer
et al., 2001; South, Oltmanns, Johnson, & Turkheimer, 2011;
Westen & Shedler, 1999). Using self- and informant ratings to
understand the characteristic beliefs and impressions that peo-
ple have about their own and others’ personality and behavior
lies at the heart of interpersonal perception and offers several
opportunities for understanding how people perceive and rate
their own and others’ personality traits (Kenny, 1994).
Given the recognition that personality pathology is associ-
ated with distorted perceptions of self and others, the field’s
emphasis on self-report questionnaires and interviews is curi-
ous (Oltmanns & Lawton, 2011). Although frequently used in
research on normal personality traits (Connolly, Kavanagh, &
Viswesvaran, 2007), few studies have used self- and informant
ratings to investigate disruptions in normal personality and adult
psychopathology more generally. In an analysis of self- and in-
formant reports of PD diagnoses, Klonsky et al. (2002) could
find only 30 published studies between the years 1887 and 2001
that included both self and informant data. Of those 30 studies,
only 17 reported the level of agreement between self- and infor-
mant reports of PD traits. With few exceptions (e.g., Bagby et al.,
261
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:01 17 April 2013

262 LUKOWITSKY AND PINCUS
1998; Miller, Pilkonis, & Morse, 2004; Ready & Clark, 2002),
researchers have consistently found modest levels of self–other
agreement of personality pathology regardless of whether the
ratings are collected from clinical or nonclinical samples (e.g.,
Clifton et al., 2004; Davidson, Obonsawin, Seils, & Patience,
2003; McKeeman & Erickson, 1997; Modestin & Puhan, 2000;
Oltmanns, Turkheimer, & Strauss, 1998). Klonsky et al. (2002)
reported that agreement between the sources using both con-
tinuous and categorical diagnoses of personality pathology was
consistently low and that NPD is particularly prone to self–other
discrepancies.
AMULTIPLE PERSPECTIVE APPROACH:
INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION
Few studies have used informant ratings to investigate
self–other agreement of PD traits, but even fewer have used
multiple informant perspectives. Klonsky et al. (2002) noted
that of the 30 studies they reviewed that included informant
data, 26 of them gathered information from only one informant,
and none of the remaining 4 used more than two informants. Fur-
thermore, in 29 studies the target selected the informant. How-
ever, for a number of reasons, relying on only one self-selected
informant might limit what can be learned about self–other
discrepancies. As noted by Klonsky et al. (2002), relying on
only one self-selected informant can be problematic, as a sin-
gle informant is not only less reliable than multiple informants
but also provides only one perspective. With these concerns in
mind, some researchers have begun to utilize multiple infor-
mants to investigate discrepancies and systematic patterns of
association between self- and other ratings of PD traits and di-
agnoses including NPD (Oltmanns & Gleason, 2011; Oltmanns
& Turkheimer, 2006). When ratings are collected from multiple
informants who rate multiple targets, it allows researchers to
study several interrelated questions about interpersonal percep-
tion (Kenny, 1994; Kenny, Mohr, & Levesque, 2001; Kenny &
West, 2010). Kenny (1994) outlined several basic questions in
interpersonal personal perception to describe the impressions
people develop about themselves and others.
Assimilation
One basic issue in interpersonal perception concerns assimi-
lation or the tendency for a perceiver to see and rate multiple tar-
gets similarly (Kenny, 1994). Kenny (1994) noted that a number
of researchers from personality, social, and clinical psychology
have suggested that people tend to have a generalized view of
what the typical person is like and have proposed a variety of
terms including “personal constructs,” “schemas,” and “internal
working model,” that reflect assimilation. In studies of inter-
personal perception, assimilation is measured by variance in the
perceiver effect (described in further detail following). Research
studying assimilation suggests that it explains a nontrivial pro-
portion of the variance in ratings of interpersonal perception
(Kenny, 1994; Kenny et al. 2001). Few studies have investi-
gated assimilation of pathological personality traits; however,
Mahaffey and Marcus (2006) investigated interpersonal percep-
tion of psychopathy and found that to a large extent individuals
assimilated their perceptions of others’ level of psychopathy ac-
cording to their own idiosyncratic views. Such results raise the
question as to why some people are more likely than others to
perceive personality pathology in others.
Consensus
Another fundamental topic in interpersonal perception con-
cerns consensus, or the extent to which multiple raters agree in
their perception and rating of a common target (Kenny, 1994).
Consensus in studies of interpersonal perception is estimated by
variance in the target effect (described in further detail later).
The evidence for consensus in interpersonal perception is not
as robust as are findings for assimilation; nonetheless, there is
sufficient evidence across studies of consensus in ratings of tar-
gets, even at low levels of acquaintance (Albright, Kenny, &
Malloy, 1988). Research findings also suggest that informants
tend to agree with each other in their assessment of patholog-
ical personality traits in others even when the perceptions are
based on thin slices of behavior (Klonsky et al., 2002; Mahaffey
& Marcus, 2006; Oltmanns, Friedman, Fiedler, & Turkheimer,
2004; C. Thomas, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, 2003). Finally, ev-
idence suggests that despite low overall self–other correlations,
informants tend to agree with each other in their assessment
of a target’s narcissism (Coolidge, Burns, & Mooney, 1995;
Oltmanns et al., 1998).
Assumed Similarity
The construct of assumed similarity is related to self-
perception and reflects the extent to which people see others
the way they see themselves (Cronbach, 1955; Kenny, 1994).
Assumed similarity has also been used to help explain assimila-
tion, as it suggests that one source of information that people use
when forming their impressions of others in general is how they
see themselves. Research has generally supported evidence of
assumed similarity, suggesting that people tend to rate others the
way they rate themselves (Kenny, 1994). Mahaffey and Marcus
(2006) reported that participants who saw themselves high in
psychopathy were also likely to perceive others as psychopathic.
Although assumed similarity of pathological personality traits
has not often been investigated, it has implications for under-
standing personality pathology. For example, individuals who
perceive others as possessing negative intent and as sharing the
same negative assumptions about others that they do might cre-
ate an interpersonal environment that perpetuates many of their
own maladaptive interpersonal patterns (Mahaffey & Marcus,
2006).
Metaperception
Another topic in interpersonal perception concerns metaper-
ception, or the ability to understand how others perceive the
self. The question of whether people know how others view
them has a long history across disciplines (e.g., Cooley, 1902;
Mead, 1934; Stryker, 1980). Research on metaperceptions sug-
gests that people do have some generalized awareness of how
others perceive them (Kenny, 1994; Kenny & DePaulo, 1993).
Oltmanns et al. (2005) studied metaperceptions of PD traits
and reported that people expected others to view them the way
they viewed themselves but that they did have some knowledge
about how others actually perceived them. It is notable that
those who expected their peers to view them as more narcissis-
tic were indeed seen as narcissistic, but less so than those who
denied being narcissistic, suggesting that insight might moder-
ate the negative impacts of narcissism on others. E. N. Carlson,
Vazire, and Oltmanns (2011) found that individuals rated high
in narcissism saw themselves more positively than their peers
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:01 17 April 2013

INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION OF PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSISM 263
on a variety of traits (e.g., intelligence, attractiveness, humor).
However, they also seemed to be aware that others saw them less
positively (i.e., their metaperceptions were less biased than their
self-perceptions). Consistent with Oltmanns et al. (2005), these
results suggest that in contrast to clinical lore, individuals high
in narcissism have some awareness of the impressions others
hold of them.
INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION OF NARCISSISTIC
GRANDIOSITY AND NARCISSISTIC VULNERABILITY
The literature just reviewed suggests that despite consensus
among informants, narcissism is consistently associated with
low self–other agreement, that narcissists tend to view them-
selves in ways that differ considerably from how they are per-
ceived by others, and that they have some awareness of this dis-
crepancy. An important limitation of these studies is that they
have focused on the assessment of narcissistic grandiosity. How-
ever, contemporary models of pathological narcissism include
two broad themes of dysfunction, one that reflects grandiosity
and another that reflects vulnerability (Cain, Pincus, & Ansell,
2008; Kealy & Rasmussen, 2012; Miller & Cambell, 2008; Pin-
cus & Lukowitsky, 2010; Pincus & Roche, 2011; Rohmann,
Neumann, Herner, & Bierhoff, 2012). Although themes of vul-
nerability are not unique to narcissism (Miller et al., 2010),
there is now an accumulating body of empirical research that
demonstrates that the two phenotypic expressions of narcis-
sistic pathology have divergent relationships with a variety of
constructs supporting the validity of this distinction in patho-
logical narcissism (e.g., Besser & Priel, 2010; Dickinson &
Pincus, 2003; Maxwell, Donnellan, Hopwood, & Ackerman,
2011; Rathvon & Holmstrom, 1996; Russ, Shedler, Bradley, &
Westen, 2008; K. M. Thomas, Wright, Lukowitsky, Donnellan,
& Hopwood, 2012; Wink, 1991). Expressions of narcissistic
grandiosity are characterized by entitled expectations, interper-
sonally exploitative acts, aggression, and, exhibitionism. In con-
trast, expressions of narcissistic vulnerability are characterized
by experiences of anger, aggression, helplessness, emptiness,
low self-esteem, shame, social avoidance, and even suicidality
in response to self-enhancement failures and disappointment of
entitled expectations (Pincus, 2012). Thus, although research in-
vestigating interpersonal perception of narcissistic grandiosity
has provided important information about narcissism and NPD,
conclusions are necessarily limited if they do not also include
information about narcissistic vulnerability.
The goal of this study was to extend prior research by us-
ing self- and multiple informant ratings of both narcissistic
grandiosity and vulnerability using the Pathological Narcissism
Inventory (PNI; Pincus et al., 2009) to explore several ques-
tions associated with interpersonal perception of pathological
narcissism.1First, we explored descriptive statistics including
mean level differences and gender effects in self and other per-
ceptions of pathological narcissism to evaluate who endorses
more pathological narcissism and if these ratings are poten-
tially associated with gender stereotypes. Next, we used the
PNI to evaluate whether moderately acquainted individuals as-
signed to small groups tended to perceive others’ level of patho-
1We adopt a dimensional approach to the understanding of narcissism and
thus throughout this article use the terms narcissism and narcissist to refer to
individuals with high scores on the PNI.
logical narcissism similarly (assimilation). We also explored
whether informants agree on their assessment of a given tar-
get’s level of pathological narcissism (consensus) and further
whether these consensual perceptions are consistent with the
target’s self-impression (self–other agreement). Finally, we ex-
amined whether an individual’s own level of narcissism affects
his or her perception of narcissism in others such that he or
she tends to perceive others’ level of narcissism as similar to
his or her own (assumed similarity) and whether people have
some knowledge of how others perceive their narcissistic traits
(metaperception). Consistent with past research, we hypothe-
sized that that there would be evidence of assimilation and mod-
est but significant levels of consensus across peers in ratings of
pathological narcissism. We further expected to find modest and
significant levels of self–other agreement for ratings of both nar-
cissistic grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability as assessed by
the PNI as well as significant levels of assumed similarity, sug-
gesting that individuals high in pathological narcissism assume
that others share many of the same narcissistic traits as them-
selves. Finally, we expected to find evidence of metaperception
of pathological narcissism suggesting that individuals high in
pathological narcissism have some knowledge about how others
perceive them.
METHOD
The Social Relations Model
To investigate interpersonal perception, this study used the
social relations model (SRM), which was developed by Kenny
and his colleagues (Kenny, 1994; Kenny & La Voie, 1985; Mal-
loy & Kenny, 1986; Warner, Kenny, & Stoto 1979) as a statistical
model for analyzing dyadic data and interpersonal perception, in
particular. The SRM allows for the analysis of nonindependent
data inherent to group designs by separating and modeling the
different sources of variance that contribute to the perceptions
people make about each other into several basic components:
a perceiver effect, a target effect, and a relationship effect. To
help make the logic behind the SRM components more concrete,
consider the following example of a small group of individuals.
Suppose that Allison finds Charlie to be grandiose. If Allison
sees Charlie as well as most people in her group as grandiose,
there will be a large perceiver effect. Thus, the perceiver effect
describes how Allison as the perceiver tends to perceive oth-
ers in general. The target effect describes the extent to which
Charlie elicits similar ratings from the group members. If most
people agree with Allison’s perception of Charlie and also see
him as grandiose, there will be a large target effect. Finally, it
is possible that there are relationship effects among the group
members. For example, Allison might find Charlie particularly
grandiose, more grandiose than she finds the other members of
the group and more grandiose than the other group members
find Charlie.
A major focus of the SRM is to explore how much of the
total variance in interpersonal perception is related to these
individual-level effects by partitioning the variance into per-
ceiver, target, and relationship variance components. To parti-
tion the variance into these multiple components requires that
multiple perceivers rate multiple targets, which is accomplished
by using a round-robin design whereby all individuals serve as
both targets and judges. The SRM partitions the variance by
using a modified two-way random effects analysis of variance
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:01 17 April 2013

264 LUKOWITSKY AND PINCUS
(ANOVA) in which the two main effects are the perceivers and
targets and the relationship effect is their interaction (Kenny,
1994). If a significant proportion of the variance in interper-
sonal ratings lies within the perceiver component of the model,
then there is evidence of assimiliation. Assimilation refers to
significant variance in the perceiver effect and suggests that
there is a great deal of variability in the way different perceivers
rate targets (some tend to consistently rate group members high
in grandiosity, whereas others tend to consistently rate group
members low in grandiosity). Significant target variance re-
flects consensus and implies that there is large variability in
how people in a group are perceived (some people in a group
are consistently perceived as high in grandiosity, whereas others
are consistently perceived as being low in grandiosity). Signifi-
cant target variance is an index of consensus in that it suggests
that the raters or perceivers are making consensual distinctions
as to who is high and who is low on a trait. Modeling the re-
lationship effect requires that individuals rate each other across
multiple interactions or rate each other multiple times during
a single interaction by splitting the interaction into segments.
Without such ratings, the relationship effect cannot be separated
from random error or inconsistency in ratings and so the effects
are often pooled into an error term (Ingraham & Wright, 1986;
Warner et al., 1979).
Self–target and self–perceiver correlations. If self-report
data are also collected, the SRM provides opportunities to an-
swer several additional questions associated with interpersonal
perception. Most obviously, researchers who collect self-report
data can assess self–other agreement. Several studies reviewed
earlier reported levels of self–other agreement without using
an SRM approach. However, correlating self-ratings with the
aggregated mean of observer ratings contains both perceiver
and target variance and is therefore a less precise estimate of
self–other agreement (Greguras, Robie, & Born, 2001). The
SRM approach to determining self–other agreement correlates
an individual’s self-rating with his or her target effect. Kenny
(1994) noted that before self–other agreement is determined, it
should first be confirmed that there is consensus or significant
target variance. If there is no consensus among peers about a
target, then there is little reason to believe that the target will
agree with peers. Similarly, to the extent that there is evidence
of assimilation, one can correlate self-ratings with the perceiver
effect to estimate assumed similarity. Evidence of assumed sim-
ilarity would suggest that individuals tend to assume that others
share the same characteristics as themselves.
Metaperception. Metaperception is another key aspect of
interpersonal perception and can be measured by asking par-
ticipants to rate their expectation of how others generally per-
ceive them. Metaperception ratings can then be correlated with
self-ratings to explore the relationship between people’s self-
perceptions and their beliefs about how others perceive them
(Oltmanns et al., 2005). Metaperception ratings can also be
correlated with informant ratings (target effects) to explore the
accuracy of metaperceptions, referred to as generalized meta-
accuracy (Kenny, 1994).
Participants and Data Collection
Participants were members of a senior-level capstone business
course at a large university who volunteered for this study for
extra credit. The course was designed to bring together students
from all majors within the business school, including account-
ing, management, finance, and marketing. A major component
of the course involved students working together in multidisci-
plinary teams (i.e., accounting, management, finance, etc.) on
a computer simulation program whereby they compete against
other teams in managing a multimillion-dollar company. The
structure of the course is such that at the start of the semester
students are randomly assigned to teams that include between
four and seven members each.
Data collection took place in two phases. At the beginning of
the semester participants completed a series of online self-report
questionnaires. The second phase of data collection took place
8 weeks later after teams had spent a significant amount of time
negotiating on the best way to run their simulated business, al-
lowing participants sufficient opportunity to become acquainted
with each other. During the second phase, all participants pro-
vided online peer ratings of the personalities and behaviors of
their teammates using a round-robin design whereby each par-
ticipant serves as both a target and a judge. Participants were
asked to rate each member of their team on each item of the ques-
tionnaires using the appropriate rating scale. To assess metaper-
ceptions, participants were instructed to rate their expectation
of how most of their teammates would rate them on the same
characteristics. Following Oltmanns et al. (2005), we asked par-
ticipants to rate their expectation of how most of their teammates
would rate them given past research, which has suggested that
participants are more accurate at understanding how they are
generally viewed by others as opposed to differentially predict-
ing who might rate them high and who might rate them low
on a particular characteristic (Kenny & DePaulo, 1993). At the
end of the battery, participants were thanked for their partici-
pation and were asked not to discuss their responses with their
teammates.
Only participants who completed both self- and peer ratings
were included in the final analyses. In addition, any groups with
fewer than 4 participants due to incomplete or invariable data
were removed. This was necessary because the SRM requires
a minimum of four subjects per group to ensure that all the
parameters of the model are identified (Warner et al., 1979).
Thus the final sample included 437 participants, who were ran-
domly assigned to 93 mixed-sex groups with an average group
size of 4.7 participants. The majority of the sample was White
(80.4%) and male (59%), with a mean age of 21.16 (SD =
.66). Participants also reported being moderately acquainted
with one another (M=3.64, SD =1.33) on a 6-point scale.
Retained participants did not differ from those who were ex-
cluded due to ethnicity, religion, sex, age, or level of pathological
narcissism.
Measure
Pathological Narcissism Inventory–Self-Report. The
Pathological Narcissism Inventory–Self-Report (Pincus et al.,
2009) was developed as a stand-alone multidimensional self-
report measure of pathological narcissism that reflects both nar-
cissistic grandiosity and vulnerability as described in the clini-
cal, psychiatric, and social and personality psychology literature
(Pincus, 2012). The PNI contains 52 items that are rated on a
6-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all like me)to5(very much
like me). The items of the PNI make up seven scales assessing
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:01 17 April 2013

INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION OF PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSISM 265
narcissistic grandiosity (Exploitativeness, Grandiose Fantasy,
Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancement) and narcissistic vulnerabil-
ity (Entitlement Rage, Contingent Self-Esteem, Devaluing, and
Hiding the Self). Confirmatory factor analyses have provided
additional evidence of the PNI’s higher order two-factor struc-
ture (Wright, Lukowitsky, Pincus, & Conroy, 2010). As scales
differ in length, they are scored based on mean item endorsement
instead of sums for easy comparison across scales. The measure
was validated in both normal and clinical samples, indicating
its appropriateness for multiple populations. In this study, Cron-
bach’s αfor the seven scales ranged from .67 (Hiding the Self)
to .91 (Contingent Self-Esteem). The peer report version of the
PNI was identical with the exception that items were rewritten
in the third person and participants were asked to indicate how
well each statement described each member of their team. The
reliability of the perceiver and target effects are included with
the presentation of the variance components.
Data Analysis
All SRM analyses were conducted using the SOREMO V.2
computer program (Kenny, 2007). The first step is the calcula-
tion of the perceiver and target effect estimates for each sub-
ject, which serve as the basis for estimating the perceiver and
target variance components. SOREMO uses a modified two-
way random effects ANOVA to estimate the perceiver, target,
and error variances correcting for the size of the group and
dependencies associated with the round-robin design. Because
the amount of variance depends on the number of subjects per
group, SOREMO estimates what the variance would be if there
were an infinite number of subjects per group. Thus, variance
components estimates are a theoretical variance and not the
variance of actual scores. SOREMO tests the significance level
of the variance components as well as their reliability. Vari-
ance parameters are estimated separately across groups with
group used as the unit of analysis. The test is a one-sample t
test in which the parameter estimate is tested as being signif-
icantly greater than 0 with degrees of freedom being equal to
the number of groups minus one. One-tailed tests are used to
test the variances, because variances are positive. In SRM anal-
yses, the proportion of total variance due to each component is
computed; however, significance tests are performed on absolute
variances. A presentation of the proportion of total variance thus
allows one to determine what percentage of each judgment is at-
tributed to the perceiver, target, and relationship (combined with
error).
Although self-ratings are not included in the estimation
of perceiver and target effects, self-ratings can be included
in SOREMO and correlated with the individual-level SRM
perceiver and target effects to test assumed similarity and
self–other agreement, respectively. These are ordinary Pearson
product–moment correlations, but the computation partials out
the group effects. In addition, SOREMO provides correlations
that are dissattenuated to take into account the reliability of the
variance components (i.e., perceiver effects and target effects).
However, significance testing is calculated on the raw corre-
lations. When multiple groups are assessed, as is the case in
this study, correlations for each group are calculated and then
pooled. The degrees of freedom are the total number of partici-
pants minus the number of groups minus one.
TABLE 1.—Mean level differences in self-, other, and metaperception.
Self- Other
Perception Perception Metaperception
PNI Scale (M)(M)(M)
Narcissistic Grandiosity 3.89a, b 3.32b3.46a
Exploitativeness 3.51a, b 3.05b3.21a
Grandiose Fantasies 4.20a, b 3.45b3.58a
Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancement 3.96a, b 3.47b3.59a
Narcissistic Vulnerability 3.10a, b 2.63b2.70a
Contingent Self-Esteem 2.96a, b 2.50b2.53a
Hiding the Self 3.49a, b 2.90b2.98a
Entitlement Rage 3.34a, b 2.77b2.87a
Devaluing 2.60a, b 2.35b2.43a
Note. Means with the same subscript are significantly different from each other (p<
.05). PNI =Pathological Narcissism Inventory.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics and Gender Effects
Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. This includes
the means of self and dyadic variables as well as ratings of meta-
perceptions. The means for the self-report measures are also
tested to determine if they differ significantly from the means
of the dyadic variables using group as the unit of analysis. Like
peer ratings, the self-ratings in an SRM analysis also take into
account the self’s tendency to rate others (perceiver effect) and
how they are perceived by others (target effect) and thus reflects
the rater’s unique perception of himself or herself. Thus, these
means are similar, but not exactly the same as means that do not
take into account perceiver and target effects. SOREMO com-
pares the two sets of means by computing the mean difference
by group and tests the null hypothesis that the difference is zero.
Due to the power derived from the large number of groups in
this study, we only interpret significant differences that have an
absolute magnitude difference of .25 and greater (D. A. Kenny,
personal communication, April 15, 2012). As can be seen from
Table 1, individuals rated themselves significantly higher on
Narcissistic Grandiosity and Narcissistic Vulnerability as well
as on all lower order scales of the PNI as compared to how their
peers rated them (all ps<.05). When individuals were asked
to rate their expectation of how others would rate them (meta-
perceptions), they lowered their ratings to be more in line with
peer ratings.
For the analysis of gender effects, males were coded with
1 and females were coded with 0. Results of the disattenuated
correlations suggested that men were significantly more likely
to endorse being high in Exploitativeness (r=.19, p<.01)
and were also more likely to be perceived by peers as high in
Exploitativeness (r=.17, p<.01). Women were more likely
to be perceived as being high in Contingent Self-Esteem (r=
–.38, p<.01), Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancement (r=–.40, p
<.01), and Devaluing (r=–.42, p<.01), but were not more
likely to endorse these traits.
Variance Partitioning
The relative variance partitioning and the absolute total vari-
ance for the PNI scales are presented in Table 2. The relative
variance components indicate the percentage of each dyadic
judgment that can be attributed to the perceiver and the target.
Because ratings were completed only once during this study,
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:01 17 April 2013

266 LUKOWITSKY AND PINCUS
TABLE 2.—Variance partitioning for dyadic variables for the Pathological
Narcissism Inventory.
Relationship/ Total
Perceiver Target Error Absolute
Scale Variance Variance Variance Variance
Narcissistic Grandiosity .78∗(.95) .09∗(.68) .14 .74
Exploitativeness .64∗(.91) .14∗(.70) .21 .99
Grandiose Fantasies .78∗(.94) .06∗(.56) .16 .99
Self-Sacrificing Self-
Enhancement
.78∗(.94) .04∗(.45) .18 .81
Narcissistic Vulnerability .86∗(.96) .03∗(.50) .11 .62
Contingent Self-Esteem .81∗(.95) .03∗(.40) .16 .82
Hiding the Self .80∗(.94) .02∗(.32) .18 .69
Entitlement Rage .71∗(.93) .09∗(.61) .20 .98
Devaluing .88∗(.97) .01∗(.21) .11 .72
Note. Because relationship and error variance were combined, relationship variance
was not submitted to significance testing. Values represent the relative variance; however,
significance testing is performed on the absolute variance components. Absolute variance
for each component can be calculated by multiplying the relative variance by the total
absolute variance for that variable (e.g., the absolute variance for the perceiver variance
of Narcissistic Grandiosity is .78 ×.74 =.58). Reliability estimates for the variance
components are in parentheses.
∗p<.05.
relationship variance was combined with error variance, as it was
not possible to conduct significance testing for the relationship
variance. Variance components significantly greater than zero
(p<.05) are indicated with an asterisk. As can be seen in the first
column of Table 2, the perceiver accounted for a significant pro-
portion of the variance in dyadic ratings for each of the higher
order and lower order PNI scales. Specifically, the perceiver
accounted for 78% of the variance in ratings of Narcissistic
Grandiosity and 86% of the variance in ratings of Narcissistic
Vulnerability. Thus, a significant proportion of the variance in
ratings of pathological narcissism was accounted for by the per-
ceiver indicating that individuals approached the task of rating
others’ level of pathological narcissism through the process of
assimilation. Looking at the lower order scales of Narcissistic
Grandiosity suggested that the perceiver accounted for 64%,
78%, and 78% of the variance in ratings of Exploitativeness,
Grandiose Fantasies, and Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancement,
respectively. Finally, for the lower order scales of Narcissis-
tic Vulnerability, the perceiver accounted for 81%, 80%, 71%,
and 88% of the variance in ratings of Contingent Self-Esteem,
Hiding the Self, Entitlement Rage, and Devaluing, respectively.
The second column 2 of Table 2 reflects the proportion of the
variance in dyadic ratings that can be attributed to the target.
These results suggest that a smaller, but still significant pro-
portion of the ratings of narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic
vulnerability is accounted for the by the target indicating that
there was modest but significant consensus among peers about
who is high and who is low in pathological narcissism. Specif-
ically, the target accounted for 9% of the variance in ratings
of Narcissistic Grandiosity and 3% of the variance in ratings
of Narcissistic Vulnerability. For the lower order scales of Nar-
cissistic Grandiosity, the target accounted for 14%, 6%, and
4% of the variance in ratings of Exploitativeness, Grandiose
Fantasies, and Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancement, respectively.
Finally, for the lower order scales of Narcissistic Vulnerability,
the target accounted for 3%, 2%, 9%, and 1% of the variance
in ratings of Contingent Self-Esteem, Hiding the Self, Entitle-
ment Rage, and Devaluing, respectively. Although we estimated
consensus following the variance approach proposed by Kenny
(1994), given the reciprocal design of this study, we also calcu-
lated traditional interrater reliability estimates as a complement
to the target variance estimates. Intraclass correlation reliability
coefficients (ICCs) using consistency agreement were calculated
for all targets for the two higher order factors of the PNI as well
for the lower order scales, resulting in 3,933 ICC coefficients.
Results reported here are for the effective reliability of the com-
posite rating averaged across all three to six peer judges, rather
than the individual reliability of one judge with another. The
average ICC across groups for Narcissistic Grandiosity was .36
and for Narcissistic Vulnerability it was .33. The average ICCs
for the lower order factors ranged from .20 (Devaluing) to .38
(Hiding the Self) with a median ICC of .28 (Self-Sacrificing
Self-Enhancement).
Self–Other Agreement
Because there was evidence of consensus, it was possible
to test whether there was self–other agreement for the PNI
by correlating the self-ratings with the target effects. Consis-
tent with our hypothesis, the first column of Table 3 suggests
that there was modest, but significant self–other agreement for
Narcissistic Grandiosity (r=.19, p<.01), indicating that in-
dividuals who were rated by their peers as high in Narcissistic
Grandiosity also tended to rate themselves as high in Narcissistic
Grandiosity. This seems driven by ratings of Exploitativeness, as
TABLE 3.—Correlations between self-, peer, perceiver, and metaperceptions.
Self With Peer Assumed Similarity Self With Peer With
PNI Scale (Self–Target) (Self–Perceiver) Metaperception Metaperception
Narcissistic Grandiosity .19∗∗ (.16) .36∗∗ (.35) .47∗∗ .31∗∗ (.25)
Exploitativeness .25∗∗ (.21) .39∗∗ (.37) .53∗∗ .36∗∗ (.30)
Grandiose Fantasies .12 (.09) .25∗∗ (.24) .40∗∗ .27∗∗ (.20)
Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancement .08 (.08) .26∗∗ (.25) .36∗∗ .18∗(.12)
Narcissistic Vulnerability .11 (.08) .33∗∗ (.32) .43∗∗ .22∗∗ (.16)
Contingent Self-Esteem .23∗∗ (.15) .35∗∗ (.34) .48∗∗ .21∗(.13)
Hiding the Self .05 (.03) .18∗∗ (.17) .31∗∗ .18 (.10)
Entitlement Rage .14∗(.11) .27∗∗ (.26) .38∗∗ .34∗∗ (.27)
Devaluing .03 (.01) .36∗∗ (.35) .41∗∗ .05 (.02)
Note. Self–target and self–perceiver and peer with metaperception correlations have been disattenuated to take into account the reliability of the variance components. However,
significance testing is performed on raw correlations. The uncorrected correlations are provided in parentheses. The relationship between peer ratings (consensus) is captured by target
variance and is presented in Table 2. PNI =Pathological Narcissism Inventory.
∗p<.05. ∗∗p<.01.
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:01 17 April 2013

INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION OF PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSISM 267
individuals who saw themselves as exploitative were also rated
by their peers as high in Exploitativeness (r=.25, p<.01).
Individuals who reported engaging in Grandiose Fantasies (r=
.12, ns) and Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancing (r=.08, ns) behav-
iors were less likely to be perceived by their peers as engaging
in those self-enhancement strategies. There was an insignifi-
cant correlation between self- and peer ratings for Narcissistic
Vulnerability (r=.11, ns). However, the lower order scales in-
dicated that peers did agree with targets who saw themselves
as high in Contingent Self Esteem (r=.23, p<.01) and En-
titlement Rage (r=.14, p<.05). There was not significant
agreement between targets and judges on ratings of Hiding the
Self (r=.05, ns) and Devaluing (r=.03, ns).
Assumed Similarity
Because there was evidence of assimilation it was also pos-
sible to correlate the self-ratings of the participants with the
perceiver effects to test whether there was assumed similarity
for the PNI factors. Results in the second column of Table 3 are
consistent with our hypotheses predicting assumed similarity
for Narcissistic Grandiosity (r=.36, p<.01) and Narcissis-
tic Vulnerability (r=.33, p<.01). This effect was consistent
across all PNI lower order scales.
Metaperception
The third column of Table 3 shows the correlations between
the self-ratings of the PNI scales and the metaperceptions (ex-
pected peer ratings) of the PNI scales. As can be seen, self-
ratings of both Narcissistic Grandiosity (r=.47, p<.01) and
Narcissistic Vulnerability (r=.43, p<.01) were significantly
correlated with expected peer ratings, suggesting that individ-
uals largely expected that others would see them the way they
saw themselves. This effect was consistent across all PNI lower
order scales. To explore the metaperceptions in more detail, ex-
pected peer ratings were analyzed in relation to peers’ scores
to estimate generalized metaaccuracy. These correlations are
represented in the fourth column of Table 3 and reveal that ex-
pected peer ratings of Narcissistic Grandiosity (r=.31, p<
.01) and Narcissistic Vulnerability (r=.22, p<.01) were both
significantly correlated with peer ratings (target effects). With
the exception of the Devaluing and Hiding the Self Scales, the
same was true of all lower order scales.
DISCUSSION
Both clinical theory and research support the notion that PDs
exhibit compromised self-awareness and distorted interpersonal
perceptions that can bias self-report assessment. However, few
studies have taken advantage of the unique abilities of the SRM
for investigating interpersonal perception associated with per-
sonality pathology. The purpose of this study was to fill this
important gap and enhance our understanding of interpersonal
perception of pathological narcissism by exploring how people
rate their own and each other’s level of pathological narcissism.
We first examined mean-level differences in self- and other
perception. Understanding who reports more psychopathology
has important implications for the interpretation of assessments
that incorporate both self- and informant ratings. Unfortunately,
research to date has been equivocal with regard to who re-
ports more psychopathology (Clifton et al., 2004; Klonsky et al.,
2002). Indeed there are compelling reasons to believe that either
might report more psychopathology. For example, as noted by
Klonsky et al. (2002), individuals might self-report more psy-
chopathology given their greater access to internal experiences,
but informants might be less biased when describing the socially
undesirable traits of others. Results from this study suggested
that individuals tended to rate themselves higher than their peers
rated them on both narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic vul-
nerability, lending credence to past research that has suggested
that the self might have privileged access to information about
private experiences, including distressing thoughts and feelings
(Andersen, Glassman, & Gold, 1998; Pronin, Kruger, Savit-
sky, & Ross, 2001; Vazire & Mehl, 2008). Indeed, a number
of PNI scales assess more private experiences (grandiose fan-
tasies, self-devaluation). Our results are also largely consistent
with those reported by Oltmanns et al. (2005), which found
that on average individuals tended to endorse more PD traits
in themselves (including NPD) as compared to peer ratings.
Prior research using SRM analyses also suggests that people
see themselves as more distressed than they see others. For ex-
ample, Emotional Stability is the only Big Five factor for which
there is self-abasement, suggesting that people tend to view
themselves as more emotionally unstable and neurotic than they
view others (Kenny, 1994). At the same time, results from this
study stand in stark contrast to research examining differences
in the frequencies of self- and other-rated categorical diagnoses,
which has suggested that NPD is the PD least likely to be self-
diagnosed (Modestin & Puhan, 2000). However, that study used
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.
[DSM–III–R]; American Psychiatric Association, 1987) criteria
to assess NPD, which focus on observable behaviors associated
with narcissistic grandiosity (Cain et al., 2008). Given that the
PNI assesses overt and covert experiences of both narcissistic
grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability (Pincus & Lukowit-
sky, 2010), the findings reported here suggest that assessments
using the PNI are more likely than DSM-based assessments
to also capture the internal and potentially distressing experi-
ences associated with pathological narcissism. However, given
the inconsistent findings in the literature, additional research is
needed.
The results examining gender differences in ratings of patho-
logical narcissism suggested that men were more likely to en-
dorse Exploitativness and were also more likely to be perceived
as being high in Exploitativeness. Women were more likely to be
perceived as being high on Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancement,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Devaluing, but were not more
likely to endorse these narcissistic traits. This pattern of re-
sults is consistent with a prior study by Wright et al. (2010),
who, although finding evidence of factorial invariance across
gender, also found that men exhibited significantly higher mean
scores for Exploitativeness and women exhibited significantly
higher mean scores for Contingent Self-Esteem and Devaluing.
Overall, these results point to possible gender stereotyping in
the perception of narcissistic traits. Indeed, Exploitativeness is
associated with interpersonal dominance, which is a style of-
ten associated with males (Gurtman & Lee, 2009). Similarly,
Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancement is associated with interper-
sonal nurturance (Pincus et al., 2009), which is a style often
associated with females (Bakan, 1966; R. Carlson, 1971). The
strong gender effects for Contingent Self-Esteem and Devaluing
might also reflect potential gender stereotyping that associates
vulnerable themes with women (Wright et al., 2010).
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:01 17 April 2013

268 LUKOWITSKY AND PINCUS
Variance Partitioning
Results of variance partitioning suggested significant levels
of perceiver variance (assimilation), indicating that ratings of
pathological narcissism were largely in the “eye of the beholder.”
Specifically, these results suggest that across groups some peo-
ple tended to consistently rate targets high in pathological nar-
cissism, whereas others tended to consistently rate targets low
in pathological narcissism. The relatively high levels of assim-
ilation found for pathological narcissism in this study might
have been a function of the moderate level of acquaintance re-
ported among raters. Level of acquaintance has been shown to
be a significant predictor of assimilation such that low levels
of acquaintance are associated with greater perceiver variance
(Albright et al., 1988; Kenny, Horner, Kashy, & Chu, 1992). In-
deed a multitude of research focusing on level of acquaintance
has suggested that strangers are much less capable than close
friends of making accurate assessments of others’ personality
traits (e.g., Colvin & Funder, 1991; Funder, Kolar, & Blackman,
1995; Letzring, Wells, & Funder, 2006; Paunonen, 1989). Given
that the participants in this study were moderately acquainted
with one another it would make sense that their judgments of
others would exhibit evidence of assimilation.
The high perceiver variance associated with ratings of patho-
logical narcissism in this study might also be related to the
construct itself. The measure of narcissism used in this study
is meant to capture a more comprehensive and nuanced un-
derstanding of pathological narcissism that reflects overt and
covert expressions of both grandiosity and vulnerability (Pincus,
2012; Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010). There are thus covert as-
pects of pathological narcissism captured by the PNI that are
likely not easily visible to others, and people’s perceptions of
these more covert aspects of pathological narcissism in others
might be highly subjective. Although visibility has not typically
been used as a predictor of assimilation, ample research has
demonstrated that peers have a more difficult time ratings oth-
ers’ private experiences (e.g., John & Robins, 1993; Oltmanns
et al., 2004; Vazire, 2010). Thus, as has been argued elsewhere
(Dawes, 1990; Funder et al., 1995; Kenny & West, 2010), in the
absence of relevant and visible information peers tend to rely
on their own idiosyncratic ways of perceiving and rating others,
which results in an increase in levels of assimilation.
This study also raised the question of whether moderately
acquainted individuals were able to reliably detect narcissistic
traits in others using the PNI. As evidenced by the significant
target variance group, members were able to reach significant
consensus with one another in their judgments of a target’s level
of pathological narcissism. Although a much smaller propor-
tion of the variance in interpersonal judgments of pathological
narcissism was attributed to the target as compared to the per-
ceiver, the proportions were not insignificant, suggesting that
participants showed modest consensual agreement with each
other regarding their perception of another’s level of pathologi-
cal narcissism. It is notable that participants in this study were
able to reach significant levels of consensus given their relatively
limited interactions with one another. These results are, how-
ever, consistent with past research demonstrating that untrained
individuals are able to reliably detect pathological personal-
ity traits in targets even on the basis of minimal information
(E. N. Carlson et al., 2011; Klonsky et al., 2002; Mahaffey &
Marcus, 2006; Oltmanns et al., 2004; C. Thomas et al., 2003).
The modest level of consensus in this study is also a function
of the covert nature of some PNI scales (e.g., grandiose fan-
tasy) as past research demonstrates greater levels of consensus
vary as a function of trait visibility (Funder & Colvin, 1988;
Funder & Dobroth, 1987; Hayes & Dunning, 1997; Paunonen,
1989; Vazire, 2010; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000). This
is consistent with the relatively lower consensus for ratings of
vulnerability than grandiosity. It might be expected that peers
would be more likely to reach consensus when rating the more
visible self-enhancement strategies associated with narcissistic
grandiosity (e.g., “Everyone likes to hear my stories”), as many
involve attempts to seek out validation and admiration from the
social environment (Pincus & Roche, 2011). In contrast, peers
might be less capable of perceiving the self- and emotional dys-
regulation that typically follows self-enhancement failures and
narcissistic disappointments (e.g., “When others don’t meet my
expectations, I often feel ashamed about what I wanted”), mak-
ing it more difficult for peers to reach consensus for these less
visible traits. Indeed, narcissistic vulnerability represents nega-
tive affects and needs and strategies to hide them from others.
Self–Other Agreement
An important goal of this study was to assess self–other agree-
ment in ratings of pathological narcissism using the PNI. Given
that there was evidence of consensus in ratings of pathological
narcissism, it was possible to investigate self–other agreement.
This study used the SRM approach for investigating self–other
agreement, which accounts for the perceiver effect, or one’s
propensity to perceive and rate others in particular ways. What
remains reflects the target’s tendency to elicit a particular rating
over and above the perceiver’s general tendency to rate oth-
ers. The SRM approach for investigating self–other agreement
could therefore be considered a more precise method than other
approaches for investigating self–other agreement, such as av-
eraging pairwise observer ratings (Kenny, 2004). Although a
few studies have used the SRM to investigate interpersonal per-
ception of clinical phenomenon (e.g., Christensen, Cohan, &
Stein, 2004; Christensen, Stein, & Means-Christensen, 2003;
Mahaffey & Marcus, 2006; Marcus & Askari, 1999; Marcus
& Wilson, 1996), this study represents the first SRM study to
investigate self–other agreement of pathological narcissism and
thus adds to our knowledge of the relationship between self- and
informant perceptions of narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic
vulnerability.
The results suggested modest yet significant self–other agree-
ment for Narcissistic Grandiosity but not for Narcissistic Vul-
nerability. The more modest level of self–other agreement for
pathological narcissism found in this study as compared to the
median level of self–other agreement reported in a review by
Klonsky et al. (2002) for the diagnosis of NPD might again be
reflective of the fact that the PNI assesses both overt and covert
aspects of pathological narcissism, whereas the diagnosis of
NPD focuses on observable grandiose behaviors (Cain et al.,
2008). Thus, low visibility of some aspects of the PNI and mod-
erate acquaintance between peers might have also moderated
the level of self–other agreement found in this study. Indeed,
looking at the lower order scales suggests that peers had an
easier time reaching agreement with targets on seemingly more
overt narcissistic traits such as Exploitativeness and Entitlement
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:01 17 April 2013

INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION OF PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSISM 269
Rage than on the more covert narcissistic traits. For example,
Grandiose Fantasies, Devaluing, and Hiding the Self all reflect
largely internal states and thought processes that would be more
difficult for peers to detect and thus reach agreement with tar-
gets. It is also possible that when rating Self-Sacrificing Self-
Enhancing peers did not initially recognize the self-enhancing
nature of some of the targets’ seemingly altruistic acts.
Assumed Similarity
The high perceiver variance associated with the PNI raises
the question of why some individuals were more likely to per-
ceive others as being high in pathological narcissism, whereas
others were less likely to perceive others that way. One of the
more robust findings in this study was found for assumed sim-
ilarity, which suggested that those who saw themselves as high
in pathological narcissism were also likely to perceive others
as high in pathological narcissism. Evidence of assumed sim-
ilarity is a consistent finding in the literature and seems to be
the rule rather than the exception (Kenny, 1994; Mahaffey &
Marcus, 2006). Kenny (1994) has also used strong evidence of
assumed similarity to support his generalized other theory of
how a person’s view of another is formed. Assumed similarity
also has theoretical and clinical implications for the assessment
of pathological narcissism in that it might lead individuals high
in pathological narcissism to justify many of their maladaptive
beliefs and behaviors. For example, believing that others are
exploitative might lead narcissistic individuals to justify their
own exploitative behaviors.
Metaperceptions
This study also explored the phenomenon of metaperception,
which asks whether people have some knowledge of what others
think of them. A commonly held belief is that narcissists lack in-
sight into how they are perceived by others; however, few studies
have systematically explored the expectations narcissists have
about how others perceive them. Results from this study found
a moderate correlation between self-ratings of pathological nar-
cissism and expected peer ratings, suggesting that individuals
high in narcissism believed that others shared the same view they
hold of their own personality (correlations ranged from .31–53).
To explore these findings in more detail, the expected peer scores
were correlated with peers’ actual ratings (target effect) to assess
generalized meta-accuracy. Across most factors of the PNI the
correlation between the expected peer ratings and actual peer
ratings was higher than the correlation between self-ratings and
peer ratings, suggesting that the targets’ expectation of how oth-
ers would rate them was more closely aligned with how they
did in fact rate them. Overall, these results are consistent with
past studies (e.g., E. M. Carlson et al., 2011; Oltmanns et al.,
2005) and suggest that individuals who rate themselves high
in pathological narcissism do, in fact, have some knowledge of
how others perceive them. At the same time, the mean-level en-
dorsements of the PNI scales presented in Table 1 indicate that
individuals expected that their peers would not rate them as high
in pathological narcissism as they rated themselves, suggesting
that individuals high in pathological narcissism assumed that
peers would not be able to fully detect their narcissistic traits.
These results continue to highlight the covert qualities of some
features of narcissistic pathology and might suggest that there
are aspects of pathological narcissism that are better assessed
by the self.
Implications
The findings from this study have implications for the assess-
ment of pathological narcissism. Broadly, these results support
previous arguments that advocate for multimethod assessments
that integrate self- and informant perceptions. Understanding
how others perceive a target is perhaps particularly relevant to
the assessment of pathological narcissism given research sug-
gesting that the behaviors of narcissists also contribute to prob-
lems and distress for those with whom they interact (Miller,
Campbell, & Pilkonis, 2007). Although informants are an im-
portant source of information, the results of this study suggest
that self-ratings and metaperceptions are also relevant for a
complete assessment of personality pathology. Our results sug-
gest that the self might have privileged access to internal states
of dysregulation and defense that are paramount to the defini-
tion of pathological narcissism (Pincus, 2012; Pincus & Roche,
2011). The results from this and other studies also suggest that
if we are interested in knowing the target’s belief of how others
view them, then we would need to ask that question directly as
self-ratings of pathological narcissism do not equate with meta-
perceptions (Oltmanns et al., 2005). Furthermore, results from
this study suggest that we can confidently assess such informa-
tion, as people do have some knowledge about how others see
their level of narcissistic pathology.
The results from this study also speak to the importance of
assessing the target’s perceptions of others. Most assessments
ask individuals to rate or describe their understanding of their
own problems or personality. Fewer ask individuals to describe
others in their lives despite the fact that numerous personal-
ity and clinical theorists from a variety of orientations have
suggested that a person’s perception and representation of oth-
ers could provide equally relevant information about the indi-
vidual (Beck, Freeman, & Davis, 2004; Clarkin, Yeomans, &
Kernberg, 2006; Lukowitsky & Pincus, 2011; Mischel & Shoda,
1995; Wood, Harms, & Vazire, 2010). The strong evidence of
perceiver variance also suggests that researchers would be well
advised to give greater consideration to the role of perceiver
effects when incorporating observer ratings into a multimethod
assessment or when validating instruments by correlating them
with peers’ ratings. Results from this and other SRM studies
suggest that peers’ perceptions of others are not based strictly
on the target’s behavior and that a notable proportion of the
variance in their ratings can stem from their own idiosyncratic
ways of perceiving others. By not taking account of perceiver
effects, researchers run the risk of attributing more to the target
than might be warranted. In addition, we found that ratings of
pathological narcissism were influenced by assumed similarity
and thus partially based on the assumption that others share the
same narcissistic motivations as the self.
The results from this study also provide further validation
of the PNI. Ratings provided by peers have often been used
to support the external validity of self-ratings (e.g., Watson &
Clark, 1991). Peers are certainly not without personal biases
and do not represent objective reality, but their ratings of others
have been shown to be accurate predictors of meaningful out-
comes and thus a valid indicator of convergent validity (Fiedler,
Oltmanns, & Turkheimer, 2004; Oltmanns et al., 2004; Ozer &
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:01 17 April 2013

270 LUKOWITSKY AND PINCUS
Benet-Mart´
ınez, 2006; Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Gold-
berg, 2007). The fact that moderately acquainted peers reached
consensus on who in their group was high and who was low in
pathological narcissism further attests to the validity of the PNI
and suggests that self–other agreement would likely increase if
self-ratings were compared to informants such as relatives, close
friends, romantic partners, or trained clinicians, who, in com-
parison to moderately acquainted peers, are likely to be a better
judge and to have more information about another’s internal
traits and experiences (Vazire, 2010).
Limitations and Future Directions
The results of this study are tempered by several limitations.
First, the sample consisted of a relatively homogenous group
of individuals. Hence, the results of this study might not gen-
eralize to other ethnic, cultural, and age groups. However, we
felt that the small-group format and business simulation con-
text were well suited for an SRM investigation of pathological
narcissism. Future studies with a more heterogeneous sample
are clearly warranted. It is also important to emphasize that this
study relied on a nonclinical sample of college students and
thus future research with a clinical sample is also needed. Al-
though peers were able to come to modest levels of consensus,
the large proportion of perceiver variance suggests that they
had a relatively difficult time identifying aspects of pathological
narcissism in others, particularly its more covert expressions.
Thus, the large perceiver variance in comparison to target vari-
ance in this study might tell us as much about how people per-
ceive pathological narcissism as it does about individuals high
in pathological narcissism (see also Mahaffey & Marcus, 2006).
Although the PNI was designed to be a dimensional measure of
pathological narcissism, it is possible that a study that sampled
from a clinical population would result in a greater proportion
of target variance. The results from this study also suggest that
nonclinical targets had some awareness of their narcissistic traits
and of how others perceived them. What is not clear, however,
is how more extreme forms of pathological narcissism impair
one’s capacity for such insight and one’s expectation of how
others view them.
This study also only provides results from cross-sectional
data. Using the SRM to analyze longitudinal data has several
advantages. First, if participants interact with the same group
members at multiple time points it allows for the separation
of the relationship variance from error variance and thereby
allows for investigations of relationship effects. Moreover, an
SRM analysis of longitudinal data could investigate the stabil-
ity of perceiver and target effects. Thus far, a limited number
of studies have investigated the stability of the perceptions of
others and have reported mixed findings. For example, Mal-
loy, Sugarman, Montvilo, and Ben-Zeev (1995) reported low
levels of 1-year stability among elementary-school-aged chil-
dren, whereas Wood et al. (2010) reported much higher levels
of 1-year stability among undergraduate students. Finally, Sri-
vastava, Guglielmo, and Beer (2010) found moderate levels
of stability among undergraduate students over the course of 1
month. Investigations of the stability of an individual’s tendency
to perceive others in a consistent way raises several interesting
questions that could have implications for the investigation of
PDs including pathological narcissism. For example, do peers
consistently perceive individuals high in pathological narcissism
in the same way or do their perceptions oscillate along with the
narcissist’s self-state? Parallel questions can be considered re-
garding the stability of narcissists’ perception of their social
environment. Such longitudinal investigations could prove to
be an important area of future research for understanding the
temporal dynamics of pathological narcissism.
Investigations of self–other agreement inevitably lead to the
question of whose data is more accurate and valid. A wealth of
research on this matter has now suggested that neither source
is the “expert” in all cases and that it largely depends on the
trait being evaluated, as both self and peer ratings have been
shown to be accurate predictors of behaviors (Fiedler et al.,
2004; Kolar, Funder, & Colvin, 1996; Oltmanns & Turkheimer,
2009; Vazire, 2010). Future research investigating the predictive
validity of self- versus informant ratings of pathological narcis-
sism is needed. Future research evaluating the accuracy and
predictive validity of ratings of pathological narcissism should
also include experimental paradigms (e.g., behavioral challenge
tasks) and other behavioral performance measures (Huprich,
Bornstein, & Schmitt, 2011).
Conclusions
The results of this study bring us closer to understanding
interpersonal perception of pathological narcissism. Although
perceptions of pathological narcissism were largely in the eye
of the beholder, individuals were still able to reach modest lev-
els of consensus regarding who in their group was high and
who was low on a particular trait. This study is the first to look
at self–other agreement on a measure assessing both narcissis-
tic grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability and thus not only
provides additional evidence for the validity of the PNI, but
also greatly enhances our understanding of the way individuals
who rate themselves high in pathological narcissism view them-
selves and their social environment, and how they are perceived
by others. Our results support calls for multimethod assessments
of personality and psychopathology and demonstrate the unique
aspects of personality pathology that can be investigated using
research on interpersonal perception.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study reports on work that represents a portion of Mark
R. Lukowitsky’s dissertation. This research was made possible
by a grant awarded to Mark R. Lukowitsky by the Research
and Graduate Studies Office (RGSO) at The Pennsylvania State
University.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M., Krukowski, R. A., Dumenci, L., & Ivanova, M. Y. (2005).
Assessment of adult psychopathology: Meta-analyses and implications of
cross-informant correlations. Psychological Bulletin,131, 361–382.
Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus in personality
judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,55, 387–395.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Andersen, S. M., Glassman, N. S., & Gold, D. A. (1998). Mental representa-
tions of the self, significant others, and nonsignificant others: Structure and
processing of private and public aspects. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,75, 845–861.
Bagby, R. M., Rector, N. A., Bindseil, K., Dickens, S. E., Levitan, R. D.,
& Kennedy, S. H. (1998). Self-report ratings and informants’ ratings of
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:01 17 April 2013

INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION OF PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSISM 271
personalities of depressed outpatients. American Journal of Psychiatry,155,
437–438.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in
Western man. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Beck, A. T., Freeman, A., & Davis, D. D. (2004). Cognitive therapy of person-
ality disorders (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Besser, A., & Priel, B. (2010). Grandiose narcissism versus vulnerable narcis-
sism in threatening situations: Emotional reactions to achievement failure
and interpersonal rejection. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,29,
874–902.
Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2008). Narcissism at the crossroads:
Phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, so-
cial/personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology
Review,28, 638–656.
Caligor, E., & Clarkin, J. (2010) An object relations model of personality
and personality pathology. In J. Clarkin, P. Fonagy, & G. Gabbard (Eds.),
Psychodynamic psychotherapy for personality disorders: A clinical handbook
(pp. 3–36). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Carlson, E. N., Vazire, S., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2011). You probably think this
paper’s about you: Narcissists’ perceptions of their personality and reputation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,10, 185–201.
Carlson, R. (1971). Sex differences in ego functioning. Journal of Consulting
& Clinical Psychology,37, 267–277.
Christensen, P. N., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2004). The relationship between
interpersonal perception and post-traumatic stress disorder-related functional
impairment: A social relations model analysis. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy,
33, 151–160.
Christensen, P. N., Stein, M. B., & Means-Christensen, A. (2003). Social anxiety
and interpersonal perception: A social relations model analysis. Behaviour
Research and Therapy,41, 1355–1371.
Clark, L. A., Livesley, W. J., & Morey, L. (1997). Personality disorder assess-
ment: The challenge of construct validity. Journal of Personality Disorders,
11, 205–231.
Clarkin, J. F., Yeomans, F. E., & Kernberg, O. F. (2006). Psychotherapy for bor-
derline personality: Focusing on object relations. Arlington, VA: American
Psychiatric Publishing.
Clifton, A., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2004). Contrasting perspectives
on personality problems: Descriptions from the self and others. Personality
and Individual Differences,36, 1499–1514.
Colvin, C. R., & Funder, D. C. (1991). Predicting personality and behavior: A
boundary on the acquaintanceship effect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,60, 884–894.
Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The conver-
gent validity between self and observer ratings of personality: A meta-
analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,15, 110–
117.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order (rev. ed.) New York,
NY: Scribner’s.
Coolidge, F. L., Burns, E. M., & Mooney, J. A. (1995). Reliability of observer
ratings in the assessment of personality disorders: A preliminary study. Jour-
nal of Clinical Psychology,51, 22–28.
Cronbach, L. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others”
and “assumed similarity.” Psychological Bulletin,52, 177–193.
Davidson, K. M., Obonsawin, M. C., Seils, M., & Patience, L. (2003). Patient
and clinician agreement on personality using the SWAP–200. Journal of
Personality Disorders,17, 208–218.
Dawes, R. M. (1990). The potential nonfalsity of the false consensus effect.
In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel J.
Einhorn (pp. 179–199). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose
and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders,17, 188–
207.
Dimaggio, G., Procacci, M., Nicol`
o, G., Popolo, R., Semerari, A., Car-
cione, A., & Lysaker, P. H. (2007). Poor metacognition in narcissistic and
avoidant personality disorders: Four psychotherapy patients analysed using
the metacognition assessment scale. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,
14, 386–401.
Fiedler, E. R., Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2004). Traits associated with
personality disorders and adjustment to military life: Predictive validity of
self- and peer-reports. Military Medicine,169, 207–211.
Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship,
agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,55, 149–158.
Funder, D. C., & Dobroth, K. M. (1987). Differences between traits: Proper-
ties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,52, 409–418.
Funder, D. C., Kolar, D. C., & Blackman, M. C. (1995). Agreement among
judges of personality: Interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquaintance-
ship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,69, 656–672.
Gosling, S. D., John, O. P., Craik, K. H., & Robins, R. W. (1998). Do people
know how they behave? Self-reported act frequencies compared with on-
line codings by observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74,
1337–1349.
Greguras, G. J., Robie, C., & Born, M. (2001). Applying the social relations
model to self and peer evaluations. Journal of Management Development,20,
508–525.
Gurtman, M. B., & Lee, D. L. (2009). Sex differences in interpersonal problems:
A circumplex analysis. Psychological Assessment,21, 515–527.
Hayes, A. F., & Dunning, D. (1997). Construal processes and trait ambiguity:
Implications for self–peer agreement in personality judgment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,72, 664–677.
Huprich, S. K., Bornstein, R. F., & Schmitt, T. A. (2011). Self-report method-
ology is insufficient for improving the assessment and classification of
Axis II personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders,25, 557–
570.
Ingraham, L. J., & Wright, T. L. (1986). A cautionary note on the interpreta-
tion of relationship effects in the social relations model. Social Psychology
Quarterly,49, 93–97.
John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on
personality traits: The big five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the
unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality,61, 521–551.
John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception:
Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,66, 206–219.
Kealy, D., & Rasmussen, B. (2012). Veiled and vulnerable: The other side of
grandiose narcissism. Clinical Social Work Journal,40, 356–365.
Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New
York, NY: Guilford.
Kenny, D. A. (2004). PERSON: A general model of interpersonal perception.
Personality and Social Psychology Review,8, 265–280.
Kenny, D. A. (2007). Social relations model program [Computer software and
instructions]. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/srm/srmp.htm
Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1993). Do people knowhow others view them?
An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin,114, 145–
161.
Kenny, D. A., Horner, C., Kashy, D. A., & Chu, L. (1992). Consensus at
zero acquaintance: Replication, behavioral cues, and stability. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,62, 88–97.
Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1985). Separating individual and group effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,48, 339–348.
Kenny, D. A., Mohr, C. D., & Levesque, M. J. (2001). A social relations variance
partitioning of dyadic behavior. Psychological Bulletin,127, 128–141.
Kenny, D. A., & West, T. V. (2010). Similarity and agreement in self- and other
perception: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review,14,
196–213.
Klonsky, E. D., Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2002). Informant-reports of
personality disorder: Relation to self-reports and future research directions.
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,9, 300–311.
Kolar, D. W., Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1996). Comparing the accuracy
of personality judgments by the self and knowledgeable others. Journal of
Personality,64, 311–337.
Letzring, T. D., Wells, S. M., & Funder, D. C. (2006). Information quantity
and quality affect the realistic accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,91, 111–123.
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:01 17 April 2013

272 LUKOWITSKY AND PINCUS
Lukowitsky, M. R., & Pincus, A. L. (2011). The pantheoretical nature of men-
tal representations and their ability to predict interpersonal adjustment in a
nonclinical sample. Psychoanalytic Psychology,28, 48–74.
Mahaffey, K. J., & Marcus, D. K. (2006). Interpersonal perception of psychopa-
thy: A social relations analysis. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology,25,
53–74.
Malloy, T. E., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The social relations model: An integrative
method for personality research. Journal of Personality,54, 199–225.
Malloy, T. E., Sugarman, D. B., Montvilo, R. K., & Ben-Zeev, T. (1995).
Children’s interpersonal perceptions: A social relations analysis of perceiver
and target effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,68, 418–
426.
Marcus, D. K., & Askari, N. H. (1999). Dysphoria and interpersonal rejection:
A social relations analysis. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology,18,
370–384.
Marcus, D. K., & Wilson, J. R. (1996). Interpersonal perception of social anxiety:
A social relations analysis. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,15,
471–487.
Maxwell, K., Donnellan, M. B., Hopwood, C. J., & Ackerman, R. A. (2011).
The two faces of narcissus? An empirical comparison of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory and the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Personality
and Individual Differences,50, 577–582.
McKeeman, J. L., & Erickson, M. T. (1997). Self and informant ratings of
SCID–II personality disorders items for nonreferred college women: Effects
of item and participant characteristics. Journal of Clinical Psychology,53,
523–533.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R.
R., ... Reed, G. M. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assess-
ment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist,56, 128–
165.
Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing clinical and social-
personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality,76,
449–476.
Miller, J. D., Campbell, W.K., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2007). Narcissistic personality
disorder: Relations with distress and functional impairment. Comprehensive
Psychiatry,48, 170–177.
Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., & Campbell, K. W.
(2010). Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: Comparing factor 2 psychopa-
thy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disorder. Journal of
Personality,78, 1529–1564.
Miller, J. D., Pilkonis, P. A., & Morse, J. Q. (2004). Five-factor model prototypes
for personality disorders: The utility of self-reports and observer ratings.
Assessment,11, 127–138.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of person-
ality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in
personality structure. Psychological Review,102, 246–268.
Modestin, J., & Puhan, A. (2000). Comparison of assessment of personality
disorder by patients and informants. Psychopathology,33, 265–270.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcis-
sism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry,
12, 177–196.
Oltmanns, T. F., Friedman, J. N. W., Fiedler, E. R., & Turkheimer, E. (2004).
Perceptions of people with personality disorders based on thin slices of be-
havior. Journal of Research in Personality,38, 216–229.
Oltmanns, T. F., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2011). Personality, health, and social
adjustment in later life. In L. B. Cottler (Ed.), Mental health in public
health: The next 100 years (pp. 151–179). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Oltmanns T. F., Gleason, M. E. J., Klonsky, E. D., & Turkheimer, E. (2005).
Meta-perception for pathological personality traits: Do we know when oth-
ers think that we are difficult? Consciousness and Cognition,14, 739–
751.
Oltmanns, T. F., & Lawton, E. M. (2011). Self–other discrepancies. In W. K.
Campbell & J. D. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of narcissism and narcissistic
personality disorder (pp. 300–308). New York, NY: Wiley.
Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2006). Perceptions of self and others regard-
ing pathological personality traits. In R. F. Krueger, & J. L. Tackett (Eds.),
Personality and psychopathology (pp. 71–111). New York, NY: Guilford.
Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2009). Person perception and personality
pathology. Current Directions in Psychological Science,18, 32–36.
Oltmanns, T. F., Turkheimer, E., & Strauss, M. E. (1998). Peer assessment of
personality traits and pathology in female college students. Assessment,5,
53–65.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Mart´
ınez, V. (2006). Personality and the predic-
tion of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology,57, 401–
421.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-
enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,74, 1197–1208.
Paunonen, S. V. (1989). Consensus in personality judgments: Moderating ef-
fects of target-rater acquaintanceship and behavior observability. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,56, 823–833.
Pincus, A. L. (2012). The Pathological Narcissism Inventory. In J. Ogrod-
niczuk (Ed.), Treating pathological narcissism (pp. 93–110). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G. C.,
&, Levy, K. N. (2009). Initial construction and validation of the Pathological
Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment.
Pincus, A. L., & Hopwood, C. J. (2012). A contemporary interpersonal model
of personality pathology and personality disorder. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.),
Oxford handbook of personality disorders (pp. 372–398). Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Pincus, A. L., & Lukowitsky, M. R. (2010). Pathological narcissism and nar-
cissistic personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,6, 421–
446.
Pincus, A. L., & Roche, M. J. (2011). Narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic
vulnerability. In W. K. Campbell & J. D. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of nar-
cissism and narcissistic personality disorder (pp. 31–40). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Pronin, E., Kruger, J., Savitsky, K., & Ross, L. (2001). You don’t know me, but
I know you: The illusion of asymmetric insight. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,81, 639–656.
Rathvon, N., & Holmstrom, R. W. (1996). An MMPI–2 portrait of narcissism.
Journal of Personality Assessment,66, 1–19.
Ready, R. E., & Clark, L. A. (2002). Correspondence of psychiatric patient
and informant ratings of personality traits, temperament, and interpersonal
problems. Psychological Assessment,14, 39–49.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007).
The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits,
socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life out-
comes. Perspectives on Psychological Science,2, 313–345.
Robins, R. W., & Beer, J. S. (2001). Positive illusions about the self: Short-term
benefits and long-term costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80, 340–352.
Rohmann, E., Neumann, E., Herner, M., & Bierhoff, H. W. (2012). Grandiose
and vulnerable narcissism: Self-construal, attachment, and love in romantic
relationships. European Psychologist,17, 279–290.
Russ, E., Shedler, J., Bradley, R., & Westen, D. (2008). Refining the construct of
narcissistic personality disorder: Diagnostic criteria and subtypes. American
Journal of Psychiatry,165, 1473–1481.
Skodal, A. E., Bender, D. S., Morey, L. C., Clark, L. A., Oldham, J. M., Alarcod,
R. D., ...Siver, L. (2011). Personality disorder types proposed for DSM–V.
Journal of Personality Disorders,25, 136–169.
South, S. C., Oltmanns, T. F., Johnson, J., & Turkheimer, E. (2011). Level of
agreement between self and spouse in the assessment of personality pathol-
ogy. Assessment,18, 217–226.
Srivastava, S., Guglielmo, S., & Beer, J. S. (2010). Perceiving others’ person-
alities: Examining the dimensionality, assumed similarity to the self, and
stability of perceiver effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98, 520–534.
Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo
Park, NJ: Benjamin Cummins.
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:01 17 April 2013

INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION OF PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSISM 273
Thomas, C., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2003). Factorial structure of
pathological personality as evaluated by peers. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-
ogy,112, 81–91.
Thomas, K. M., Wright, A. G. C., Lukowitsky, M. R., Donnellan, M. B., &
Hopwood, C. J. (2012). Evidence for the criterion validity and clinical utility
of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Assessment,19, 135–145.
Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge
asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98, 281–300.
Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. (2010). Self-knowledge of personality: Do people
know themselves? Social and Personality Psychology Compass,4, 605–620.
Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. (2008). Knowing me, knowing you: The accuracy and
unique predictive validity of self-ratings and other-ratings of daily behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,95, 1202–1216.
Warner, R. M., Kenny, D. A., & Stoto, M. (1979). A new round robin analysis
of variance for social interaction data. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,37, 1742–1757.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1991). Self- versus peer ratings of specific emo-
tional traits: Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,60, 927–940.
Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). Self and other agreement in per-
sonality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and as-
sumed similarity. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology,78, 546–558.
Westen, D., & Shedler, J. (1999). Revising and assessing Axis II, part I: De-
veloping a clinically and empirically valid assessment method. American
Journal of Psychiatry,156, 258–272.
Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,61, 590–597.
Wood, D., Harms, P., & Vazire, S. (2010). Perceiver effects as projective tests:
What your perceptions of others say about you. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,99, 174–190.
Wright, A. G. C., Lukowitsky, M. R., Pincus, A. L., & Conroy, D. E. (2010).
The higher order factor structure and gender invariance of the Pathological
Narcissism Inventory. Assessment,17, 467–483.
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:01 17 April 2013