Content uploaded by Mitja D Back
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mitja D Back on Jun 20, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 1
Puffed-Up but Shaky Selves: State Self-Esteem Level and Variability in Narcissists
Katharina Geukes1, Steffen Nestler1, Roos Hutteman2, Michael Dufner3, Albrecht C. P.
Küfner1, Boris Egloff4, Jaap J. A. Denissen5, & Mitja D. Back1
1University of Münster, Germany; 2Utrecht University, Netherlands; 3University of Leipzig,
Germany; 4University of Mainz, Germany; 5Tilburg University, Netherlands
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Personality Processes and Individual
Differences, in press.
This is an unedited manuscript accepted for publication. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Author Note
This research was supported by Grant BA 3731/6-1 from the German Research Foundation
(DFG) to Mitja D. Back, Steffen Nestler, and Boris Egloff.
We embrace the values of openness and transparency in science (Schönbrodt, Maier, Heene,
& Zehetleitner, 2015; osf.io/4dvkw). We therefore follow the 21-word solution
(Simmons, Nelson, & Simmonsohn, 2012), or refer to complete project
documentations in the OSF. We furthermore publish all raw data necessary to
reproduce reported results and provide scripts for all data analyses reported in this
manuscript (see Geukes, et al., 2016; osf.io/2yvfk).
We are grateful to Ruben C. Arslan, Anna Auth, Simon M. Breil, Jasmina Eskic, Francesca
Froreich, Stella Grau, Marc Grünberg, Mara Herzog, Ariane Liedmeier, Jana Mattern,
Stefan Mayer, Ina Mielke, Christian Pill, Jennifer Riefer, and Lisa Schwalenstöcker
for their help with data collection, preparation, and documentation, and to Simon M.
Breil, Lisa M. Dinkelborg, Sarah Humberg, Marius Leckelt, Lisa Schwalenstöcker,
Till Utesch, and Stefanie N. Wurst for their valuable comments on an earlier version
of this manuscript.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Katharina Geukes
(katharina.geukes@uni-muenster.de, University of Münster, Institute for Psychology,
Psychological Assessment and Personality Psychology, Fliednerstr. 21, 48149 Münster,
Germany)
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 2
Puffed-Up but Shaky Selves: State Self-Esteem Level and Variability in Narcissists
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 3
Abstract
Different theoretical conceptualizations characterize grandiose narcissists by high, yet
fragile self-esteem. Empirical evidence, however, has been inconsistent, particularly regarding
the relationship between narcissism and self-esteem fragility (i.e., self-esteem variability).
Here, we aim at unraveling this inconsistency by disentangling the effects of two theoretically
distinct facets of narcissism (i.e., admiration and rivalry) on the two aspects of state self-
esteem (i.e., level and variability). We report on data from a laboratory-based and two field-
based studies (total N = 596) in realistic social contexts, capturing momentary, daily, and
weekly fluctuations of state self-esteem. To estimate unbiased effects of narcissism on the
level and variability of self-esteem within one model, we applied mixed-effects location scale
models. Results of the three studies and their meta-analytical integration indicated that
narcissism is positively linked to self-esteem level and variability. When distinguishing
between admiration and rivalry, however, an important dissociation was identified:
Admiration was related to high (and rather stable) levels of state self-esteem, whereas rivalry
was related to (rather low and) fragile self-esteem. Analyses on underlying processes suggest
that effects of rivalry on self-esteem variability are based on stronger decreases in self-esteem
from one assessment to the next, particularly following a perceived lack of social inclusion.
The revealed differentiated effects of admiration and rivalry explain why the analysis of
narcissism as a unitary concept has led to the inconsistent past findings and provide deeper
insights into the intrapersonal dynamics of grandiose narcissism governing state self-esteem.
Word count: 238
Keywords: grandiose narcissism, state self-esteem level, within-person variability in state
self-esteem, (narcissistic) ego-fragility
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 4
Puffed-up but shaky selves: State self-esteem level and variability in narcissists
The fascination for narcissism1 derives from its inherent contradictions. Narcissism
combines intuitively opposing characteristics such as extraversion and disagreeableness,
charmingness and aggressiveness, humor and hostility (cf. Back, Küfner, Dufner, Gerlach,
Rauthmann, & Denissen, 2013; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Paulhus, 2001). One particularly
fascinating and puzzling contradiction that touches the very core of the narcissistic self is its
puffed-up but shaky nature (see Gregg & Sedikides, 2010; Lowen, 2004). Narcissists are
typically assumed to experience feelings of grandiosity, superiority, and uniqueness. At the
same time, however, these positive feelings are thought to be fragile, because they alternate
with feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, and worthlessness (e.g., Akhtar & Thomson, 1982;
Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995). Although the concept of narcissism as involving a puffed-up and
shaky self is prominent within the literature, empirical evidence is inconsistent (cf. Bosson,
Lakey, Campbell, Zeigler-Hill, Jordan, & Kernis, 2008; Zeigler-Hill, & Myers, 2008). Aiming
at clarifying the link between narcissism and self-esteem, the current research tests the
proposal that agentic and antagonistic facets of narcissism (i.e., admiration and rivalry) might
predict self-esteem level and variability in opposing ways.
Level and Variability of State Self-Esteem
Self-esteem reflects persons’ appraisal of their personal value (cf. James, 1890; Leary
& Baumeister, 2000; Rosenberg, 1965). It has been shown to have trait components as well as
state components (Donnellan, Kenny, Trzesniewski, Lucas, & Conger, 2012; Kenny &
Zautra, 2001; Wagner, Lüdtke, & Trautwein, 2016). Previous research on state self-esteem
(for reviews see Greenier, Kernis, & Waschull, 1995; Kernis, 1993; Kernis & Waschull,
1995; Rosenberg, 1986) emphasizes that individuals differ regarding two important aspects:
The extent to which they feel positive (vs. negative) about themselves on average (i.e., state
self-esteem level) and the extent to which this self-evaluation fluctuates (vs. is stable; i.e.,
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 5
self-esteem fragility; e.g., Jordan & Zeigler-Hill, 2013; Kernis, 2003; 2005; Kernis, Cornell,
Sun, Berry, & Harlow, 1993; Neiss, Sedikides, & Stevenson, 2006).
Explaining these individual differences in level and fragility of state self-esteem,
personality research has identified a number of associated personality traits (e.g., neuroticism,
extraversion, and agreeableness; Meier, Orth, Denissen, & Kühnel, 2011; Zeigler-Hill et al.,
2015). Here, narcissism appears to be a particularly interesting candidate as this trait has been
conceptually related to both higher state self-esteem levels as well as higher fragility (e.g.,
Baumeister & Vohs, 2001; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Tracy & Robins; 2003).
Prior Research on Narcissistic Self-Esteem
Narcissism as a personality trait is characterized by individual differences in the
overarching goal to maintain a grandiose self (Back et al., 2013; Emmons, 1984; 1987; Morf
& Rhodewalt, 2001). A prominent idea that was already apparent in early psychodynamic
approaches (e.g., Kernberg, 1975, 1986; Kohut, 1966, 1972) and still is in contemporary
models of narcissism (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Bosson, et al., 2008; Zeigler-Hill & Besser,
2013) highlights the contradictory, even paradoxical nature of narcissistic self-evaluations.
The core of the narcissistic self-evaluation is characterized by simultaneous grandiosity (i.e.,
positivity; level) and fragility (i.e., variability).
The association of narcissism to high levels of self-esteem is well established. A
grandiose self should—almost by definition—be related to positive self-evaluations (cf.
Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004). Narcissists feel good about
themselves, because they think they are special and unique (e.g., Carlson, Vazire, &
Oltmanns, 2011; Emmons, 1984), better than others (e.g., Brown & Zeigler-Hill, 2004;
Campbell Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002), and better than reality might suggest (e.g., Dufner et
al., 2012; Gabriel, Citrelli, & Ee, 1994; John & Robins, 1994). To maintain these positive
self-perceptions, narcissists typically use specific intrapersonal and interpersonal strategies
(e.g., Campbell & Foster, 2007; Campbell, Brunell, & Finkel, 2006; Foster, Shrira, &
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 6
Campbell, 2006). They fantasize about their grandiosity (Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991)
and power (Raskin & Navacek, 1989), self-enhance (Campbell et al., 2002), and blame the
situation and not themselves for failures (e.g., Farwell & Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998; Rhodewalt
& Morf, 1995; Stucke, 2003). They also use their relationships with others to boost or
maintain their positive self-views: They tend to constantly seek admiration (e.g., Dufner,
Egloff, Hausmann, Wendland, Neyer, & Back, 2015; Wallace & Baumeister, 2002), engage in
self-assured and charming behaviors (e.g., Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010; Küfner, Nestler,
& Back, 2012; Leckelt, Küfner, Nestler, & Back, 2015), and associate themselves with highly
positive and successful others to increase their power, status, and, thus, their self-esteem (e.g.,
Campbell, 1999; Grosz, Dufner, Back, & Denissen, 2015).
Empirical evidence regarding the relationship between narcissism and self-esteem
level mainly regards the relationship between traits. This trait-trait correlation has consistently
been found to be moderately positive and typically between .2 and .3 (e.g., Brown & Zeigler-
Hill, 2004; Campbell, et al., 2002; Raskin, et al., 1991; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1998). Similarly,
moderate and positive associations were found when investigating the relationship between
trait narcissism and self-esteem state level (e.g., Zeigler-Hill & Besser, 2013).
The effects of narcissism on the variability of self-evaluations are less clear.
According to the Dynamic Self-Regulatory Model of Narcissism (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001), a
fragile self should be characteristic of narcissists because their confirmation-seeking
interpersonal strategies are only successful in the short run, when they still receive positive
feedback (e.g., Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Studies have shown that in the long run narcissism
is indeed linked to negative peer-evaluations at longer acquaintance (Czarna, Dufner, &
Clifton, 2015; Küfner, et al., 2012; Leckelt et al., 2015; Paulhus, 1998) and to a heightened
reactivity to external events (e.g., Besser & Priel, 2010; Kernis & Sun, 1994; Rhodewalt,
Madrian, & Cheney, 1998; Zeigler-Hill, Myers, & Clark, 2010). These negative dynamics are
thought to counteract narcissists’ high aspirations that regard the maintenance of a grandiose
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 7
self. Negative deviations from grandiosity (i.e., decreases in self-esteem level), however,
subsequently result in fragile self-views.
Empirical studies addressing the relationship of narcissism and self-esteem variability
have identified mixed findings. Results of two meta-analyses (Bosson et al., 2008) did not
reveal a consistent relationship between narcissism and self-esteem variability as narcissism
was indeed positively linked to self-esteem variability in some studies (Rhodewalt et al.,
1998; Zeigler-Hill et al., 2010) but not in others (Webster, Kirkpatrick, Nezlek, Smith, &
Paddock, 2007; Zeigler-Hill, 2006; Zeigler-Hill, Chadha, & Ostermann, 2008). We suggest
that a clearer pattern of findings might emerge if two distinct aspects of narcissism, agentic
and antagonistic narcissism, are investigated separately.
A Two-Dimensional Perspective on Narcissistic Self-Esteem
Most traditional models, for example the dynamic self-regulatory processing model
(Morf & Rhodewald, 2001), the agency model (Campbell & Foster, 2007), and the contextual
reinforcement model (Campbell & Campbell, 2009), regard grandiose narcissism as a unitary
concept. Integrating these important existing models and prior evidence on the multifaceted
nature of grandiose narcissism (e.g., Brown, Budzek, & Tamborski, 2009; Paulhus, 2001), the
Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (NARC; Back et al., 2013) proposes a novel and
two-dimensional conceptualization of this trait. Following the NARC, narcissists pursue their
overarching goal of maintaining a grandiose self by two separate social strategies: An agentic
strategy called narcissistic admiration and an antagonistic strategy called narcissistic rivalry.
These strategies activate distinct sets of affective-motivational, cognitive, and behavioral
pathways. Narcissistic admiration can be characterized by assertive self-enhancement and
self-promoting efforts, and narcissistic rivalry by self-protection and self-defending efforts.
Accordingly, admiration typically leads to positive social outcomes (social potency) that
might feed back into the grandiose self (ego-boosts). Rivalry, however, is usually linked to
negative social outcomes (social conflict) and might rather menace the grandiose self (ego-
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 8
threats). Empirical research has indeed supported these distinctive pathways (Back et al.,
2013; Küfner et al., 2013; Lange, Crusius, & Hagemeyer, 2016; Leckelt et al., 2015).
The NARC has important implications for predictions regarding narcissists’ level and
variability of state self-esteem. The different social consequences of admiration and rivalry
should translate into different typical levels of state self-esteem. As admiration has largely
positive social consequences (Back et al., 2013), it is linked to the experience of positive
social feedback, followed by ego-boosts that help to maintain a high level of self-esteem.
Rivalry, contrarily, has largely negative social consequences (Back et al., 2013) that go along
with the experience of negative interpersonal feedback. These usually result in ego-threats and
negatively affect the level of state self-esteem. In line with this reasoning, opposing
associations were found regarding trait self-esteem (which is strongly related to the level of
state self-esteem; e.g., Kernis 2003, 2005): In the studies by Back et al. (2013) links to self-
esteem were positive for admiration and negative for rivalry. Additional preliminary support
comes from a study by Zeigler-Hill and Besser (2013), who demonstrated that the
“Leadership/Authority” facet of the NPI that most strongly captures an agentic aspect (i.e.,
admiration) of grandiose narcissism was positively linked to trait self-esteem as well as the
average level of state self-esteem. The “Entitlement/Exploitativeness” facet most strongly
capturing an antagonistic aspect (i.e., rivalry) of grandiose narcissism was negatively linked to
levels of self-esteem. Hence, there is some empirical support for opposing associations of
admiration (i.e., positive) and rivalry (i.e., negative) with the level of self-esteem.
Distinct effects of admiration and rivalry can also be expected regarding the variability
of state self-esteem. Because admiration is more strongly linked to positive and reinforcing
social dynamics, it should lead to rather stable self-esteem, and be unrelated or negatively
related to potential decreases. This reasoning is in line with prior work by Alicke and
Sedikides (2009), who describe self-enhancement (reflected by admiration within the NARC)
as the narcissistic default. Self-protecting efforts (reflected by rivalry) should only come into
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 9
play when there is a current social need (e.g., ego-threats, negative social feedback).
Accordingly, narcissistic admiration should generally lead to positive self-evaluations.
Conceptually, the fragile nature of narcissists’ selves should be most clearly reflected by
narcissistic rivalry. The social costs and ego threats associated with rivalry should menace the
overarching goal of maintaining a grandiose self. Self-evaluations should therefore deviate
from expected grandiosity and, consequently, result in decreases of self-esteem. In line with
sociometer theory (e.g., Leary & Baumeister, 2000) and the idea that rivalry is associated with
an increased focus on potential negative social feedback, state self-esteem should be
particularly low, when individuals high in narcissistic rivalry perceive a lack of social
approval. Hence, narcissistic rivalry should be related to less positive and more fragile self-
views. Again, preliminary empirical support derives from a study relating NPI facets to self-
esteem variability: Only Entitlement/Exploitativeness (a specific antagonistic aspect of
narcissism), but not Leadership/Authority (a specific agentic aspect of narcissism), was
positively linked to the variability of state self-esteem across days (Zeigler-Hill & Besser,
2013).
The Present Research
The purpose of the present research was to comprehensively test the hypothesized
differentiated associations between admiration and rivalry with the level and variability of
state self-esteem. Although these two dimensions of narcissism are positively associated, we
expected them to influence the level and variability of state self-esteem in opposing ways.
Specifically, we expect admiration to be positively related to state self-esteem level and
negatively related to its variability, while rivalry was expected to be negatively linked to state
self-esteem level and positively linked to its variability. We further hypothesized that rivalry
would be related to (a) stronger average self-esteem decreases and (b) stronger negative self-
esteem reactions to a perceived lack of social approval. In line with the NARC, this would
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 10
point at a heightened sensitivity of individuals high in rivalry to actual or perceived negative
social feedback.
To examine these hypotheses, we report on three studies in which we applied different
methodologies and time frames, ranging from momentary time intervals between state
assessments in a laboratory context in Study 1 to daily and weekly intervals in field contexts
in Studies 2 and 3, respectively. All of these studies were realized in the context of college life
providing comparability across studies and robust insights into the self-evaluative dynamics
during this important life phase (e.g., Chung, Robins, Trzesniewski, Noftle, Robert, &
Widaman, 2014; Wagner, Lüdtke, Jonkmann, & Trautwein, 2013).
This research goes beyond prior investigations of the relationship between grandiose
narcissism and self-esteem level and variability as it is the first empirical investigation that (a)
builds on a theoretical conceptualization of the processes linking the agentic and antagonistic
aspects of grandiose narcissism (i.e., admiration and rivalry) to state self-esteem level and
variability (i.e., the NARC), (b) uses psychometrically sound questionnaires designed for the
assessment of the agentic and antagonistic aspects of narcissism, (c) analyzes effects across
different self-esteem measures, (d) applies a novel, unbiased statistical approach to the
analysis of effects on the state level and variability of repeated within-person state
assessments (the mixed-effects location scale model), (e) tests for unique effects of narcissism
beyond the Big Five dimensions, (f) considers potential processes underlying the links
between facets of narcissism and self-esteem variability, and (g) tests all hypotheses across
three longitudinal studies with different methodologies and time frames.
General Methodological and Statistical Approach
This investigation involves a laboratory-based and two field-based study studies. For
each of these studies we provide the data and codes on www.osf.io/2yvfk/. These studies
share two important attributes as we, first, assessed grandiose narcissism (i.e., global
narcissism, admiration, and rivalry) and the Big Five dimensions and, second, repeatedly
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 11
assessed state-self-esteem (i.e., up to 10 times in Study 1; up to 14 times in Study 2; up to 21
times in Study 3). To test our hypotheses regarding the effects of narcissism on the level and
variability of self-esteem, we calculated mixed-effects location scale models (Hedeker,
Demirtas, & Mermelstein, 2008; see also Lindley, 1971; Lin, Raz, & Harlow, 1997) as a first
analytical step. In a second step, we zoomed into potential processes underlying the
relationship between rivalry and self-esteem variability by calculating multilevel random-
intercept-and-slope-models to test whether rivalry predicts the average strength of decreases
in self-esteem. These two steps were followed in all three studies. In cases of additional
analyses within a single study, a detailed description of the statistical approach is provided
within the respective results section. To provide robust estimates of effects, we finally report
on the meta-analytical integrations of the analyses of effects of personality traits on (a) the
level and variability of state self-esteem and (b) the decreases in state self-esteem across the
three studies.
Analyses of Effects on the Level and Variability of Self-Esteem
Problems with prior approaches to variability. In traditional statistical approaches
to between-person differences in intraindividual variability, researchers typically use the
intraindividual variance (see Wang & Grimm, 2012). This practice, however, involves two
major disadvantages (see Wang, Hamaker, & Bergeman, 2012, for a critical discussion). First,
because the variance is computed for a longitudinally assessed variable, it is sensitive to
systematic intraindividual development. If a person experiences a linear increase in self-
esteem across 14 days, for example, this leads to an overestimation of intraindividual
variance. Second, using the within-person variance is statistically problematic because it
assumes that the variance parameters are estimated without error. The estimated variance
parameters, however, are composite values of true variance parameters and measurement
error. As this error is typically not taken into account in the second step of the analysis, the
results may not be trustworthy and the standard errors might be biased.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 12
The Mixed-Effects Location Scale Model. The application of the mixed-effects
location scale model is a suitable option to overcome above-mentioned problems (Hedeker,
Demirtas, & Mermelstein, 2008; see also Lindley, 1971; Lin, Raz, & Harlow, 1997). This
model is an extension of a multilevel growth model that is often used to model repeated
measurements of an individual (see Nestler, Grimm, & Schönbrodt, 2015, for an introduction,
or Verbeke & Molenberghs, 2009, for an extensive treatment of this model). In the standard
multilevel growth model, the repeated observations of person i are modeled as a function of a
time variable:
(1)
Here, is a vector that contains the repeated observations of person i, time is the timing
variable, is the intercept for person i and is the slope for person i that denotes the rate
of change of i. Finally, is a vector that contains the residual terms of person i. These
residuals capture intraindividual variability over time that is not explained by the growth
model.
In the standard growth model, the intercept and the slope can vary between
participants. This allows the inclusion of person-level variables, such as a person’s narcissism
score, to predict individual differences in the intercept and slope using equations:
(2)
Here, the parameters β12 and β22 (β13 and β23) give the association between the person’s values
on admiration and rivalry, for example, and the intercept and the slope, respectively. u1i and
u2i are random effects that reflect the person-specific deviation from the average intercept or
the average slope, respectively.
Growth models typically assume that the variance of within-person residuals, i.e., σεi2
for person i, is the same value for all participants. The mixed-effects location scale model
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 13
weakens this latter assumption by allowing between-person heterogeneity in the residual
variance:
(3)
where β31 is the average within-person variance and u3i is a random effect that explains the
deviation of person i’s within-person variance from the average within-person variance.
Please note that when modeling the variance, this value needs to be positive (i.e., the variance
is defined to be greater or equal to zero). In the mixed-effects scale location model, this is
achieved by using the exponential function (i.e., the values of exp are always positive).
Furthermore, as in the case of the intercept and the slope, Equation 3 can be extended by
including person-level covariates to predict individual differences in the within-person
residual variance:
(4)
Here, β32 and β33 give the association between admiration and rivalry and the within-person
variance.
Advantages of the Mixed-Effects Location Scale Model. The mixed-effects location
scale model has three noteworthy features that make this model suitable for the study of the
link between predictor variables (person-level covariates; e.g., narcissism) and the level and
variability of an outcome variable (e.g., self-esteem). First, by including a time variable, the
model controls for any longitudinal within-person changes that may occur. Second, the
influence of covariates on between-person differences in the intercept, the slope of the timing
variable, and the residual variance is estimated in one model. Third, the mixed-effects
location scale model posits that the intercept, the slope, and the residual variance are
correlated random variables. Therefore, the covariance between each person’s mean level and
their within-person variability are considered in the model estimation. This is important as
individuals with high mean levels tend to have smaller variances; and not accounting for this
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 14
correlation can bias the obtained results (see Baird, Le, & Lucas, 2006, for an extensive
discussion).
Models Tested. The mixed-effect location scale model included participants’ self-
esteem as the outcome variable and a grand-mean centered linear time variable as the
predictor variable. The intercept term, the slope of the timing variable, and the residual
variance were allowed to vary between participants. To explain between-person differences in
mean-level (i.e., differences in the intercepts) and in residual variance, we included z-
standardized person-level covariates in the models. As a first model we calculated a null-
model predicting the outcome at various time points only from the time variable.
Subsequently, we calculated a model that included the total score for grandiose narcissism
(using global narcissism) and a model with admiration and rivalry as predictors. Given the
moderate overlap between narcissism and the Big Five personality traits (Back et al., 2013;
Miller & Maples, 2011; Paulhus, 2001), the latter two models were additionally run including
and controlling for the Big Five personality dimensions.
Model Estimation. To estimate the parameters of the mixed-effects location scale
model, a maximum-likelihood approach (see Hedeker et al., 2008; Hedeker & Nordgren,
2013) or a Bayesian approach can be employed (see Gelman & Hill, 2007; Hoff, 2009; van de
Schroot, Kaplan, Denissen, Asendorpf, Neyer, & van Aken, 2014, for introductions to
Bayesian estimation; see Rast, Hofer, & Sparks, 2012, for one application of the Bayesian
approach involving the mixed-effects location scale model). Typically, the Bayesian approach
outperforms the maximum-likelihood approach when the number of measurement occasions
is small and when the number of measurements strongly varies between participants.
Especially for the former reason, we decided to use the Bayesian approach here.3
Analyses of Effects on Decreases in Self-Esteem
To examine the effects of admiration and rivalry on strength of decreases in self-
esteem, we first computed a difference variable for each single person by subtracting the self-
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 15
esteem value at time-point t from their values at time-point t+1. For instance, when a person
has 2, 3, 2, 2 as self-esteem values at four consecutive time-points, the difference variable
would be 1, -1, 0. The difference variable is positive when a person experienced an increase in
self-esteem, negative when self-esteem decreased, and zero when self-esteem did not change
from one assessment to the next. Second, after exclusion of all stable values in this difference
variable4, we created two dummy variables that either indicated the occurrence of an increase
(i.e., defined to be 1 when the difference variable was positive and zero otherwise) or a
decrease, respectively, (set to 1 when the difference variable was negative and zero
otherwise). Third, these two dummy variables were then used in a multilevel model to predict
the self-esteem difference variable. This way, the fixed regression effects of these two dummy
variables reflect the average increase and the average decrease, respectively, across intervals
and persons. Fourth, as the variances of these dummy variables reflect individual deviations
from the sample’s average increase or decrease, respectively, we used individuals’ values in
admiration and rivalry to predict the variance of the decreases-related dummy variable to test
whether rivalry indeed goes along with larger decreases in self-esteem. Please note that in
cases of absent linear trends in the self-esteem data, a person’s increases in self-esteem mirror
respective decreases. We therefore report the according descriptive information related to
decreases and increases. Statistical tests of the hypothesis that rivalry predicts self-esteem
decreases are only reported for decreases because (a) the decrease and the increase model are
almost identical and (b), conceptually, we were primarily interested in the decreases in self-
esteem.
Study 1
Study 1 served as an initial laboratory-based investigation of the relationship between
narcissism and state self-esteem level as well as self-esteem variability. We started with a
comparatively narrow time perspective and repeatedly assessed state self-esteem during three
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 16
experimental sessions that involved standardized social interactions within small groups of
students.
Method
Participants and procedures. Data collection was part of the Personality Interaction
Laboratory Study (PILS, for a detailed overview see Geukes, Hutteman, Küfner, Nestler, &
Back, 2016; and www.osf.io/q5zwp). The initial sample consisted of 311 students who were
randomly assigned to small groups consisting of four to six persons. Participants attended
three sessions which were one week apart and in which they worked on a total of seven
interaction tasks that were chosen to increase in interaction depth and intimacy. In Session 1,
these tasks involved reading aloud a neutral text, as well as a brief and a long self-
introduction. In Session 2, the groups solved two group tasks, i.e., a lost on the moon task
(Robins & Beer, 2001) and ticking bomb scenario (Association for the Prevention of Torture,
2007). In the Session 3, the groups discussed a moral dilemma and played a personality game
in which they had to assign each other two adjectives from a pool of twelve adjectives. All
adjectives were either mildly or strongly negative or positive, respectively, and each of them
needed to be assigned to a person and. For the current analyses, we used the personality trait
measures assessed via online questionnaires and personality state measures obtained directly
before and after each interaction task via a netbook device (up to 10 time points; 270 with 10
time points). Because we only included those participants who at least provided five state
assessments, the final sample involved 299 participants with a mean age of 23.95 years (SD =
3.93) and 55% being female (n = 163). All students participated in exchange for course credit
or received monetary compensation (€30). The institutional review board of the University of
Mainz, Germany, approved all procedures.
Measures.
Narcissism. We used two questionnaires to assess narcissism. First, we employed the
German version (Schütz, Marcus, & Sellin, 2004) of the 40-item Narcissistic Personality
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 17
Inventory (NPI-40; Raskin & Hall, 1979). Items (e.g., “I really like to be the center of
attention.” vs. “It makes me uncomfortable to be the center of attention.”) were answered as a
forced choice between the first (here: narcissistic) and the second (here: non-narcissistic)
statement.
Second, we used the 18-item Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire
(NARQ; Back et al., 2013) with the subscales Narcissistic Admiration and Narcissistic
Rivalry (9 items each; Admiration: e.g., “I am great.”; Rivalry: e.g., “I want my rivals to
fail.”). All items were answered on 6-point scales ranging from 1 (not agree at all) to 6 (agree
completely).
Big Five. To assess the Big Five, we used a supplemented version of the 15-item Big
Five Inventory-SOEP (BFI-S; Schupp & Gerlitz, 2008). Due to the low reliability that is
typical for brief agreeableness scales (cf., Hahn, Gottschling, & Spinath, 2012; Lang, John,
Lüdtke, Schupp, & Wagner, 2011), we added two additional agreeableness items. These items
were “I am a person who easily trusts others and believes other people are good” and “I see
myself as someone who tends to criticize others” (reversed coded). All items were answered
on 7-point scales (1 = does not apply at all to 7 = applies completely).
State self-esteem. To assess state self-esteem, we used an aggregate of three items that
were specifically chosen to assess state self-esteem and referred to momentary thoughts and
feelings about oneself (i.e., “I am satisfied with myself”, “I trust in my abilities”, “I am
satisfied with my appearance”). These items were answered on 7-point scales from 1 (does
not apply at all) to 7 (applies perfectly).
Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and reliabilities for the narcissism facets,
self-esteem level and variability and the Big Five, as well as their intercorrelations. For all
mixed-effects location scale models we report the EAP, the Expected a Posteriori or Bayes
Mean Estimate, the MAP, the Median a Posteriori or Bayes Median Estimate, and the BCI,
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 18
the Bayesian Confidence Interval. Results of the null model indicate that individuals
significantly differed from each other in self-esteem level (Intercept: EAP = 4.159; MAP =
4.161; BCI [4.073, 4.242]; Variance of intercept: EAP = .776; MAP = .771; BCI [0.678,
0.898]) as well as in variability (Variability: EAP = .084; MAP = .084; BCI [.071, .099];
Variability of variability: EAP = 2.629; MAP = 2.618; BCI [2.194, 3.0096]). Self-esteem
level and variability were significantly negatively correlated (r = -.35; Covariance: EAP = -
.500; MAP = -.499; BCI [-.656, -.360]).
Effects on Level and Variability of Self-Esteem. Table 2 presents the results of the
mixed-effects locations scale model for the NPI total score and admiration and rivalry based
on the NARQ without and with inclusion of the Big Five, respectively. Narcissism (as NPI
total score) was positively related to state self-esteem level and negatively to state self-esteem
variability. The latter association was insignificant when controlling for the Big Five. When
analyzing the effects of the two facets of narcissism, admiration was positively related and
rivalry was unrelated to self-esteem level. Regarding the prediction of the self-esteem
variability, admiration had negative and rivalry had positive effects. These associations held
after controlling for the Big Five.
Effects on Decreases in Self-Esteem. To zoom into the relationship of rivalry with
self-esteem variability, we examined decreases (and increases) in self-esteem from one time-
point to the next. Descriptive statistics showed that of a total of 2,584 potential changes, 27%
were decreases, 31% were increases, and 42% were stable values (i.e., the difference variable
was zero). Results of the random-intercept-and-slope model indicated that the average
decrease was b = -.564, t(267.50) = -32.81, p < .001, and the average increase was b = .529,
t(486.00) = 39.53, p < .001. Rivalry was a significant predictor of the individual differences in
the average decrease of self-esteem, b = -.056, t(291.20) = -2.16, p = .032, but not admiration,
b = .042, t(299.40) = 1.53, p = .127. This indicates that persons high on rivalry indeed
experienced greater average decreases than their low-scoring counterparts.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 19
Because all participants experienced similar situations between self-esteem
assessments, we could further zoom into the exact time course of decreases related to
narcissistic rivalry. To do so, we used the created difference variable to compute nine dummy
variables that, given ten assessments in total, refer to one of the nine time intervals between
them, respectively. Each of these dummy variables coded whether a difference from one time-
point to the next refers to the first interval (i.e., t = 1 to t = 2), to the second interval (i.e., t = 2
to t = 3), and so on until the ninth interval (i.e., t = 9 to t = 10). These dummy variables were
then used in a multilevel model to predict the difference variable5. The results of this model
indicated that there was a significant average decrease in the seventh interval, b = -0.118,
t(1493) = -2.541, p = .011, and a significant average increase in the ninth interval, b = 0.110,
t(1493) = 2.087, p = .037. In all other intervals, the average change, was not significantly
different from zero, ts < 1.65. Subsequent analyses tested whether individual differences in
the average decrease were associated with rivalry. Results showed that this was the case:
Predicting this time-point specific decrease with rivalry revealed that rivalry served as
significant predictor, b = -.181, t(1491) = --3.711, p < .01. Thus, individuals high in rivalry
experienced a particularly large decrease in self-esteem from the end of the second session to
the beginning of the third.
Discussion
The results of Study 1 indicate that global narcissism positively predicts self-esteem
level but negatively predicts self-esteem variability. The distinction between admiration and
rivalry, however, helped to uncover opposing effects: Admiration was positively related to
self-esteem level and negatively related to its variability. Rivalry, however, was unrelated to
level and positively associated with the variability in self-esteem. Providing initial insights
into the processes underlying the stronger self-esteem variability of individuals high in
rivalry, rivalry was indeed positively related to the average amount of decreases in self-
esteem. Thus, as hypothesized by the NARC, one could conclude that the variability results
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 20
from more pronounced drops in self-esteem. Generally, findings of Study 1 supported the
hypotheses of differentiated effects of admiration and rivalry on self-esteem level and
variability in the context of social interactions in the laboratory, and point at rivalry playing
an important role in the prediction of self-esteem decreases.
Study 2
To replicate and extend the findings of Study 1, we moved outside the laboratory into
the field in Study 2. Here, we used a time-based diary assessment in which we increased the
time intervals between state self-esteem assessments to days and used a different state self-
esteem measure to test for convergent evidence.
Method
Participants and procedures. Data collection was part of a large-scale investigation
on motive dispositions (for detailed descriptions see Dufner, Arslan, Hagemeyer, Schönbrodt,
& Denissen, 2015). The initial sample consisted of 209 university students from different
universities in Berlin, Germany, and nearby cities. For the purpose of the present study, we
used data of the second wave of personality trait and state assessments, for which we had data
on the full versions of the NPI and the NARQ. The state assessments were obtained via daily
online diaries involving a maximum of 14 measurements. Participants were requested to
complete the online diaries on 14 consecutive days between 6pm and 4am and received a
daily e-mail reminder to do so. Participants were allowed to skip days during the diary-phase
if necessary, but were advised not to do so. We only included those participants who provided
at least five state assessments, resulting in a final sample of 176 participants. Within the final
sample, participants’ mean age was 27.31 years (SD = 2.95) and 70% (n = 122) were females.
The number of daily diary entries per person ranged from 5 to 14, with an average of 13.80
(SD = 1.22; Mdn = 14). As incentives, participants received monetary compensation (120 €
for the whole large scale investigation) and feedback on their personality. The Humboldt-
University’s institutional review board approved the collection of the data used in this study.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 21
Measures.
Narcissism. As in Study 1, we used the NPI (Raskin & Hall, 1979; German version by
Schütz et al., 2004) and the NARQ (Back et al., 2013).
Big Five. We used a validated 21-item Big Five Inventory (BFI-K; Rammstedt &
John, 2005) to assess the Big Five. Items (e.g., “I am outgoing, sociable.”) were answered on
5-point Likert-scales from 1 (does not apply) to 5 (does fully apply).
State Self-Esteem. To assess state self-esteem, we used four items (3, 6, 7, and 10) of
the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965), which were modified to measure
states (taken from Nezlek & Plesko, 2003; also used in Denissen, Penke, Schmitt, & Van
Aken, 2008; “Today I thought I am a total failure.”, “Today I had a positive attitude towards
myself.”, “Today I was satisfied with myself”, “Today I felt completely useless.”). The
original 1 to 4 response format was changed into 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree
to 5 = strongly agree).
Results
Table 3 includes the descriptive statistics and reliabilities for the narcissism facets,
self-esteem level and variability and the Big Five, as well as their intercorrelations. Results of
the null model indicate that there were significant individual differences in self-esteem level
(Intercept: EAP = 3.349; MAP = 3.349; BCI [3.296, 3.401]; Variability of Intercept: EAP =
0.162; MAP = 0.160; BCI [0.131, 0.198]) and in variability (Variability: EAP = .157; MAP =
.157; BCI [.135, .183]; Variability of variability: EAP = 1.345; MAP = 1.351; BCI [1.007,
1.716]). Level and variability of self-esteem were significantly negatively correlated (r = -.41,
covariance: EAP = -.191; MAP = -.188; BCI [-.263, -.123]).
Effects on Level and Variability of Self-Esteem. Table 4 includes the results of the
mixed-effects locations scale model for the NPI total scores and admiration and rivalry
without and with inclusion of the Big Five, respectively. Using the NPI total score, narcissism
was positively related to state self-esteem level and unrelated to state self-esteem variability.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 22
The association with state self-esteem level disappeared when controlling for the Big Five.
When separating the dimensions of narcissism, differentiated associations were found with
admiration being positively related, and rivalry being negatively related to state self-esteem
level5. While admiration was unrelated to self-esteem variability, rivalry was positively
related to it. The effect of admiration on level of state self-esteem was no longer significant
when controlling for the Big Five, while all other results remained unchanged.
Effects on Decreases in Self-Esteem. Descriptive statistics show that of a total of
1358 potential changes 33% were decreases, 36% were increases, and 31% stable values. The
random intercept and slope multilevel model revealed that the average decrease was b = -
0.587, t(198.58) = -26.02, p < .001, and the average increase was b = 0.589, t(193.86) =
26.73, p < .001. Subsequent analyses showed that rivalry, b = -0.079, t(176.23) = -2.06, p =
.041, significantly predicted individual differences in the average decreases, i.e., larger
decreases. Admiration, however, only marginally predicted the average decreases, b = 0.065,
t(175.96) = 1.68, p = .094. Thus, participants with high values in admiration tended to have
smaller decreases compared to participants with low values, whereas participants with high
values in rivalry had larger decreases compared to participants with low values.
Discussion
Two important aspects were replicated for this comparatively larger time interval of
days. First, when investigating narcissism as a one-dimensional concept, it was only related to
the positivity of self-esteem levels, but not to self-esteem variability. Second, when
differentiating between admiration and rivalry, admiration was positively related to self-
esteem level while rivalry was negatively to self-esteem level and positively related to self-
esteem variability. The effects of global narcissism as well as of admiration were both
reduced to an insignificant level after controlling for the Big Five dimensions. Thus, processes
underlying these associations appear not to be distinct from well-established predictors of
self-esteem level such as extraversion. The positive effect of rivalry on self-esteem variability,
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 23
however, held under the control of the Big Five and could again be explained by individuals
high in rivalry experiencing considerable decreases in self-esteem. Here, high values in
admiration went along with a tendency to smaller decreases in self-esteem. Thus, the
differentiation of narcissism, again, enabled the identification of opposing effects on the
prediction of self-esteem level, variability, and decreases. Admiration predicted positive
levels and also smaller decreases in self-esteem from one time-point to the next and rivalry
predicted less positive and fragile self-views as well as greater decreases in self-esteem.
Study 3
To further test the replicability of our findings and broaden the time perspective, we
analyzed data from another field study in a college context with time intervals between two to
three days up to weeks between state assessments over the course of one semester. We also
aimed at a more fine-grained understanding of the process underlying the link between rivalry
and self-esteem variability. Specifically, following the NARC, we additionally investigated
the role of perceived lack of social inclusion. According to sociometer theory (e.g., Leary &
Baumeister, 2000; Leary, Haupt, Strausser, Chokel, 1998; Leary Tambor, Terdal, & Downs,
1995), self-perceived social inclusion is a well-documented factor that has an influence on
state self-esteem. If people feel liked by others their state self-esteem increases, whereas when
they feel disliked their state self-esteem decreases (e.g., Hutteman, Nestler, Wagner, Egloff, &
Back, 2014; Reitz, Motti-Stefanidi, & Asendorpf, 2015). In line with the NARC’s idea that
rivalry is associated with a stronger focus on social rivals and potential negative social
feedback, we hypothesize that (a) these reactions should be stronger the higher people’s
rivalry is and (b) that this should particularly concern more negative self-esteem states in the
face of lacking perceived social inclusion. This would further corroborate our reasoning that
the narcissistic self-esteem variability is best understood as a social outcome, with people
high in rivalry being more reactive to a perceived lack of social approval.
Method
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 24
Participants and procedures. Data collection was part of the large scale, longitudinal
CONNECT Study (for a detailed overview see Geukes, Hutteman, Küfner, Nestler, & Back,
2016; for a detailed documentation of this project see osf.io/2pmcr). The initial sample
consisted of 131 psychology freshmen who started their studies at the University of Münster,
Germany, in October 2012. For the purpose of the present study, we used personality trait
measures obtained by an online survey during the first weeks of their studies and time-based
state assessments obtained via an online diary (up to 21 assessments). For the first two weeks
(seven assessments) of their first semester, participants were asked to provide state data on
Tuesdays, Thursdays, and on weekends and from the eighth assessment onwards, only on
weekends until the end of the first semester with an exception of the Christmas-break. We
only included those participants who provided at least five state assessments resulting in a
final sample of 121 participants with a mean number of diaries per participant of 17.73 (SD =
4.03; Mdn = 19.00; Min = 5; Max = 21). Mean age of the final sample was 21.22 years (SD =
3.89) and 80% (n = 97) of the students were women. All students participated in exchange for
course credit or received monetary compensation (up to €260 for the whole investigation).
The institutional review board of the University of Münster approved all procedures.
Measures.
Narcissism. Narcissism was assessed with the NPI (Raskin & Hall, 1979; German
version by Schütz et al., 2004) and the NARQ (Back et al., 2013).
Big Five. To assess the Big Five, we again applied the supplemented version of the
15-item Big Five Inventory-SOEP that was used in Study 1 (BFI-S; Schupp & Gerlitz, 2008).
State Self-Esteem. To assess state self-esteem, we used a 1-item self-evaluation in the
online diary. This was the only item assessing self-esteem within the diary. This item
presented the participant’s own picture and first name and was phrased “I find this person…”.
The item was anchored on an 11-point scale with -5 (unlikeable) to 5 (likeable). Scores were
transformed to values from 0 to 11.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 25
Perceived lack of social approval. Within this online diary, we also assessed
participants’ perceptions of being liked as a proxy for the perceived lack of social approval.
For each fellow freshman who was indicated as being known already, this item presented the
picture and first name and was phrased “This person finds me…” with the anchors -5
(unlikeable/annoying) to 5 (likeable/nice) on an 11-points scale. We used the perceiver effect
of these meta-perceptions, which equals participants’ subjective and time-specific perceptions
of being liked by their fellow students.
Results
Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics and reliabilities for the narcissism facets,
self-esteem level and variability and the Big Five, as well as their intercorrelations. Results of
the null model indicate that individuals significantly differed from each other in self-esteem
level (Intercept: EAP = 8.964; MAP = 8.968; BCI [8.735, 9.180]; Variability of Intercept:
EAP = 2.247; MAP = 2.235; BCI [1.790, 2.771]) as well as variability (Variability: EAP =
.273; MAP = .274; BCI [.213, .346]; Variability of variability: EAP = 2.480; MAP = 2.452;
BCI [1.989, 3.082]). Level and variability of self-esteem were negatively, yet marginally
significantly, associated (r = -.14, covariance: EAP = -.340; MAP = -.332; BCI [-.735, .034]).
Effects on Level and Variability of Self-Esteem. Table 6 presents the results of the
mixed-effects location scale model for the NPI total scores as well as admiration and rivalry
without and with inclusion of the Big Five, respectively. The NPI total score was positively
related to state self-esteem level and not significantly related to state self-esteem variability.
Only when controlling for the Big Five, narcissism also positively predicted the variability of
self-esteem. Again the NARQ dimensions were associated with the self-esteem variables in
opposing ways: Admiration was positively related to state self-esteem level and unrelated to
its variability. Rivalry was negatively related to state self-esteem level and positively to self-
esteem variability. These effects held when controlling for the Big Five.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 26
Effects on Decreases in Self-Esteem. Descriptive statistics show that of a total of
1,904 potential changes 15% were decreases, 15% were increases, and 70% were stable
values. Findings of a random intercept-and-slope multilevel model indicated that the average
decrease was b = -1.328, t(78.01) = -19.37, p < .001, and the average increase was b = 1.302,
t(99.52) = 23.24, p < .001. Predicting individual differences in the average decrease in a
second multilevel model revealed that rivalry, b = -.393, t(76.04) = -3.92, p < .001, but not
admiration, b = .103, t(73.99) = 0.99, p = .327, significantly predicted these changes.
Participants with high values in rivalry were thus characterized by larger decreases in self-
esteem.
Analyses of the role of perceived lack of social approval. We also examined
whether a perceived lack of social approval (here: how much a person perceived to be liked
by others) goes along with changes in self-esteem, and whether this association is moderated
by rivalry. After the self-perceived likability variable was centered at each person’s mean (see
Enders & Tofighi, 2007), we used this variable together with the time-variable (representing
the 21 measurement occasions) as predictors of self-esteem in a random-intercept random-
slope multilevel model. The results of this model showed that self-perceived likability was
indeed a significant positive predictor of self-esteem, b = 0.269, t(61.90) = 3.25, p < .01, and
that this association varied considerably between participants, slope variance = 0.330, Δχ2 =
28.20, Δdf = 1, p < .01. Thus, participants significantly differed in how much their self-esteem
was associated with self-perceived likability. In a second model, admiration and rivalry were
used to predict these individual differences. Results showed that rivalry, b = 0.212, t(64.00) =
2.56, p = .013, but not admiration, b = -0.045, t(55.50) = -0.57, p = .57, significantly predicted
how much state self-esteem was affected by perceived lack of social inclusion. Subsequent
simple slope analyses showed (see also Figure 1 for the plot of the cross-level interaction) that
the relation between self-perceived likability and self-esteem was stronger for participants
with high values in rivalry (one standard deviation above the mean), b = 0.461, z =3.95, p <
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 27
.01, compared to participants with low values (one standard deviation below the mean), b =
0.037, z = 0.32, p = .75. Accordingly, rivalry moderated the association between self-
perceived likability and self-esteem, with individuals high on rivalry showing a stronger
covariation of self-perceived likability and self-esteem than individuals scoring low on
rivalry. Additional simple slope analyses regarding the relationship between self-esteem and
rivalry showed that this association was stronger for participants with low values in self-
perceived likability (one standard deviation below the mean), b = -0.506, z = -3.488, p < .01,
compared to participants with high values (one standard deviation above the mean), b = -
0.373, z =-2.7793, p < .01. Analyses thus show that individuals high in rivalry are more
strongly affected by the perception of social approval, and this is particularly due to lower
state self-esteem given a perceived lack of social approval.
Discussion
The purpose of Study 3 was to investigate the relationship of narcissism and state self-
esteem during participants’ first semester at college across comparatively long time intervals.
When a one-dimensional measure of narcissism was used, findings of Study 3 again highlight
that narcissists possess positive self-views. However, a clearer picture emerged when
distinguishing between admiration and rivalry. Admiration was positively related to self-
esteem level. Rivalry, in contrast, showed a negative association to self-esteem level,
positively predicted self-esteem variability, and larger decreases in self-esteem from one
assessment to the next. Compared to the other two studies, participants of Study 3 experiences
changes in self-esteem less often pointing at a rather stable characteristic when longer time
intervals are considered. Additionally and in line with sociometer theory, the level of self-
esteem was generally dependent on social experiences, i.e., on the perceived level of social
inclusion. As derived from the NARC, findings also support that people high in rivalry are
particularly reactive to the perceived lack of social approval. Given that external events tend
to vary over time, this heightened reactivity might in turn explain the overall ego-fragility of
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 28
people high in rivalry. Here, it is important to note that the identified effects held even under
the control of the Big Five dimensions, especially neuroticism, a trait characterized by
emotional instability.
Meta-analytical Integration
Across three methodologically diverse studies we revealed distinct effects of
narcissistic admiration and rivalry on the level and variability of self-esteem. Two specific
effects replicated across all three studies: positive effects of admiration on the level of state
self-esteem and positive effects of rivalry on the variability of (and decreases in) self-esteem.
Effects of rivalry on the level and of admiration on the variability of state-self-esteem were
less consistent. To provide more robust and trustworthy insights into the relationship between
narcissism and state self-esteem, we meta-analytically integrated all findings across studies.
Effects on Level and Variability
Regarding the effects of narcissism on self-esteem level and variability, we calculated
standardized versions of the respective index for each study, and then computed the average
of the respective index that were weighted by their standard errors. Results are presented in
Table 7. Models with the NPI score as predictor indicate that narcissism was positively related
to self-esteem level but not significantly to self-esteem fragility. These findings hold when
controlling for the Big Five dimensions. When investigating the NARQ dimensions,
admiration was significantly positively associated with self-esteem level and negatively with
its variability .The latter effect disappeared when controlling for the Big Five dimensions.
Rivalry, in contrast, was negatively related to self-esteem level and positively to its
variability. Rivalry’s association to self-esteem level was non-significant after controlling for
the Big Five dimensions.
Effects on Decreases in Self-Esteem
Regarding the effects of admiration and rivalry on the decreases in self-esteem from
one time point to the next was also based on averages of the standardized versions of the
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 29
respective indices, weighted by their standard errors. These findings indicated that rivalry, b =
-0.124, SE = 0.028, z = -4.381, p < .01 and admiration, b = 0.071, SE = 0.029, z = 2.444, p =
.015, served as significant predictors of self-esteem decreases, but in opposing directions.
Individuals scoring high on admiration experienced smaller decreases in self-esteem.
Individuals scoring high on rivalry, however, experienced larger decreases than those scoring
low on rivalry.
General Discussion
Conceptual models of narcissism frequently describe narcissists as holding positive
but fragile self-views, as puffed-up personas that hide shaky selves (Gregg & Sedikides, 2010;
Lowen, 2004). Previous empirical research, however, has been inconclusive. Based on the
idea that admiration and rivalry are differentially related to self-esteem level and variability,
the purpose of the present studies was to shed light on the controversially debated relationship
between narcissism and state self-esteem. Replicated findings across methodologies and time
frames, coupled with a straightforward conceptual foundation and a rigorous, unbiased
statistical approach provided robust evidence for the contention that admiration is indeed
related to state self-esteem level (puffed-up self) while rivalry is related to self-esteem
fragility (shaky self). Our results explain prior inconsistent findings, reconcile theoretic
assumptions of narcissistic ego-fragility, and provide further insights into the intraindividual
dynamics in narcissists.
The Relation between Narcissism and State Self-Esteem
Our analyses identified a robust and consistent pattern of distinct associations that was
in line with the hypotheses derived from the NARC. Figure 2 depicts the meta-analytical
integration of our findings: Across studies, global narcissism was consistently and positively
related to self-esteem level but neither consistently nor always significantly positively related
to self-esteem variability. In fact, associations of the NPI total score with self-esteem
variability ranged from negative associations (Study 1), to null-effects (Study 2), and to
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 30
positive associations (Study 3). Separate analyses for the two narcissism dimensions,
however, showed that this pattern of associations is due to unique and even opposing effects
of distinct aspects of grandiose narcissism. That is, admiration was positively whereas rivalry
was negatively related to self-esteem level and admiration was negatively whereas rivalry was
positively related to its variability.
This pattern is not only straightforward and consistent with prior research on trait self-
esteem (Back et al., 2013) and first empirical indications for state self-esteem (Zeigler-Hill &
Besser, 2013), it also nicely explains the lack of compelling evidence in previous research on
narcissism and state self-esteem. In line with our findings for global narcissism (i.e., the NPI
total score), prior empirical studies treating grandiose narcissism as a unitary concept found it
to be moderately associated with positive self-views, yet only rarely and inconsistently with
fragile self-views (Bosson et al., 2008; Rhodewalt et al., 1998; Webster, et al., 2007; Zeigler-
Hill, 2006; Zeigler-Hill et al., 2008; Zeigler-Hill et al., 2010). According to the present
results, effects of narcissism on self-esteem level have been underestimated as the NPI total
score merges agentic aspects (that are positively related to self-esteem level) and antagonistic
aspects (that are rather negatively related to self-esteem level). Positive effects of narcissistic
admiration—which is predominantly assessed with the NPI—on self-esteem level might have
been somewhat reduced by the negative effects of antagonistic narcissism, which is rather
underrepresented (but still present) in the NPI. Similarly, the use of unitary measures of
grandiose narcissism with a bias towards agentic aspects might have led to absent or
inconsistent associations with self-esteem variability. As it is only rivalry that relates to self-
esteem variability, it is likely that those associations have thus far remained either undetected
or inconsistent. Given this prior inconsistency, these robust and reliable associations across
different time frames and different self-esteem measures are particularly remarkable. The time
frames ranged from momentary assessments in Study 1 over daily assessments in Study 2 to
weekly assessments in Study 3 and the consistent findings point at similar underlying
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 31
processes that govern self-esteem and its variability. Additionally, consistent findings
emerged despite present differences in the self-esteem assessment. In Study 1, we applied
three items representing one content domain of self-esteem each, in Study 2 we applied a
short four-item state form of the Rosenberg scale, and in Study 3 we based the self-esteem
assessment on a single item, representing self-perceived liking. Irrespective of the how
frequent and how self-esteem is assessed, the present research demonstrated that narcissism as
two-dimensional concept is indeed linked to puffed-up and shaky self-views (Gregg &
Sedikides, 2010; Lowen, 2004; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001).
Narcissists’ Dynamic Self
The present consistent and unique effects of agentic and antagonistic aspects of
grandiose narcissism on the level and variability of self-esteem provide strong support for the
two distinct pathways hypothesized by the NARC (Back et al., 2013; Leckelt et al., 2015).
First, narcissistic admiration is typically expressed in extraverted and charming behaviors to
which others usually respond in a positive way. These positive interpersonal reactions result
in an ego-boost serving the narcissistic grandiose self (positive self-views). Second and
contrarily, narcissistic rivalry is typically expressed in hostile and aggressive behaviors to
which others respond with negative social feedback. These interpersonal reactions provide an
ego-threat for the narcissistic grandiose self, resulting in rather negative self-evaluative
consequences. In response to the negative social feedback, persons high in rivalry experience
setbacks from their aim of a grandiose self with stronger decreases in self-esteem. This
reasoning receives additional initial support from the analyses of decreases in self-esteem and
the identified important role of lack of social approval for self-esteem. Especially findings of
Study 3 support the view that state self-esteem serves as a dynamic sociometer (e.g., Leary &
Baumeister, 2000) mirroring the current perceptions of social inclusion vs. social rejection,
and that this monitor is uniquely calibrated in individuals high in rivalry, who reacted more
negatively to a perceived lack of social approval. Although rather speculative, the results of
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 32
Study 1 also point at the relevance of social interactions for changes in narcissistic self-
esteem. The only significant decrease in self-esteem took place from the end of Session 2 to
the beginning of Session 3 that might indicate a slightly delayed reaction to the intense social
interactions in Session 2, which is the first in which participants actually interacted, discussed,
and received social feedback. In sum, the NARC conceptualizes admiration and rivalry as
being differentially associated with the positivity and variability of self-views and suggests
social processes being central to these dynamics.
It is additionally noteworthy that admiration and rivalry have these opposing effects on
self-esteem level and variability although (a) they are positively correlated with each other,
(b) they both serve the overarching narcissistic goal of maintaining a grandiose self, and (c)
they are both necessary facets to conceptually and empirically capture what researchers and
laypeople alike understand by grandiose narcissism (see Back et al., 2013).
Finally, it is important that the relationships between admiration and rivalry with the
self-esteem variables remained significant in most cases when controlling for the Big Five:
Admiration predicted self-esteem level and rivalry predicted self-esteem variability above and
beyond other well-documented predictors of state self-esteem level and variability (e.g.,
Meier et al., 2011; Zeigler-Hill et al., 2015). Thus, the two narcissism dimensions appear to
have effects on self-esteem level and variability that are at least partially distinct from effects
of more general personality traits. Although there should be a considerable conceptual overlap
between these traits and related behaviors, the respective distinct effects found in the present
studies point at unique intrapersonal, behavioral, and interpersonal processes that are not yet
well understood. Future research might, for example, disentangle specific differences between
extraversion (e.g., sociable behavior) and admiration (e.g., charming behavior) or between
(dis-)agreeableness (e.g., cold-unfriendly behavior) and rivalry (e.g., arrogant-aggressive
behavior; Paulhus, 2001).
A New Way of Analyzing Within-Person Variability
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 33
Previous research has usually applied a two-step approach to the statistical analyses of
individual differences in within-person variability. The mixed-effects location scale model
applied here, is an analytical approach with a number of specific advantages for the study of
within-person variability. Specifically, it controls for systematic intra-individual
developments, comes along with a stronger statistical power and avoids the imprecise two-
step approach, thereby providing unbiased estimations. The mixed-effects location scale
model is a promising and flexible tool that might help to improve the investigation of within-
person variability beyond the study of narcissistic self-esteem. This might include the
investigation of antecedents (e.g., personality traits, gender, age, culture, situational
contingencies) and intra- and interpersonal consequences (e.g., health, social adjustment) of a
diverse set of state dynamics (e.g., affective, cognitive, behavioral).
Limitations and Future Research
There are several opportunities to further improve and extend the presented approach.
First, despite intended differences regarding time frames and self-esteem assessment, the three
studies share the focus on student life. The composition of samples was restricted to young
adults, which provided strong comparability across studies and the opportunity of attributing
potentially different findings across studies to differences in the designs (e.g., time frames),
rather than to differences in the samples. Prior research on the trait relationships of admiration
and rivalry with self-esteem has identified that associations found in student samples are
indeed generalizable to the general population (Back et al, 2013; Leckelt et al., 2016). On this
basis, we would expect similar findings when leaving the context of student life for more
representative and broader contexts. Particularly, in Studies 2 and 3, our samples involved
primarily women, so that the generalizability of effects found in this study (i.e., the findings
on self-perceived likability in Study 3) to more gender-balanced samples needs to be tested in
future studies. Hence, it remains an important task for future research to test whether (and if
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 34
so, how) these findings translate into samples of balanced gender compositions, occupations,
and life stages.
Second, in favor of establishing a robust pattern of associations between narcissism
and state self-esteem level and variability, we have primarily focused on identifying these
replicable associations in realistic social contexts in the laboratory and in the field. As an
addition, we have provided initial insights into processes underlying these effects. Building on
this novel and clearer understanding of associations, future research might now try to dig even
deeper. This might, for example, include detailed analyses of the effects of admiration and
rivalry on the occurrence, perception, and evaluation of ego- (i.e., self-esteem-) relevant
information. In doing so, social and performance situations, which often go along with
indirect or even direct social feedback, might be of particular relevance (e.g., Besser & Priel,
2010; Kernis, Cornell, Sun, Berry, & Harlow, 1993; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1998). Theories on
fragile self-esteem, for example, offer valuable suggestions for the investigation of cognitive
processes (cf. Jordan & Zeigler-Hill, 2013; Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Paradise, 2002). These
typical processes can be described as a “mind-set” of individuals possessing fragile, not well-
anchored self-esteem, and might similarly apply to narcissists (Kernis, 2005). This mind-set
involves three main components: An attention component that describes a susceptibility to
scanning the (social) surroundings for ego-relevant information (e.g., “Anna gave me a
strange look.”), a bias component that is characterized by perceiving this information in a
non-self-serving way (e.g., “Anna does not like me.”), and a generalization component that
describes the global integration of this perceived and biased information into the general self-
concept (e.g., “I am not a likable person.”). Thus, people might considerably differ in
perceiving, processing, and integrating ego-relevant information into their self-concepts. We
suggest that capturing these individual differences in detail will help to further unravel the
distinct effects of agentic and antagonistic narcissism on self-evaluative dynamics.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 35
Third, an important limitation is the exclusive focus on overall variability, i.e., on
variability across time and situations. Parts of this variability may be legitimately interpreted
as actual fragility and are caused by a general inherent tendency to fluctuate. However, other
parts of this variability might be caused by situational, role, or context differences and rather
reflect a form of responsiveness to situational, role-bound, or context-specific forces (e.g.,
Baird, Le Lucas, 2006; Geukes & Back, 2015). Therefore, and beyond the investigation of
overall variability, future research should focus on the differentiation of narcissism effects on
(1) variability within contexts/roles/classes of situations, and on (2) variability across
contexts/roles/classes of situations. This differentiation might inform our knowledge about
processes underlying the narcissism/self-esteem-relationship and will be a fruitful avenue for
the study of determinants, processes, and consequences of within-person variability in
general.
Conclusions
The current research aimed at resolving the ongoing controversy about the links of
narcissism and state self-esteem by relating theoretically distinct dimensions of narcissism
(i.e., admiration, rivalry) to both, the level and variability of self-esteem. Findings indicated
that admiration is associated with a positive level of state self-esteem, whereas rivalry is
associated with less positive and fragile self-esteem. Examining underlying processes of these
associations, narcissistic self-esteem variability was explained by stronger decreases in self-
esteem and a higher sensitivity to a perceived lack of social approval. The differentiated
patterns of results provide an explanation for the inconsistency of prior empirical research
regarding the puffed-up and shaky nature of narcissists’ state self-esteem: It is admiration that
puffs the self up but it is rivalry that makes it fragile.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 36
References
Akhtar, S., & Thomson, J. A. (1982). Overview: Narcissistic personality disorder. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 12–20.
Alicke, M. D., & Sedikides, C. (2009). Self-enhancement and self-protection: What they are
and what they do. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 1-48.
Association for the Prevention of Torture. (2007). Diffusing the ticking bomb scenario: Why
we must say no to torture, always. Retrieved from
http://www.apt.ch/content/files_res/tickingbombscenario.pdf.
Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J.
J. A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark
sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1013-1037.
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first
sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 132-145.
Baird, B. M., Le, K., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). On the nature of intraindividual personality
variability: Reliability, validity, and associations with well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 512–527.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Narcissism as addiction to esteem. Psychological
Inquiry, 12, 206–210.
Besser, A., & Priel, B. (2010). Grandiose narcissism versus vulnerable narcissism in
threatening situations: Emotional reactions to achievement failure and interpersonal
rejection. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29, 874–902.
Besser, A., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2010). The influence of pathological narcissism on emotional
and motivational responses to negative events: The roles of visibility and concern
about humiliation. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 520–534.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 37
Bosson, J. K., Lakey, C. E., Campbell, W. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Jordan, C. H., & Kernis, M. H.
(2008). Untangling the links between narcissism and self-esteem: A theoretical and
empirical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1415–1439.
Bosson, J. K., & Prewitt-Freilino, J. L. (2007). Overvalued and ashamed: Considering the
roles of self-esteem and self-conscious emotions in covert narcissism. In J. L. Tracy,
R. W. Robins, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and
research (pp. 407–425). New York: Guilford.
Brown, R. P., & Bosson, J. K. (2001). Narcissus meets Sisyphus: Self-love, self-loathing, and
the never-ending pursuit of self-worth. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 210–213.
Brown, R. P., Budzek, K., & Tamborski, M. (2009). On the meaning and measure of
narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 951-964.
Brown, R. P. & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2004). Narcissism and the non-equivalence of self-esteem
measures: A matter of dominance? Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 585-592.
Campbell W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77, 1254-1270.
Campbell, W. K., Bosson, J. K., Goheen, T. W., Lakey, C. E., & Kernis, M. H. (2007). Do
narcissists dislike themselves ‘‘deep down inside”? Psychological Science, 18, 227–
229.
Campbell, W. K., Brunell, A. B., & Finkel, E. J. (2006). Narcissism, interpersonal self-
regulation, and romantic relationships: An agency model approach. In K. D. Vohs &
E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal
processes (pp. 57–83). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Campbell, W. K., & Campbell, S. M. (2009). On the self-regulatory dynamics created by the
peculiar benefits and costs of narcissism: A contextual reinforcement model and
examination of leadership. Self & Identity, 8, 214-232.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 38
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2007). The narcissistic self: Background, an extended
agency model, and ongoing controversies. In C. Sedikides & S. Spencer (Eds.),
Frontiers in social psychology: The self (pp. 115–138). Philadelphia: Psychology
Press.
Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the
positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 358–368.
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, 101, 185–201.
Chung, J. M., Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., Noftle, E. E., Roberts, B. W., & Widaman,
K. F. (2014). Continuity and change in self-esteem during emerging adulthood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 469–483.
Czarna, A. Z., Dufner, M., & Clifton, A.D. (2015). The effects of vulnerable and grandiose
narcissism on liking-based and disliking-based centrality in social networks. Journal
of Research in Personality, 50, 42–45.
Denissen, J. J., Penke, L., Schmitt, D. P., & van Aken, M. A. (2008). Self-esteem reactions to
social interactions: Evidence for sociometer mechanisms across days, people, and
nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 181–196.
Donnellan, M. B., Kenny, D. A., Trzesniewski, K. H., Lucas, R. E., & Conger, R. D. (2012).
Using trait–state models to evaluate the longitudinal consistency of global self-esteem
from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 634–645.
Dufner, M., Arslan, R. C., Hagemeyer, D., Schönbrodt, F. D., & Denissen J. J. A. (2015).
Affective contingencies in the affiliative domain: Physiological assessment,
associations with the affiliation motive, and prediction of behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 662-676..
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 39
Dufner, M., Denissen, J. J. A., van Zalk, M., Matthes B., Meeus, W. H. J., van Aken, M. A.
G., & Sedikides C. (2012). Positive intelligence illusions: On the Relation between
Intellectual self-enhancement and psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality,
80, 537–571.
Dufner, M., Egloff, B., Hausmann, C. M., Wendland, L. M., Neyer, F. J., & Back, M. D.
(2015). Narcissistic tendencies among actors caving for admiration, But not at the cost
of others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 447–454.
Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291–300.
Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 11–17.
Enders, C. K.; & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional
multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121-138.
Farwell, L., & Wohlwend-Lloyd, R. (1998). Narcissistic processes: Optimistic expectations,
favorable self-evaluations, and self-enhancing attributions. Journal of Personality, 66,
65–83.
Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2015). Whole trait theory. Journal of Research in
Personality, 56, 82–92.
Foster, J. D., Shrira, I., & Campbell, W. K. (2006). Theoretical models of narcissism,
sexuality, and relationship commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
23, 367–386.
Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994). Narcissistic illusions in self-evaluations of
intelligence and attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 62, 143–155.
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical
models. Cambridge Univ. Press.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 40
Geukes, K., & Back, M. D. (2015). Beyond cross-role self-concepts: Contextualized
personality in action. European Journal of Personality, 29, 226-362.
Geukes, K., Hutteman, R., Küfner, A. C. P., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2016). Explaining the
longitudinal interplay of personality and social relationships in the laboratory and in
the field: The PILS and CONNECT study. Manuscript in preparation for publication.
Greenier, K. G., Kernis, M. H., & Waschull, S. B. (1995). Not all high (or low) self-esteem
people are the same: Theory and research on stability of self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis
(Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 51–71). New York: Plenum.
Gregg, A. P. & Sedikides, C. (2010). Narcissistic fragility: Rethinking its links to explicit and
implicit self-esteem, Self and Identity, 9, 142–161.
Grosz, M. P., Dufner, M., Back, M. D., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2015). Who is open to a
narcissistic romantic partner? The roles of sensation seeking, trait anxiety, and
similarity. Journal of Research in Personality, 58, 84-95.
Hahn, E., Gottschling, J., & Spinath, F. M. (2012). Short measurements of personality—
Validity and reliability of the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S). Journal of
Research in Personality, 46, 355–359.
Hedeker, D., Demirtas, H., & Mermelstein, R. J. (2008). A mixed ordinal location scale
model for analysis of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) data. Statistics and
Its Interface, 2, 391–401.
Hedeker, D., & Nordgren, R. (2013). MIXREGLS: A Program for Mixed-Effects Location
Scale Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 52, 1-38.
Hoff, P. D. (2009). A first course in Bayesian statistical methods. Springer Texts in Statistics.
Hutteman, R., Nestler, S., Wagner, J., Egloff, B., & Back, M. D. (2014). Wherever I may
roam: Processes of self-esteem development from adolescence to emerging adulthood
in the context of international student exchange. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 108, 767-783.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 41
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, England: Harvard University
Press.
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.
Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Correll, J. (2003). Secure
and defensive high self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,
969–978.
Jordan, C. H., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2013). Fragile self-esteem: The perils and pitfalls of (some)
high self-esteem. In V. Zeigler-Hill (Ed.), Self-esteem (pp. 80-98). London, England:
Psychology Press.
Kenny, D. A., & Zautra, A. (2001). Trait–state models for longitudinal data. In L. M. Collins
& A. G. Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change (pp. 243–263).
Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. New York, NY:
Jason Aronson.
Kernberg, O. F. (1986). Factors in the psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personalities.
In A. P. Morrison (Ed.), Essential Papers on Narcissism (pp. 213–244). New York
and London: New York University Press.
Kernis, M. H. (1993). The roles of stability and level of self-esteem in psychological
functioning. In R.F. Baumeister (Ed.) Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp.
167-182). New York: Springer.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological
Inquiry, 14, 1–26.
Kernis, M. H. (2005). Measuring self-esteem in context: The importance of stability of self-
steem in psychological functioning. Journal of Personality, 73, 1569–1605.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 42
Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C., Berry, A., & Harlow, T. (1993). There’s more to self-
esteem than whether it is high or low: The importance of stability of self-esteem.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1190–1204.
Kernis, M. H., Greenier, K. D., Herlocker, C. E., Whisenhunt, C. R., & Abend, T. A. (1997).
Self-perceptions of reactions to doing well or poorly: The roles of stability and level of
self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 845–854.
Kernis, M. H., & Paradise, A. W. (2002). Distinguishing between fragile and secure forms of
high self-esteem. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Self-determination: Theoretical
issues and practical applications. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Kernis, M. H., & Sun, C. (1994). Narcissism and reactions to interpersonal feedback. Journal
of Research in Personality, 28, 4–13.
Kernis, M. H. & Waschull, S. B. (1995). The interactive roles of stability and level of self-
esteem: Research and theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (pp. 93–141). San Diego, Ca.: Academic Press.
Kohut, H. K. (1966). Forms and transformations of narcissism. Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association, 14, 243–272.
Kohut, H. (1972). Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage. Psychoanalytic Study of the
Child, 27, 360–400.
Küfner, A. C. P., Nestler, S., & Back M. D. (2013). The two pathways to being an (un-)
popular narcissist. Journal of Personality, 81, 184-195.
Lang, F. R., John, D., Lüdtke, O., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Short assessment of
the Big Five: Robust across survey methods except telephone interviewing. Behavior
Research Methods, 43, 548–567.
Lange, J., Crusius, N. J., & Hagemeyer, B. (2016). The Evil Queen’s dilemma: Linking
narcissistic admiration and rivalry to benign and malicious envy. European Journal of
Personality.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 43
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer
theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–62).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Leary, M. R., Haupt, A. L., Strausser, K. S., & Chokel, J. T. (1998). Calibrating the
sociometer: The relationship between interpersonal appraisals and state self-esteem.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1290–1299.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an
interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 518 –530.
Leckelt, M., et al. (2016). Validation of the Narcisstic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire short
scale (NARQ-S) in convenience and representative samples. Manuscript in preparation for
publication.
Leckelt, M., Küfner, A. C. P., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2015). Behavioral processes
underlying the decline of narcissists’ popularity over time. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 109, 856-871.
Lin, X., Raz, J. and Harlow, S. D. (1997). Linear mixed models with heterogeneous within-
cluster variances. Biometrics 53, 910-923.
Lindley, D. V. (1972). Bayesian statistics: A review. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM.
Lowen, A. (2004). Narcissism: Denial of the true self. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Meier, L. M., Orth, U., Denissen, J. J. A, & Kühnel, A. (2011). Age differences in instability,
contingency, and level of self-esteem across the life span. Journal of Research in
Personality, 45, 604–612.
Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., & Campbell, W. K.
(2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis.
Journal of Personality, 79, 1013–1042.
Miller, J. D., & Maples, J. (2011). Trait personality models of narcissistic personality
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 44
disorder, grandiose narcissism, and vulnerable narcissism. In W. K. Campbell & J. D.
Miller (Eds.), Handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder:
Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments (pp. 71–88). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (1993). Narcissism and self-evaluation maintenance:
Explorations in object relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 668–
676.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic
self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196.
Neiss, M. B., Sedikides, C., & Stevenson, J. (2006). Genetic influences on level and stability
of self-esteem. Self and Identity, 5, 247–266.
Nestler, S., Grimm, K. J., & Schönbrodt, F. D. (2015). The social consequences and
mechanisms of personality: How to analyse longitudinal data from individual, dyadic,
round-robin, and network designs. European Journal of Personality, 29, 272-295.
Nezlek, J. B., & Plesko, R. M. (2003). Affect- and self-based models of relationships between
daily events and daily well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
584–596.
Paradise, A. W. & Kernis, M. H. (2002). Self-esteem and Psychological Well-being:
Implications of Fragile Self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21,
345–361.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Intrapersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement:
A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1197-1208.
Paulhus, D. L. (2001). Normal narcissism: Two minimalist accounts. Psychological Inquiry,
12, 228–230.
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.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 45
Psychological Assessment, 21, 365–379.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2005). Short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-K):
Development and validation of an economic inventory for assessment of the five
factors of personality. Diagnostica, 51, 195–206.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological
Reports, 45, 590.
Raskin, R., & Novacek, J. (1989). An MMPI description of the narcissistic personality.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 66–80.
Raskin, R., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissism, self-esteem, and defensive self-
enhancement. Journal of Personality, 59, 19–38.
Rast, P., Hofer, S. M., & Sparks, C. (2012). Modeling individual differences in within-person
variation of negative and positive affect in a mixed effects location scale model using
BUGS/JAGS. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 177-200.
Reitz, A. K., Motti-Stefanidi, F., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2016). Me, us, and them: Testing
sociometer theory in a socially diverse real-life context. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, online first publication.
Rhodewalt, F., Madrian, J. C., & Cheney, S. (1998). Narcissism, self-knowledge organization,
and emotional reactivity: The effect of daily experiences on self-esteem and affect.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 75–87.
Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1995). Self and interpersonal correlates of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory: A review and new findings. Journal of Research in Personality,
29, 1–23.
Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1998). On self-aggrandizement and anger: A temporal analysis
of narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 672–685.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 46
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.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1986). Self-concept from middle childhood through adolescence. In J. Suls
(Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 3, pp. 107-136). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Schönbrodt, F. D., Maier, M., Heene, M., & Zehetleitner, M. (2015). Voluntary commitment
to research transparency. Retrieved from osf.io/4dvkw
Schupp, J. & Gerlitz, J.-Y. (2008). BFI-S: Big Five Inventory-SOEP. In Glöckner-Rist, A.
(Ed.), Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen. [Collection of
social-science items and scales.] ZIS Version 12.00. Bonn: GESIS.
Schütz, A., Marcus, B., & Sellin, I. (2004). Die Messung von Narzissmus als
Persönlichkeitskonstrukt: psychometrische Eigenschaften einer Lang- und einer
Kurzform des Deutschen NPI (Narcissistic Personality Inventory). Diagnostica, 50,
202–218.
Sedikides, C., Rudich, E. A., Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004). Are normal
narcissists psychologically healthy? Self-esteem matters. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 87, 400–416. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.400.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (October 14, 2012) A 21 Word Solution.
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2160588 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2160588
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and
advanced multilevel modeling. SAGE: Thousands, Oaks.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 47
Spiegelhalter, D.J., Thomas, A., Best, N.G., Lunn, D. (2003). WinBUGS Version 1.4 Users
Manual. MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge. URL http://www.mrc-
bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/
Stucke, T. S. (2003). Who’s to blame? Narcissism and self-serving attributions following
feedback. European Journal of Personality, 17, 465–478.
Sturtz, S., Ligges, U., Gelman, A. (2005): \R2WinBUGS: A Package for Running WinBUGS
from R. Journal of Statistical Software, 12(3), 1–16.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2003). ‘Death of a (narcissistic) salesman’: An integrative
model of fragile self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 57–62.
van de Schoot, R., Kaplan, D., Denissen, J. J. A., Asendorpf, J. B., Neyer, F. J., & Van Aken,
M. A. G. (2014). A Gentle Introduction to Bayesian Analysis: Applications to
Developmental Research. Child Development, 85(3), 842–860.
Verbeke, G., & Molenberghs, M. (2009). Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data. New
York: Springer.
Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., & Trautwein, U. (2016). How stable is self-esteem across young
adulthood? Decomposing stable and variable components using STARTS models.
Journal of Personality, online first publication.
Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., Jonkmann, K., & Trautwein, U. (2013). Cherish yourself:
Longitudinal patterns and conditions of self-esteem change in the transition to young
adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 148–163.
Wang, L. & Grimm, K. J. (2012). Investigating reliabilities of intraindividual variability
indicators. Multivariate Behavior Research, 47, 1–31.
Wang, L., Hamaker, E., & Bergeman, C. (2012). Investigating inter-individual differences in
short-term intra-individual variability. Psychological Methods, 17, 567–581
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 48
Wallace, H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). The performance of narcissists rises and falls
with perceived opportunity for glory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
82, 819–834.
Webster, G. D., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Nezlek, J. B., Smith, C. V., & Paddock, E. L. (2007).
Different slopes for different folks: Self-esteem instability and gender as moderators
of the relationship between self-esteem and attitudinal aggression. Self and Identity, 6,
74–94.
Wrzus, C., & Mehl, M. (2015). Lab and/or field? Measuring personality processes and their
social consequences. European Journal of Personality, 29, 250–271.
Zeigler-Hill, V. (2006). Discrepancies between implicit and explicit self-esteem: Implications
for narcissism and self-esteem instability. Journal of Personality, 74, 119–143.
Zeigler-Hill, V. & Besser, A. (2013). A glimpse behind the mask: Facets of narcissism and
feelings of self-worth. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 249–260.
Zeigler-Hill, V., Chadha, S., & Osterman, L. (2008). Psychological defense and self-esteem
instability: Is defense style associated with unstable self-esteem? Journal of Research
in Personality, 42, 348–364.
Zeigler-Hill, V., Holden, C. J., Enjaian, B., Southard, A. C., Besser, A., Li, H. & Zhang, Q.
(2015). Self-Esteem instability and personality: The connections between feelings of
self-worth and the Big Five dimensions of personality. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 41, 183–198.
Zeigler-Hill, V., & Myers, E. M. (2008). The fragile self-esteem of narcissists. In J. C. Hagen
& E. I. Jensen (Eds.), Personality disorders: New research (pp. 69–88). Hauppauge,
NY: Nova.
Zeigler-Hill, V., Myers, E. M., & Clark, C. B. (2010). Narcissism and self-esteem reactivity:
The role of negative achievement events. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 285–
292.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 49
Footnotes
1Whenever we refer to narcissism and do not explicitly indicate differently, we refer to
a subclinical or “normal” expression of grandiose narcissism as a personality trait, neither to
vulnerable forms of subclinical narcissism (cf. Miller, Hoffman, Gaughan, Gentile, Maples, &
Campbell, 2011) nor to pathological forms of narcissism as a personality disorder (Akhtar &
Thompson, 1982).
2An alternative way of addressing the narcissistic fragility is the investigation of
discrepant self-esteem. Informed by psychodynamic approaches (e.g., Kernberg, 1975, 1986;
Kohut, 1966, 1972), within the Psychodynamic Mask Model of Narcissism (cf. Bosson,
Lakey, Campbell, Zeigler-Hill, Jordan, Kernis, 2008; Zeigler-Hill & Besser, 2013) it is
hypothesized that narcissists possess high levels of explicit self-esteem while holding low
levels of implicit self-esteem. There is supportive empirical evidence for the discrepancy
between explicit and implicit self-esteem in narcissists (Brown & Bosson, 2001; Jordan,
Spencer, Zanna, Hoshino-Browne, & Correll, 2003; Zeigler-Hill, 2006). Other studies,
however, failed to identify respective associations (Bosson & Prewitt-Freilino, 2007;
Campbell, Bosson, Goheen, Lakey, & Kernis, 2007). In a meta-analysis, Bosson et al. (2008)
also did not find significant associations between narcissism and implicit self-esteem neither
using the Implicit Association Test (IAT) nor using the Name Letter Task (NLT). Thus,
irrespective of operationalizing narcissistic fragility via grandiose but fragile explicit self-
views (i.e., state self-esteem), which is the primary perspective within the presented studies or
via the discrepancy between high explicit and low implicit self-views, rather heterogeneous
findings emerged that point at more complex relationships between grandiose narcissism and
self-esteem level and variability than yet identified.
3Uninformative prior distributions were assigned to model parameters to ensure that
the observed data has a strong influence on the posterior distribution. For the means of the
intercept, slope, and residual variance parameter, a multivariate normal distribution was used
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 50
with zero means and variances of 104. An inverse Wishart-distribution was specified as the
prior distribution for the variance of the intercept, the slope, and the residual variance,
respectively, with a scale matrix containing 10-2 as values. Finally, for coefficients of the
covariates, we used univariate normal distributions as priors with a mean of zero and a
variance of 104. We employed WinBUGS software (Spiegelhalter, Thomas, Best, Lunn, 2003)
via the R-package “RtoWinBUGS” (Sturtz, Ligges, & Gelman, 2005) to fit the mixed-effects
location scale model to the data. The model was estimated using a Gibbs sampler with a chain
of 110,000 iterations with a burn-in period of 10,000 iterations and a thinning factor of 100.
To evaluate the convergence behavior of the Markov chains, we inspected the trace plots and
the autocorrelation functions of all estimated parameters. Both diagnostic criteria indicated
that the MCMC chains converged and that the chosen burn-in iterations were sufficient. The
R-/WinBUGS-code, the trace plots as well as the autocorrelation plots are provided in the
Online Supplemental Material (www.osf.io/2yvfk/).
4Please note that we have excluded the stable values for conceptual as well as
mathematical reasons: Conceptually, in these analyses we were interested in the effects of
rivalry on the average strength of decreases in self-esteem, not in the effects of rivalry on the
probability of stable values from one assessment to the next. Mathematically, the inclusion of
stable values would have resulted in (1) estimation and convergence problems of the
multilevel models because we would have included a random effect with zero variance and
(2) in a lowered power due to the artificial reduction of the overall variability in the difference
variable.
5Please note that we estimated this model as a type of a compound symmetry model
(see Snijders & Bosker, 2012, p. 249). The difference between our model and the standard
compound symmetry model is that we used the self-esteem difference variable instead of the
original self-esteem measurements as dependent variable.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 51
Tables
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations of NPI Narcissism,
Admiration and Rivalry, State Self-esteem, and the Big Five Dimensions (Study 1)
M
SD
α
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 NPI Narcissism
14.49
5.90
.80
.67
.34
.34
-.06
-.29
.27
.13
-.16
.11
2 NARQ Admiration
3.18
0.77
.82
.33
.436
-.11
-.27
.33
.25
-.01
-.01
3 NARQ Rivalry
2.33
0.72
.78
.07
.12
.12
-.10
-.05
-.28
-.05
4 SE Level (Mean)
4.16
0.89
.84
-.28
-.44
.17
.04
.11
.14
5 SE Fragility (SD)
0.40
0.23
.74
.20
0
.05
-.06
-.06
6 Neuroticism
4.29
1.32
.76
-.14
.10
-.12
.04
7 Extraversion
4.83
1.22
.81
.21
.10
-.04
8 Openness
4.99
1.09
.63
.08
.01
9 Agreeableness
4.82
0.89
.62
.10
10 Conscientiousness
4.80
1.01
.63
Note: N = 299; for the reliability of self-esteem level we calculated the mean reliability over
time points; for the reliability of self-esteem variability we calculated the reliability over the
individual standard deviation per state self-esteem item; the state self-esteem variables refer to
their mean and standard deviation, which are not the variables modeled in the mixed-effects
location scale models.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 52
Table 2
Predicting State Self-Esteem Level and Variability by Grandiose Narcissism in Study 1
Predictor(s)
State Self-Esteem Level
State Self-Esteem Variability
EAP
MAP
BCI
EAP
MAP
BCI
NPI Narcissism
.305
.307
[.224, .383]
-.186
-.186
[-.344, -.013]
NPI Narcissism (Big 5)
.190
.190
[.105, .265]
-.077
-.075
[-.255, .102]
NARQ Admiration
.407
.409
[.326, .490]
-.388
-.387
[-.558, -.222]
NARQ Rivalry
-.071
-.072
[-.151, .009]
.297
.298
[.130, .463]
NARQ Admiration (Big 5)
.293
.292
[.208, .377]
-.329
-.329
[-.526, -.132]
NARQ Rivalry (Big 5)
.029
.028
[-.051, .113]
.246
.246
[.061, .390]
Note: N = 299; first lines indicate the respective coefficients for models in which narcissism
scores alone (i.e., without the Big Five scales) were used for the prediction of intercept and
variability of self-esteem; EAP = Expected a Posteriori or Bayes Mean Estimate; MAP =
Median a Posteriori or Bayes Median Estimate; BCI = Bayesian Confidence Interval; bold
figures are significant with a BCI not including zero.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 53
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations of NPI Narcissism,
Admiration and Rivalry, State Self-esteem, and the Big Five Dimensions (Study 2)
M
SD
α
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 NPI Narcissism
1.40
.17
.83
.65
.35
.17
-.04
-.36
.41
.08
-.14
.11
2 NARQ Admiration
3.45
0.87
.85
.33
.18
-.10
-.25
.43
.20
-.06
.15
3 NARQ Rivalry
2.35
0.80
.82
-.29
.14
.10
-.08
-.03
-.33
-.24
4 SE Level (Mean)
3.33
0.42
.86
-.38
-.45
.31
.13
.08
.28
5 SE Fragility (SD)
0.44
0.19
.83
.24
-.13
.09
-.10
-.07
6 Neuroticism
3.06
1.03
.77
-.27
-.04
-.08
-.18
7 Extraversion
3.82
1.01
.82
.36
.18
.16
8 Openness
4.64
0.85
.72
-.02
.10
9 Agreeableness
2.64
0.92
.64
-.02
10 Conscientiousness
4.25
0.75
.63
Note: N = 176; for the reliability of self-esteem level we calculated the mean reliability over
time points; for the reliability of self-esteem variability we calculated the reliability over the
individual standard deviation per state self-esteem item; the state self-esteem variables refer to
their mean and standard deviation, which are not the variables modeled in the mixed-effects
location scale models.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 54
Table 4
Predicting State Self-Esteem Level and Variability by Grandiose Narcissism in Study 2
Predictor(s)
State Self-Esteem Level
State Self-Esteem Variability
EAP
MAP
BCI
EAP
MAP
BCI
NPI Narcissism
.068
.067
[.012, .119]
.017
.015
[-.133, .165]
NPI Narcissism (Big 5)
-.032
-.033
[-.087, .023]
.160
.159
[-.026, .332]
NARQ Admiration
.134
.135
[.079, .185]
-.160
-.163
[-.322, .004]
NARQ Rivalry
-.173
-.173
[-.223, -.123]
.277
.277
[.121, .430]
NARQ Admiration (Big 5)
.046
.047
[-.012, .102]
-.100
-.099
[-.295, .089]
NARQ Rivalry (Big 5)
-.119
-.120
[-.177, -.064]
.224
.220
[.036, .406]
Note: N = 176; first lines indicate the respective coefficients for models in which narcissism
scores alone (i.e., without the Big Five scales); EAP = Expected a Posteriori or Bayes Mean
Estimate; MAP = Median a Posteriori or Bayes Median Estimate; BCI = Bayesian Confidence
Interval; bold figures are significant with a BCI not including zero.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 55
Table 5
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations of NPI Narcissism,
Admiration and Rivalry, State Self-esteem, and the Big Five Dimensions (Study 3)
M
SD
α
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 NPI Narcissism
14.98
5.76
.78
.56
.17
.29
-.02
-.12
.24
.29
.09
.10
2 NARQ Admiration
3.17
0.68
.78
.25
.36
-.05
.01
.20
.29
.17
.14
3 NARQ Rivalry
2.12
0.61
.77
-.21
.41
.25
-.06
-.15
-.23
-.29
4 SE Level (Mean)
9.12
1.69
-
-.45
-.37
.18
.13
.21
.26
5 SE Fragility (SD)
0.59
0.47
-
.24
-.16
-.08
-.17
-.34
6 Neuroticism
4.63
1.27
.76
-.09
-.05
-.14
-.07
7 Extraversion
5.11
1.12
.86
.30
.23
.03
8 Openness
5.12
1.17
.72
.12
.07
9 Agreeableness
4.99
0.76
.54
.30
10 Conscientiousness
5.46
1.06
.72
Note: N = 121; as there was only one item to assess self-esteem, we did not calculate
any reliability measures; the state self-esteem variables refer to their mean and standard
deviation, which are not the variables modeled in the mixed-effects location scale models.
.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 56
Table 6
Predicting State Self-Esteem Level and Variability by Grandiose Narcissism in Study 3
Predictor(s)
State Self-Esteem Level
State Self-Esteem Variability
EAP
MAP
BCI
EAP
MAP
BCI
NPI Narcissism
.491
.409
[.192, .625]
.216
.215
[-.017, .467]
NPI Narcissism (Big 5)
.257
.264
[.044, .480]
.346
.350
[.083, .582]
NARQ Admiration
.642
.638
[.424, .854]
.028
.028
[-.222, .289]
NARQ Rivalry
-.450
-.451
[-.654, -.249]
.379
.380
[.130, .618]
NARQ Admiration (Big 5)
.547
.549
[.319, .770]
.132
.134
[-.141, .397]
NARQ Rivalry (Big 5)
-.280
-.245
[-.497, -.003]
.364
.259
[.002, .554]
Note: N = 121; first lines indicate the respective coefficients for models in which narcissism
scores alone (i.e., without the Big Five scales); EAP = Expected a Posteriori or Bayes Mean
Estimate; MAP = Median a Posteriori or Bayes Median Estimate; BCI = Bayesian Confidence
Interval; bold figures are significant with a BCI not including zero.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 57
Table 7
Meta-analytic Integration of the Prediction of State Self-Esteem Level and Variability by
Grandiose Narcissism in Studies 1 to 3
Predictor(s)
State Self-Esteem Level
State Self-Esteem Variability
EAP
BCI
EAP
BCI
NPI Narcissism
.292
[.169, .409]
-.026
[-.143, .097]
NPI Narcissism (Big 5)
.154
[.018, .285]
.066
[-.076, .198]
NARQ Admiration
.468
[0.332, 0.599]
-0.160
[-.289, -.030]
NARQ Rivalry
-.242
[-0.369, -0.117]
0.217
[0.088, 0.344]
NARQ Admiration (Big 5)
.346
[0.197, 0.493]
-0.107
[-0.255, 0.040]
NARQ Rivalry (Big 5)
-.106
[-0.248, 0.043]
0.172
[0.028, 0.323]
Note: first lines indicate the respective coefficients for the meta-analysis in which narcissism
scores alone (i.e., without the Big Five scales) were used for the prediction of intercept and
variability of self-esteem; EAP = Expected a Posteriori or Bayes Mean Estimate; BCI =
Bayesian Confidence Interval; bold figures are significant with a BCI not including zero.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 58
Figures
Figure 1. Interaction effect of self-perceived likability and rivalry on state self-esteem.
NARCISSISM AND STATE SELF-ESTEEM 59
Figure 2. Summary of results across studies (dashed lines represent negative associations).
Note. The description of the arrows regard the EAPs (i.e., Expected a Posteriori or Bayes
Mean Estimate) within the meta-analytical integration without the control for the Big Five
dimensions.
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.