ArticlePDF Available


Previous research has shown that individuals high in narcissism mistrust others, yet little is known about nar-cissism's relation to trust. In the current study (N = 727), we aim to close this gap in the literature by examining the relationship between facets of trust (i.e., cognitive bias in the evaluation of others and personal trust-worthiness) and facets of grandiose narcissism (i.e., agentic, antagonistic, and communal). We strive to answer the question whether narcissistic individuals believe that others are reliable, honest, and benevolent (how they perceive others) and whether they present themselves as trusting of others (how they perceive themselves). We posit and show that agentic narcissism is not related to any of the studied trust facets, suggesting that the concept of trust is not relevant to their self-image. In contrast, antagonistic narcissism is negatively related to perceiving others and oneself as trustful, and communal narcissism is positively related to these trust facets, purportedly due to communal self-enhancement. We discuss our findings of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept as well as to the Agency-Communion model of grandiose narcissism.
Narcissism and trust:
Differential impact of agentic, antagonistic, and communal narcissism
Maria Magdalena Kwiatkowska
Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland
Tomasz Jułkowski
Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw
Radosław Rogoza
Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw
Magdalena Żemojtel-Piotrowska
Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw
Ramzi Fatfouta
University of Potsdam
Author Note
The order of authors reflects their contribution to the paper. Correspondence concerning this paper should be
addressed to Magdalena Żemojtel-Piotrowska, e-mail:; postal address:
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw, Wóycickiego 1/3 Street, 01-938 Warsaw, Poland.
Please cite as: Kwiatkowska, M.M., Jułkowski, T., Rogoza, R., Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M.A., Fatfouta, R.
(2019). Narcissism and trust: Differential impact of agentic, antagonistic, and communal narcissism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 137, 139143. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.08.027
Funding: The work of Maria M. Kwiatkowska was supported by the research program for
young scientists and PhD students funded by the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in
Warsaw, Poland [project number: UmoBMF-14/18]. The work of Radosław Rogoza and
Magdalena Żemojtel-Piotrowska was supported by National Science Centre, Poland [grant
number 2017/26/E/HS6/00282].
Grandiose narcissism (GN) yields a differentiated pattern of relations with trust
In terms of trust, it is relevant to study GN broken down into facets
Relation to trust is null for agentic, neg. for antagonistic, pos. for communal GN
Previous research has shown that individuals high in narcissism mistrust others, yet little is
known about narcissism’s relation to trust. In the current study (N = 727), we aim to close this
gap in the literature by examining the relationship between facets of trust (i.e., cognitive bias
in the evaluation of others and personal trustworthiness) and facets of grandiose narcissism
(i.e., agentic, antagonistic, and communal). We strive to answer the question whether
narcissistic individuals believe that others are reliable, honest, and benevolent (how they
perceive others) and whether they present themselves as trusting of others (how they perceive
themselves). We posit and show that agentic narcissism is not related to any of the studied trust
facets, suggesting that the concept of trust is not relevant to their self-image. In contrast,
antagonistic narcissism is negatively related to perceiving others and oneself as trustful, and
communal narcissism is positively related to these trust facets, purportedly due to communal
self-enhancement. We discuss our findings of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept
as well as to the Agency-Communion model of grandiose narcissism.
Keywords: grandiose narcissism; trust; Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept;
Agency-Communion model of narcissism
1. Introduction
Trust can be defined as a willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of others (Mayer,
Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). The acceptance of one’s vulnerability seems to be antithetical to
narcissism (Miller, Lynam, Hyatt, & Campbell, 2017). Most of the previous studies examined
how narcissism is related to distrust (Kerr, Patton, Lapan, & Hills, 1994; Krizan & Johar,
2015) and not trust per se. Trust and distrust, however, are distinct constructs with
distinguishable characteristics and determinants (e.g., Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998).
While distrust refers to confident negative expectations regarding others’ behaviour (Lewicki
et al., 1998), trust refers to a general assumption about the good nature of others (Evans &
Revelle, 2008; Rotter, 1971). High distrust and low trust are distinct the former is
characterised by scepticism, defensiveness, and watchfulness, while the latter involves
passivity, hesitance, and lack of hope (Lewicki et al., 1998).
High levels of trust are related to many desirable social outcomes, like cooperation
(Balliet & Van Lange, 2013), relationship commitment (Righetti & Finkenauer, 2011),
organisational citizenship behaviours (Duffy & Lilly, 2013), or civic and political
engagement (Putnam, 1995). For this reason, examining the extent to which narcissism is
related to trust is important for better understanding the social functioning of narcissists. The
present paper adopts the distinction between three facets of grandiose narcissism: agentic,
antagonistic, and communal. We examine narcissism in relation to trust as measured both by
the general assumption about the positivity of human nature (Evans & Revelle, 2008;
Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994) and the general propensity to rely on others, which is
expressed in trustworthiness as an aspect of agreeableness (Soto & John, 2017). Such an
approach allows for a more in-depth understanding of the differential relations between
distinct facets of narcissism and trust, thereby allowing us to integrate studies on grandiose
narcissism and trust from both social and personality psychology perspective.
1.1. Three facets of grandiose narcissism
Within the literature, at least two theoretical models of grandiose narcissism can be
distinguished, that is, the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (NARC; Back et al.,
2013) and the Agency-Communion (A-C) model of narcissism (Gebauer, Sedikides,
Verplanken, & Maio, 2012). Together, they define grandiose narcissism as a construct
containing three facets: agentic, antagonistic, and communal. The agentic facet of narcissism
is depicted within the NARC (Back et al., 2013) as narcissistic admiration and reflects the
assertive features of narcissistic personality, such as fantasies of grandiosity, uniqueness, and
charmingness (Back et al., 2013; Rogoza, Żemojtel-Piotrowska, Rogoza, Piotrowski, &
Wyszyńska, 2016). The antagonistic facet of narcissism is also depicted within the NARC as
narcissistic rivalry and encompasses the malignant features of narcissistic personality, such
as aggressiveness, hostility, and other-derogation (Back et al., 2013; Leckelt, Küfner, Nestler,
& Back, 2015).
Finally, the communal facet of narcissism is only expressed in the A-C
model of narcissism as communal narcissism, which emphasizes that narcissists fulfill their
core self-motives (e.g., entitlement, power, and esteem) not only through agentic but also
communal means (e.g., being extraordinarily helpful or trustworthy; Gebauer et al., 2012).
Most of the previous studies focused only on comparing two out of three narcissism
facets (e.g., agentic vs antagonistic or agentic vs communal; Wetzel, Leckelt, Gerlach, &
Back, 2016; Żemojtel-Piotrowska, Czarna, Piotrowski, Baran, & Maltby, 2016). Fatfouta,
Zeigler-Hill, and Schröder-Abé (2017) confirmed that the antagonistic and agentic facets are
positively related to each other. Additionally, they revealed that while the communal facet is
positively related to the agentic facet, it is unrelated to the antagonistic facet (Fatfouta et al.,
2017). However, this lack of relation between antagonistic and communal narcissism might
We use the terms narcissistic rivalry and antagonistic narcissism as well as narcissistic admiration and agentic
narcissism as interchangeable.
be obscured by communal self-enhancement. Antagonistic narcissism is directed against
others through aggressiveness, hostility, or unforgiveness (Back et al., 2013; Grove, Smith,
Girard, & Wright, in press). In contrast, communal narcissism (at least as expressed in the
self-report) involves supporting others through (apparent) friendliness or warmth (Gebauer et
al., 2012), although it is unrelated to actual communal behaviours (Nehrlich, Gebauer,
Sedikides, & Schoel, 2018). For this reason, one would expect that outcomes related to
communal and antagonistic aspects of narcissism are opposite, at least in self-report studies.
1.2. Narcissism and trust
Trust can be described as a personality characteristic that refers to the general
willingness to trust others or the general assumption about the positive nature of the social
world (Evans & Revelle, 2008; Farris, Senner, & Butterfield, 1973; Mayer et al., 1995;
Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994). Individuals with a higher propensity to trust are more likely
to perceive other people as trustworthy and consider their intentions as benevolent
(Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994). In the Five Factor Model of personality, trust is regarded as
a cognitive facet of the agreeableness trait and refers to the propensity of an individual to
trust others (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Soto & John, 2017). However, it could also be regarded
as a stable style of thinking about others (Evans & Revelle, 2008; Rotter, 1971; Yamagishi &
Yamagishi, 1994). Therefore, trust can be examined both from a personality and social
psychology perspective. A distinction between trust understood as a personality trait or as an
individual-difference variable associated with stable assumptions about the nature of the
social world seems to be irrelevant to narcissism as both approaches assume that trusting
people manifests in positive perceptions of others. However, trust considered as an
individual-difference variable might be associated with two aspects: (1) cognitive bias or
generalized attitude toward others, so that it is based on beliefs about the human nature, or (2)
self-perception as a person who appears open and benevolent to others due to one’s own
trustworthiness, so that it is associated with one’s self-image (Gebauer et al., 2012).
Therefore, the first aspect refers to the question, how narcissists perceive others, while the
latter refers to how narcissists perceive themselves. Hence, including both perspectives on
trust, that is, as a cognitive bias/attitude and as a personality trait, might help us understand
the complicated relationship between trust and different facets of grandiose narcissism.
Narcissists can skillfully exploit social relationships to build up their own position and
status, but over time these relationships deteriorate due to narcissists’ lack of empathy and
trust towards others (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Indeed, individuals scoring high in grandiose
narcissism tend to score low on trust measured as a general opinion about others (Konrath,
Chopik, Hsing, & O'Brien, 2014). However, Glover, Miller, Lynam, Crego, and Widiger
(2012) found a positive relation only between antagonistic expressions of narcissism and
distrust, suggesting that the distinction between antagonistic and agentic narcissism would be
important in examining convictions about the human nature. Noteworthy, all of the studies
above did not investigate how communal narcissism relates to trust. Thus, it is not clear to
what extent communal self-views as a trustworthy person go along with positive views of
others benevolence. In light of the observed inconsistencies and the lack of inclusion of
communal narcissism in previous research, the current study aims to systematically examine
the narcissism-trust relationship in a more nuanced way by scrutinising distinct narcissism
and trust facets.
Antagonistic narcissism is related to overt competition with others. For this reason, this
facet should be related to social convictions associated with negative views of interpersonal
relationships, like zero-sum thinking, assuming opposition in the interests of individuals, and
this way of thinking is negatively related to trust (Różycka-Tran, Boski, & Wojciszke, 2015).
Agentic narcissism, however, is associated with self-enhancement in the agentic domain,
which is less relevant to the perception of the human nature as trustworthy (Wojciszke &
Abele, 2008). Indeed, Back et al. (2013) reported a lack of correlation between perceptions of
trustworthiness and agentic narcissism, while antagonistic narcissism was negatively
correlated with these perceptions. Finally, communal narcissism is positively associated with
self-enhancement in the communal domain (Gebauer et al., 2012). Moreover, communal
narcissists consider themselves as “extraordinarily trustworthy” (Gebauer et al., 2012; p.
878). It is important to note that due to social norms, people present high levels of trust even
if they actually do not experience trust (Dunning, Anderson, Schlӧsser, Ehlebracht, &
Fetchenhauer, 2014). Therefore, communal narcissists should follow this social norm for self-
presentation aims, given that by presenting their own trustworthiness they could successfully
maintain their communal self-view in front of others.
2. Current study
The main aim of the present study was to investigate the relations between facets of
narcissism and trust. As narcissism is a heterogeneous construct (Ackerman et al., 2011;
Wink, 1991), the current research distinguished three facets: agentic, antagonistic, and
communal. We hypothesised that each of these narcissism facets would have a unique
relation to trust: (1) agentic narcissism would be unrelated; (2) antagonistic narcissism would
be negatively related; and (3) communal narcissism would be positively related to trust. As
existing research suggests that these facets of narcissism are interrelated (Back et al., 2013;
Fatfouta et al., 2017), we conducted linear regression models in which the different forms of
narcissism were simultaneous predictors of trust. We provide the data used for our analyses
via the Open Science Framework (
3. Method
3.1. Participants and procedure
Following Schönbrodt and Perugini (2013), we aimed for a minimum sample size of
250 individuals. Aside from sex and age, no further demographic details were collected. Data
were collected during a three-month period from October to December 2017 using Google
Forms platform. Participation was voluntary, and respondents could withdraw from the study
at any time without further explanation (in which case their responses were not recorded). As
an incentive, participants were able to join a cash prize draw. Given that data collection was
conducted online using snowball sampling (i.e., the link was spread via social networking
sites), we were able to exceed this criterion, and a total of 727 individuals participated (30.1%
were males). Ages ranged from 18 to 35 years (M = 22.19; SD = 2.54). All participants were
Polish residents, and all measures were administered in Polish. All procedures were approved
by the institutional Ethics Board (the decision was issued on October 25th; decision ID: KEiB
3.2. Measures
For all measures described below, high scores reflect a higher level of the characteristic
being assessed (i.e., higher narcissism and higher trust).
3.2.1. Agentic and antagonistic narcissism. The Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry
Questionnaire-Short (NARQ-S; Back et al., 2013; Leckelt et al., 2018) is a six-item measure
of narcissism distinguishing its agentic and antagonistic facets and referring to its affective-
motivational, cognitive, and behavioral processes: (1) grandiosity, striving for uniqueness,
and charmingness in terms of narcissistic admiration (3 items each; e.g., I deserve to be seen
as a great personality); (2) devaluation, striving for supremacy, and aggressiveness in terms
of narcissistic rivalry (3 items each; e.g., I react annoyed if another person steals the show
from me). Respondents answered using a six-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not
agree at all) to 6 (agree completely). Mean scores were computed for narcissistic admiration
and rivalry, respectively.
3.2.2. Communal narcissism. The Communal Narcissism Inventory (CNI; Gebauer et
al., 2012) is a 16-item measure originating from the Agency-Communion Model of
narcissism according to which communal narcissists share the same core self-motives as
agentic narcissists, but they meet these motives through communal means (e.g., I will be well
known for the good deeds I will have done). Respondents answered using a seven-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly).
3.2.3. Trust. The General Trust Scale (GTS; Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994) is a brief
six-item measure of generalised trust, defined as the assurance encouragingly leading to
cooperative interactions with others (e.g., Most people are basically honest.). In the current
study, respondents answered using a seven-point response scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Furthermore, to enhance the generalisability of results across
trust measures, we administered the trust facet scale derived from the Big Five Inventory-2
(BFI; Soto & John, 2017), which is a four-item measure capturing interpersonal trust defined
as “holding positive generalised beliefs about others” (p. 121). Two of these items are
negatively worded
. Therefore subjects rated how much they consider themselves as someone
who, for example, …assumes the best about people or is suspicious of others’ intentions
using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly).
Thus, whereas the first measure captures how narcissists perceive others, the latter allows an
assessment of how they perceive themselves.
4. Results
4.1. Zero-order correlations, descriptive statistics, and reliability estimates
Zero-order correlations (corrected for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni
method, i.e., .05/n; n = number of study variables), descriptive statistics, and reliability
estimates for all variables under study are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Zero-order correlations, descriptive statistics and reliability estimates of studied variables
Negative items were reverse-coded in order to compute summated scores and perform the analyses.
1. Agentic narcissism
2. Antagonistic narcissism
3. Communal narcissism
4. Trust (GTS)
5. Trust (BFI)
M (SD)
2.94 (1.17)
3.18 (1.19)
4.10 (1.14)
2.95 (0.73)
Note. N = 727. GTS = General Trust Scale (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994); BFI = trust facet
scale derived from the Big Five Inventory-2 (Soto & John, 2017).
*Correlations were adjusted for multiple comparisons: .05/5 = p .01 (two-tailed).
aThe reliability for antagonistic narcissism is relatively low. However, previous studies using
this measure (Leckelt et al., 2018) indicated that the short version is in line with the full
version of the NARQ (Back et al., 2013).
bThe reliability for trust as measured with the BFI facet scale is modest, albeit paralleling the
lower reliability estimates of shorter versions of the Big Five measurement, especially
agreeableness and its facets (e.g., Lang et al., 2011; Hahn, Gottschling, & Spinath, 2012; Soto
& John, 2017).
Agentic narcissism was positively related to both antagonistic and communal
narcissism, while antagonistic and communal narcissism was positive, albeit weakly, related
to each other. The relationship between narcissism and trust showed a differentiated pattern.
That is, agentic narcissism was not significantly related to trust, whereas antagonistic
narcissism was negatively related, and communal narcissism was positively related. Most
importantly, the pattern of relations replicated across trust measures, supporting the
robustness of results across different trust measures.
4.2. Regression models examining relations between facets of narcissism and trust
Because narcissism facets were moderately correlated, the shared variance between
them could potentially impact the observed results. Thus, using two multiple regression
models examining relations between facets of narcissism (independent variable) and trust
(dependent variable) as measured by GTS (Model 1) and BFI (Model 2), we controlled for
this shared variance. Table 2 details the standardised estimates for the tested models.
Table 2
Standardized beta regression coefficients of facets of narcissism predicting trust as measured
by the GTS (Model 1) and the BFI (Model 2)
Agentic narcissism
Antagonistic narcissism
Communal narcissism
.02[-.06; .11]
-.24[-.31; -.16]
.17[.10; .27]
-.08[-.10; .01]
-.36[-.26; -.18]
.35[.19; .29]
Note. CI = confidence interval; GTS = General Trust Scale (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994);
BFI = trust facet scale derived from the Big Five Inventory-2 (Soto & John, 2017).
aOne out of six items of the GTS (i.e., I am trustful) differs significantly from the other
statements, which start with the formula “Most people are…”. In order to strictly refer to trust
operationalised as a generalised belief about others, we tested an additional linear regression
model, in which we excluded this problematic item. The results, however, did not change
Both models predicting trust as measured by GTS (F(3,723) = 20.10; p < .001) and the
BFI (F(3,723) = 68.65; p < .001) were significant. Controlling for the shared variance among
narcissism facets thus did not influence the observed results. In particular and, as expected,
agentic narcissism was still unrelated, antagonistic narcissism was negatively related, and
communal narcissism was positively related to trust, both as measured with the GTS and the
BFI. The strength of the relation did not change for agentic and antagonistic narcissism but
increased for communal narcissism (for the BFI trust facet) once again supporting the
hypothesised pattern of relations between narcissism and trust.
5. Discussion
In the existing literature, there is a general assumption that narcissists do not trust
others (Miller et al., 2017; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). However, this premise was examined
by measuring distrust and not trust (often defined as the opposite of trust; Glover et al., 2012;
Krizan & Johar, 2015) or by neglecting the multifaceted nature of grandiose narcissism
(agentic, antagonistic, and communal). Moreover, previous narcissism research failed to
differentiate between trustworthiness (i.e., an aspect of personality and self-image) and trust
as an assumption about the good nature of others (Kong, 2015; Konrath et al., 2014). As trust
and distrust yield distinct consequences (Lewicki et al., 1998), the lack of a direct
examination of narcissism and trust seems surprising. The current study aimed to fill these
gaps. The distinction between attitudes and one’s own self-image is particularly important in
studies on narcissism due to different ways of narcissistic self-enhancement, which could be
related to both agency and communion (Gebauer et al., 2012) or different relational
dynamics, as reflected in the distinction between admiration and rivalry (Back et al., 2013).
Our results revealed that grandiose narcissism while considering its different facets
yields a differentiated pattern of relations with trust: (1) the agentic facet was unrelated, (2)
the antagonistic facet was negatively related, and (3) the communal facet was positively
related to trust. Conclusions drawn from our research meet theoretical assumptions of the
NARC (Back et al., 2013) and the A-C model of narcissism (Gebauer et al., 2012), according
to which the overarching goal of grandiose narcissists is to maintain their excessively positive
Including both aspects of trust revealed a slight difference between self-perception and
other-perception for the agentic aspect. Interestingly, agentic narcissism occurred to be
negatively (yet only at the tendency level) related to one’s self-perception as a trusting
person, but this self-perception was unrelated to lower levels of trust toward others.
Therefore, agentic narcissism is probably not associated with costs of low trust. Only the
antagonistic aspect of narcissism is accompanied by lower levels of trust, preventing
antagonistic narcissists from cooperation, commitment, and satisfactory relations with others.
The proposed distinction between agentic and antagonistic narcissism (Back et al.,
2013) complements previous studies on trust and narcissism because it allows stating that the
lack of trust toward others and the world is rather rooted in the malevolent and self-protective
nature of narcissism. In contrast, narcissistic self-promotion and assertive self-enhancement,
which serves as a mean to gain others’ recognition (Back et al., 2013), is neither related nor
unrelated to trust. Such conclusions seem to be consistent with research revealing that both
agentic and antagonistic narcissism predict interpersonal conflict, but only the latter is
uniquely related to general interpersonal problems (Grove et al., in press).
Trust is crucial for building a satisfactory relationship with another person (Campbell,
Simpson, Boldry, & Rubin, 2010) and a positive relation with communal narcissism might
suggest that this facet of narcissism may also be less problematic than its agentic counterpart.
However, the underlying motivation of communal narcissists contains also the agentic motive
of self-enhancement (Rogoza & Fatfouta, 2018). Moreover, when more indirect measures are
used (e.g., implicit tests) this effect may be less prominent (Fatfouta et al., 2017), which
might reveal that the core motive of communal narcissist is indeed agentic. On the other
hand, agentic narcissism is unrelated to trust as an attitude toward others, so that the problem
with the interpersonal functioning of grandiose narcissists seems to be limited only to its
antagonistic aspect.
The current study demonstrates that there is a need to study narcissism in a more
nuanced manner as the three facets of narcissism turned out to comprise divergent social
strategies serving the same goal, that is, maintaining a grandiose self. Despite the widely held
assumption that narcissists do not trust others, they are ready to view themselves as
trustworthy when they engage in communal self-enhancement. Most correlational studies on
narcissism and distrust did not measure convictions about others but rather self-perception.
There was also no direct evidence that narcissism is negatively related to accepting one’s own
vulnerability in interpersonal relationships, preventing narcissists from engaging in positive
relationships. Our correlational results suggest that agentic and communal narcissism is not
associated with problems related to low trust. Moreover, communal narcissism is positively
associated with trust, suggesting that this form of grandiose narcissism could be more
socialized” that its agentic counterpart. However, without experimental and behavioural data
we cannot claim that holding positive convictions about the human nature results in more
cooperative and benevolent relations.
5.1. Limitations and future directions
Due to the self-report design, we were able to examine narcissistic beliefs related to
trust regarding both human nature (i.e., trust defined as a propensity to see others as
trustworthy) and self-perception (i.e., seeing oneself as ready to trust others). However, we
did not capture narcissists’ actual trust behaviour. Including different sources of data such as
observer reports, implicit self-views, or behavioural measures should be applied in future
studies to test the extent to which our findings generalise across different assessment formats.
Recent research suggests that while the effects of admiration and rivalry generally follow
their theoretical descriptions when non-standard measures (e.g., Ultimatum Game) are used,
there is an inconsistency between explicit and implicit communal self-views (Fatfouta &
Schröder-Abé, 2018). This suggests that our results regarding communal narcissism might
not hold when behavioural measures of trust (e.g., Trust Game) are applied.
6. Conclusion
The current study indicates that including three aspects of grandiose narcissism in
examining the relation between narcissism and trust revealed quite a differentiated picture.
Furthermore, adopting the distinction between different trust facets appears meaningful and
allows for predicting how narcissistic individuals might interact with others. We are
confident that our study could serve as a starting point for future investigations, highlighting
the necessity of including different aspects of grandiose narcissism and including both the
self-image aspect of trust and actual assumptions about the human nature.
Ackerman, R.A., Witt, E.A., Donnellan, M.B., Trzesniewski, K.H., Robins, R.W., & Kashy,
D.A. (2011). What does the narcissistic personality inventory really measure?
Assessment, 18, 6787. doi:10.1177/1073191110382845
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, 10131037.
Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P.A.M. (2013). Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulleting, 139, 10901112. doi:10.1037/a0030939
Campbell, L., Simpson, J.A., Boldry, J.G., & Rubin, H. (2010). Trust, variability in
relationship evaluations, and relationship processes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 99, 1431. doi:10.1037/a0019714
Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Duffy, J.A., & Lilly, J. (2013). Do individual needs moderate the relationships between
organizational citizenship behavior, organizational trust and perceived organizational
support? Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 14, 185197.
Dunning, D., Anderson, J.E., Schlösser, T., Ehlebracht, D., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2014). Trust
at zero acquaintance: More a matter of respect than expectation of reward. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 122141. doi:10.1037/a0036673
Evans, A.M., & Revelle, W. (2008). Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal
trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 15851593.
Farris, G., Senner, E., & Butterfield, D. (1973). Trust, culture, and organizational behavior.
Industrial Relations, 12, 144157. doi:10.1111/j.1468-232X.1973.tb00544.x
Fatfouta, R., Rentzsch, K., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2018). Narcissus oeconomicus: Facets of
narcissism and socio-economic decision-making. Journal of Research in Personality,
75, 1216. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2018.05.002
Fatfouta, R., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2018). A wolf in sheep’s clothing? Communal narcissism
and positive self-views in the communal domain. Journal of Research in Personality,
76, 1721. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2018.07.004
Fatfouta, R., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2017). I'm merciful, am I not? Facets of
narcissism and forgiveness revisited. Journal of Research in Personality, 70, 166173.
Gebauer, J.E., Sedikides, C., Verplanken, B., & Maio, G.R. (2012). Communal narcissism.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 854878. doi:10.1037/a0029629
Glover, N., Miller, J.D., Lynam, D.R., Crego, C., & Widiger, T.A. (2012). The Five-Factor
Narcissism Inventory: A five-factor measure of narcissistic personality traits. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 94, 500512. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.670680
Grove, J.L., Smith, T.W., Girard, J.M., & Wright, A.G. (in press). Narcissistic Admiration
and Rivalry: An interpersonal approach to construct validation. Journal of Personality
Hahn, E., Gottschling, J., & Spinath, F.M. (2012). Short measurements of personality
Validity and reliability of the GDOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S). Journal of Research
in Personality, 46, 355359. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.03.008
Kerr, A.E., Patton, M.J., Lapan, R.T., & Hills, H.I. (1994). Interpersonal correlates of
narcissism in adolescents. Journal of Counselling and Development, 73, 204211.
Kong, D.T. (2015). Narcissists’ negative perception of their counterpart’s competence and
benevolence and their own reduced trust in a negotiation context. Personality and
Individual Differences, 74, 196201. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.015
Konrath, S.H., Chopik, W.J., Hsing, C.K., & O'Brien, E. (2014). Changes in adult attachment
styles in American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 123. doi:10.1177/1088868314530516
Krizan, Z., & Johar, O. (2015). Narcissistic rage revisited. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 108, 784801. doi:10.1037/pspp0000013
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, 548567. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0066-z
Leckelt, M., Küfner, A.C.P., Nestler, S., & Back, M.D. (2015). Behavioral processes
underlying the decline in narcissists’ popularity over time. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 109, 856871. doi:10.1037/pspp0000057
Leckelt, M., Wetzel, E., Gerlach, T.M., Ackerman, R.A., Miller, J.D., Chopik, W.J., . . .
Back, M.D. (2018). Validation of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry
Questionnaire short scale (NARQ-S) in convenience and representative samples.
Psychological Assessment, 30, 8696. doi:10.1037/pas0000433
Lewicki, R., McAllister, D.J., & Bies, R. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and
Academy of Management Review, 23
, 43858. doi:10.2307/259288
Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20, 344354. doi:10.2307/258792
Miller, J.D., Lynam, D.R., Hyatt, C.S., & Campbell, W.K. (2017). Controversies in
narcissism. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 291315. doi:10.1146/annurev-
Morf, C.C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic
self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177196.
Nehrlich, A.D., Gebauer, J.E., Sedikides, C., & Schoel, C. (2018). Agentic narcissism,
communal narcissism, and prosociality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Putnam, R. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in
America. Political Science and Politics, 28, 66483. doi:10.2307/420517
Righetti, R., & Finkenauer, C. (2011). If you are able to control yourself, I will trust you: The
role of perceived self-control in interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 100, 874886. doi:10.1037/a0021827
Rogoza, R., & Fatfouta, R. (2018). Normal and pathological communal narcissism in relation
to personality traits and values. Personality and Individual Differences.
Rogoza, R., Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Rogoza, M., Piotrowski, J., & Wyszyńska, P. (2016).
Narcissistic admiration and rivalry in the context of personality metatraits. Personality
and Individual Differences, 102, 180185. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.003
Rotter, J.B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist,
26, 443452. doi:10.1037/h0031464
Różycka-Tran, J., Boski, P., & Wojciszke, B. (2015). Belief in a Zero-Sum Game as a social
axiom: A 37-nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 525548.
Schönbrodt, F.D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize?
Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609612. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009
Soto, C.J., & John, O.P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and
assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and
predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 117143.
Wetzel, E., Leckelt, M., Gerlach, T.M., & Back, M.D. (2016). Distinguishing subgroups of
narcissists with latent class analysis. European Journal of Personality, 30, 374389.
Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
Wojciszke, B., & Abele, A.E. (2008). The primacy of communion over agency and its
reversals in evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 11391147.
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and
Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129166. doi:10.1007/BF02249397
Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Czarna, A., Piotrowski, J., Baran, T., & Maltby, J. (2016).
Structural validity of the Communal Narcissism Inventory (CNI): The bifactor model.
Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 315320. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.036
... However, different facets of narcissism also have different relationships with trust. For example, the agentic facet of narcissism (narcissistic admiration) is positively correlated with trust, while the antagonistic facet of narcissism (narcissistic rivalry) is negatively correlated with trust (Kwiatkowska et al., 2019). Other research suggests that grandiose narcissists have lower levels of trust due to the antagonistic aspect (Poggi et al., 2019). ...
... Narcissistic admiration is based on assertive self-promotion strategies to maintain positive self-evaluation (Back et al., 2013;Back, 2018), indicating that narcissists show a high level of approval of their self-image. Trust is related to an individual's self-image because one appears open and kind to others because of his or her own trustworthiness (Kwiatkowska et al., 2019). From this perspective, individuals with high narcissistic admiration may be prone to trust others. ...
... Hostile intentions or interpersonal behaviors indicate a lack of trust (Sharp et al., 2011). Empirical studies have found a negative correlation between narcissistic rivalry and trust (Dong et al., 2020;Fang et al., 2021;Kwiatkowska et al., 2019). Trust is recognized as a cornerstone of interpersonal and social relationships (Dong et al., 2018;Thielmann & Hilbig 2015) and an important factor in developing and maintaining good interpersonal functioning (Rotenberg, 2010;Simpson, 2007). ...
Full-text available
Life satisfaction is a widely-shared goal and a core theme in the field of positive psychology. From the perspective of personality, some researchers have focused on the relationship between narcissism and life satisfaction, but there is a lack of research on the underlying process between them. This study aimed to examine the relationship between narcissism and life satisfaction based on the narcissistic admiration and rivalry concept (NARC) model and explored the mediating roles of general trust and positive emotions. In addition, to avoid confusion between the concepts of narcissism and self-esteem, this study measured and controlled for self-esteem in the mediation model test. In the current study, college students completed the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire, General Trust Scale, Positive Emotions of Scale of Positive and Negative Experience Scale, Satisfaction with Life Scale, and Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale. Ultimately, a total of 912 participants were analyzed, including 398 males (43.6%) and 506 females (55.5%) (Mage = 19.58 years, SD = 1.35 years). The results showed that narcissistic admiration had a positive indirect effect on life satisfaction, while narcissistic rivalry had a negative indirect effect on life satisfaction. General trust and positive emotions were two mediators of the relationship between narcissism and life satisfaction. These findings suggest that different dimensions of narcissism have different effects on life satisfaction. Our findings have significant practical and theoretical implications for enhancing the life satisfaction of individuals with narcissistic tendencies.
... Therefore, agentic and communal narcissists manifest differences in their self-thoughts, behaviors, and basic personality traits. Communal narcissists tend to have high self-esteem and subjective well-being (Gebauer & Sedikides, 2018 for review), indicating greater levels of interpersonal trust (Kwiatkowska et al., 2019) and perceived social support (Gąsiorowska et al., 2021). In addition, most social effects of communal narcissism are not socially aversive (Rentzsch & Gebauer, 2019). ...
... Specifically, the present-oriented factor seems more related to positive aspects of individual functioning, while the futureoriented factor seems more exploitative and antagonistic. However, probably because of structural problems with the CNI (Żemojtel-Piotrowska et al., 2016), in virtually all subsequent studies, communal narcissism was examined as a homogenous phenomenon, without distinction between these two factors (Fatfouta & Schröder-Abé, 2018;Freis & Brunell, 2022;Giacomin & Jordan, 2015;Kwiatkowska et al., 2019;Żemojtel-Piotrowska et al., 2016). Yet, the future-oriented factor seems to be a good candidate for a mechanism restoring communal selfas possible failure in the communal domain requires some reparative actions, such a strategy allows for restoring grandiose communal self (Gebauer & Sedikides, 2018). ...
... Still, these effects are limited to narcissistic antagonism (Burgmer et al., 2021;Szymczak et al., 2020), while communal narcissism is linked to higher levels of trust (Kwiatkowska et al., 2019). A negative exchange balance in romantic relationships was positively related to the sense of entitlement (Żemojtel-Piotrowska et al., 2015), which is an antagonistic part of narcissism (Brown et al., 2009;Krizan & Herlache, 2018). ...
Full-text available
In the current paper we introduce a new conceptualization of communal narcissism, as encompassed by two narcissistic strategies congruent with self-promotion and self-defensive motives. In addition, we posit that communal narcissistic strategies should be aligned with communal self-enhancement. Therefore, we propose narcissistic sanctity as an ego-boosting strategy and narcissistic heroism as an ego-defensive strategy. In a series of eleven studies (N = 5,606) we develop, validate, and employ what we will call the Narcissistic Sanctity and Heroism Concept. We found the scale to be a robust measure of communal narcissism and that the two postulated strategies are psychologically distinct while psychometrically sound. Specifically, we found that narcissistic sanctity was related to implicit and explicit communion, communal (but not agentic) self-enhancement and explained more socially (as compared to heroism) acceptable functioning in close relationships, being positively correlated with prosocialness via denying one’s egoistic motivations. Narcissistic heroism, on the other hand, was related both to agency and communion, it was unrelated to communal self-enhancement, explained less socially acceptable (as compared to sanctity) functioning in close relationships, and was related to less prosocialness via egoistic motivation. In sum, a newly proposed model of communal narcissism sheds new light on prior research on communal narcissism, explaining null relationships between communal self-presentation and actual behaviors in the communal domain.
... It is a trait commonly associated with grandiosity, entitlement, and manipulativeness, but also with assertiveness and seeking attention (Miller et al., 2017). Narcissists need other people to gain positive feedback about themselves (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) while at the same time they use defensive strategies toward others (Back et al., 2013) and tend to distrust them (Kwiatkowska et al., 2019). Such a way of perceiving others causes their distorted view on social relationships. ...
... Vulnerable narcissism concerns this construct's pathological side and is of interest mainly to clinical psychology, while grandiose narcissism is treated like a subclinical personality trait (Weiss & Miller, 2018;Wink, 1991). In the current study, we focus on grandiose narcissism, differentiating between its three aspectsagentic, antagonistic, and communal (Fatfouta et al., 2017;Kwiatkowska et al., 2019). Those aspects can be described by two models. ...
... Antagonistic narcissism is connected to low agreeableness (Rogoza et al., 2018) and low emotional stability , the traits that are determinants of stable social functioning and cooperativeness (Goldberg, 1999). Antagonistic narcissists perceive others as a threat (Lange et al., 2016) and tend to distrust them (Kwiatkowska et al., 2019). They also function worse in relationships with other people (Back et al., 2013;Wurst et al., 2017), so they experience more loneliness (Rogoza et al., 2018). ...
In the Polish community sample (N = 662), we examined the relationship between three facets of grandiose narcissism (agentic, antagonistic, and communal) and loneliness, mediated by the social support. Data was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Agentic narcissism was unrelated to loneliness and social support. People characterized by a high level of antagonistic narcissism reported getting less social support and therefore feeling more lonely. People characterized by a high level of communal narcissism reported getting more social support, protecting them from feeling lonely. Our study points to different consequences of social restrictions posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to people characterized by higher agentic, antagonistic, and communal narcissism levels. This research expands current knowledge about grandiose narcissists and their social functioning, also during forced isolation. Antagonistic narcissism seems to be maladaptive, communal narcissism has no adverse consequences, while agentic narcissism is unrelated to reactions toward forced isolation. Keywords: grandiose narcissism; social support; loneliness; COVID-19
... Narcissism is related to distrust since people high in narcissism are reluctant to make themselves vulnerable to others (Kong, 2015;Krizan and Johar, 2015;Poggi et al., 2019). Specifically, antagonistic narcissism (a form of narcissism that blends grandiose and vulnerable narcissism) is negatively related to general trust (Kwiatkowska et al., 2019;Szymczak et al., 2020). However, previous studies mainly focused on the trust belief. ...
... In the existing literature, narcissism is characterized by a lack of trust in others (Kwiatkowska et al., 2019;Poggi et al., 2019;Szymczak et al., 2020). However, these studies mainly examined the trust belief and less regarded trust behavior. ...
Full-text available
Individuals with narcissism are, by definition, self-centered, focus on self-benefit, and demonstrate less prosocial behaviors. Trusting strangers is risky, as it can result in exploitation and non-reciprocation. Thus, the trust may be antagonistic to narcissism. However, how narcissists make the choice to trust remains to be elucidated. The current study examined 44 participants (22 rated high in narcissism) playing as trustors in one-shot trust games, and their electroencephalograms were recorded. Individuals high in narcissism exhibited less trust toward strangers, especially following gaining feedback for their trust. In addition, narcissists exhibited a larger N2 following distrust and a stronger negatively-valanced difference in feedback-related negativity (dFRN) after trustee feedback. Our findings provide insights into how individuals with narcissism trust strangers. The results also shed light on the temporal course of brain activity involved in trust decision-making and outcome evaluation in individuals with narcissism.
... High (vs. low) communal narcissists do not typically express negative views of others; rather, they report that they trust others and believe others are reliable, honest, and benevolent (Kwiatkowska et al., 2019;Rentzsch & Gebauer, 2019). Accordingly, we hypothesized that they would predict an earlier withdrawal moment for themselves than the average peer. ...
Full-text available
People believe that they would disobey immoral authority in the Milgram experiment. We asked whether high (vs. low) communal and agentic narcissists would manifest a more pronounced better-than-average effect (BTAE) in their predicted disobedience. Participants (N = 348) estimated the moment at which they and the average peer would quit the Milgram experiment. High communal narcissists claimed that they would disobey the immoral authority and quit the experiment earlier (positively predicting the BTAE), whereas high agentic narcissists claimed that they, as well as an average other, would obey longer (negatively predicting the BTAE). Differences in the impression management component of socially desirable responding played a role in these links.
... Whilst, in the current study, this location was still in the expected range, some studies reported that Admiration slightly exceeded the line of the Beta metatrait . Moreover, there are studies (Fatfouta et al., 2017;Kwiatkowska et al., 2019) that report higher correlations between Admiration and communal narcissism (Gebauer et al., 2012), which is located above the Beta metatrait in the CPM . Rivalry remained in closest proximity to Alpha-Minus/Disinhibition, confirming its malevolent character, however, it was partially located on the vulnerable half of the NSM (Krizan, 2018;Rogoza et al., 2019). ...
Full-text available
A theoretical model of the vulnerable half of the Narcissism Spectrum Model (NSM) – the Vulnerable Isolation and Enmity Concept (VIEC) is presented in this paper. In five studies (total N = 2,383), we show the personality underpinnings of the VIEC in terms of normal and pathological personality and explore the social relations of liking others and being liked. Isolation explains the role of avoidance and social withdrawal, whereas Enmity explains the role of reactive antagonism in vulnerable narcissism. We suggest that vulnerable narcissism is related to internalizing and grandiose narcissism to externalizing pathology. Through the prism of the Circumplex of Personality Metatraits, we argue that the VIEC together with the narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry concept (NARC) covers the whole NSM.
Trust is essential for establishing and maintaining cooperative behaviors between individuals and institutions in a wide variety of social, economic, and political contexts. This book explores trust through the lens of neurobiology, focusing on empirical, methodological, and theoretical aspects. Written by a distinguished group of researchers from economics, psychology, human factors, neuroscience, and psychiatry, the chapters shed light on the neurobiological underpinnings of trust as applied in a variety of domains. Researchers and students will discover a refined understanding of trust by delving into the essential topics in this area of study outlined by leading experts.
Trust is essential for establishing and maintaining cooperative behaviors between individuals and institutions in a wide variety of social, economic, and political contexts. This book explores trust through the lens of neurobiology, focusing on empirical, methodological, and theoretical aspects. Written by a distinguished group of researchers from economics, psychology, human factors, neuroscience, and psychiatry, the chapters shed light on the neurobiological underpinnings of trust as applied in a variety of domains. Researchers and students will discover a refined understanding of trust by delving into the essential topics in this area of study outlined by leading experts.
Full-text available
This study examined how narcissism, described by the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (NARC), relates to reactions to romantic relationship dissolution. 246 participants completed a survey assessing the NARC components, and measures concerning a specific past relationship: Emotional reactions immediately following breakup, perceptions of the ex-partner, responsibility for initiating and attributions of blame for problems leading to breakup. Narcissistic rivalry was associated with greater externalized (anger) and internalized (sadness and anxiety) negative emotion, while narcissistic admiration was associated with greater anger and less sadness. Narcissistic admiration was associated with more positive and rivalry with more negative trait perceptions of the ex-partner. Narcissism was unrelated to attributions of blame for the breakup or relationship problems, but admiration was associated with a greater role in initiating breakup.
Research on the positivity of collective narcissists’ in-group evaluation is scarce. So far, only one published study has shown that collective narcissists favorably evaluate their in-group at the explicit level but have negative (or, less positive) implicit in-group evaluations (Golec de Zavala et al., 2009, Study 4). The present preregistered replication study used a larger sample (N = 481), carefully constructed implicit association measures, and examined agentic and communal facets of collective narcissism and implicit collective self-esteem. Yet, our study did not replicate the core finding of Golec de Zavala et al. (2009, Study 4). Although our study does not support the mask model of collective narcissism, it provides further evidence for the distinctiveness of agentic and communal collective narcissism.
Full-text available
The present study applied the interpersonal perspective in testing the narcissistic admiration and rivalry concept (NARC) and examining the construct validity of the corresponding Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ). Two undergraduate samples (Sample 1: N = 290; Sample 2: N = 188) completed self-report measures of interpersonal processes based in the interpersonal circumplex (IPC), as well as measures of related constructs. In examining IPC correlates, we used a novel bootstrapping approach to determine if admiration and rivalry related to differing interpersonal profiles. Consistent with our hypotheses, admiration was distinctly related to generally agentic (i.e., dominant) interpersonal processes, whereas rivalry generally reflected (low) communal (i.e., hostile) interpersonal processes. Furthermore, NARQ-admiration and NARQ-rivalry related to generally adaptive and maladaptive aspects of status-related constructs, emotional, personality, and social adjustment, respectively. This research provides further support for the NARC, as well as construct validation for the NARQ.
Full-text available
Narcissists are said to be particularly unforgiving, yet previous research remains inconclusive. This is likely because most previous studies focused on narcissism as a unitary construct, thereby neglecting its multiple facets. The present study (N = 1,101) thus aimed to clarify the nuanced associations between different facets of narcissism and forgiveness, the latter being assessed via self-report and non-self-report measures. The results of a structural equation model (SEM) showed that antagonistic aspects of narcissism were negatively correlated with explicit forgiveness. Importantly, agentic as well as communal aspects of narcissism were positively correlated with explicit forgiveness. Aspects of narcissistic personality were not correlated with implicit forgiveness. Results suggest that not all facets of narcissism are associated with an unforgiving stance.
Full-text available
There has been a surge in interest in and research on narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Despite or because of this increased attention, there are several areas of substantial debate that surround the construct, including descriptions of grandiose and vulnerable dimensions or variants, questions regarding the existence of a consensual description, central versus peripheral features of narcissism, distinctions between normal and pathological narcissism, possible etiological factors, the role of self-esteem narcissism, where narcissism should be studied, how it can be assessed, and its representation in diagnostic nosologies. We suggest that a failure to distinguish between grandiose (i.e., overtly immodest, self-centered, entitled, domineering) and vulnerable (e.g., self-centered, distrustful, neurotic, introverted) presentations of narcissism has led to a less cohesive and coherent literature and that trait-based models of personality and personality disorder can bring greater clarity to many of these important debates. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology Volume 13 is May 7, 2017. Please see for revised estimates.
Full-text available
Due to increased empirical interest in narcissism across social sciences, there is a need for inventories that can be administered quickly while also reliably measuring both the agentic and antagonistic aspects of grandiose narcissism. In this study, we sought to validate the factor structure, provide representative descriptive data and reliability estimates, assess the reliability across the trait spectrum, and examine the nomological network of the short version (NARQ-S) of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (Back et al., 2013). We used data from a large convenience sample (total N = 11,937) as well as data from a large representative sample (total N = 4,433) that included responses to other narcissism measures as well as related constructs, including the other Dark Triad traits, Big Five personality traits, and self-esteem. Confirmatory factor analysis and Item Response Theory were used to validate the factor structure and estimate the reliability across the latent trait spectrum, respectively. Results suggest that the NARQ-S shows a robust factor structure and is a reliable and valid short measure of the agentic and antagonistic aspects of grandiose narcissism. We also discuss future directions and applications of the NARQ-S as a short and comprehensive measure of grandiose narcissism.
The functional approach to human behavior is used to study the impact of intrinsic motivators of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Specifically, McClelland’s needs for affiliation, achievement, and power are investigated as possible moderators in the relationship between OCB and organizational trust and perceived organizational support (POS). Survey data from 700 employees were analyzed using regression analysis. Results indicate the need for achievement and the need for power moderate the relationships between OCB and organizational trust and POS but in an unexpected manner. This study is significant because it enhances our understanding of what motivates OCB.
Communal narcissists possess the unique belief in their capability to bring about freedom to the world, and so see themselves as “saints”. To examine if this communal self-view extends to the more automatic component of self-evaluation, that is, a person's implicit self-view, the present study (N = 701) tested the extent to which communal narcissism was associated with explicit communal self-ratings and implicit associations between the self and communal attributes. The latent correlation between communal narcissism and explicit communal self-views was strongly positive, yet no such relationship emerged for implicit communal self-views. These findings support the notion that communal narcissism may represent an effort to gain favorable appraisals from others in the absence of a genuine communal self-view.
Grandiose narcissism and prosociality are important topics in personality and social psychology, but research on their interplay is lacking. We present a first large-scale, systematic, and multimethod investigation linking the two. In 2 studies (N1 = 688, N2 = 336), we assessed grandiose narcissism comprehensively (i.e., agentic and communal narcissism) and examined its relations with instantiations of prosociality, namely, objective prosociality (actual behavior in Study 1; round-robin informant-reports in a real-life setting in Study 2) and subjective prosociality (self-perceptions in Studies 1 and 2). We obtained a consistent set of results. Agentic narcissism was related to lower objective prosociality and lower subjective prosociality. Communal narcissism, by contrast, was unrelated to objective prosociality, but was related to higher subjective prosociality. Additionally, we tested for prosociality self-enhancement among agentic and communal narcissists. Agentic narcissists evinced the same (and modest) level of prosociality self-enhancement as their non-narcissistic counterparts. Communal narcissists, by contrast, evinced substantial levels of prosociality self-enhancement, whereas their non-narcissistic counterparts did not enhance their prosociality at all. We discuss implications of the findings for the literature on narcissism and antisociality, and for the concept of prosocial personality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
How do narcissists respond to monetary rewards and are there differences in fairness sensitivity between different facets of narcissism? The present study (N = 287) investigated these questions using the Ultimatum Game, a behavioral decision-making task involving the presentation of advantageous and disadvantageous financial offers. The results of multilevel modeling revealed that individual differences in narcissism modulated responders’ game decisions: Individuals high in narcissism, particularly narcissistic rivalry, were more likely to accept monetary offers and this effect was even more pronounced for comparatively unfair offers. Results extend previous findings, suggesting that narcissists are hypersensitive to rewards and pay close attention how to maximize their personal profit rather than to enforce fairness norms.
Communal narcissism can be defined as grandiose self-views in the communal domain. Within the literature, two forms of communal narcissism, normal and pathological, can be distinguished. However, no study to date has investigated their convergence and divergence. Using a large community sample (N = 781), the current study aimed to fill this gap through examination of 1) the distinctiveness of normal and pathological communal narcissism; 2) their relationship to broad personality characteristics; and 3) values. Results suggest that 1) normal and pathological communal narcissism are structurally distinct constructs; 2) the difference in relation to personality characteristics is limited to neuroticism; and 3) they share the values of self-enhancement and self-transcendence.