Grandiose narcissism, unfounded beliefs, and behavioral reactions during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

A theoretical perspective on grandiose narcissism suggests four forms of it (sanctity, admiration, heroism, rivalry) and states that these forms conduce to different ways of thinking and acting. Guided by this perspective, we examined in a multinational and multicultural study (61 countries; N = 15,039) how narcissism forms are linked to cognitions and behaviors prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. As expected, differences in cognitions and behaviors across narcissism forms emerged. For example, higher narcissistic rivalry predicted lower likelihood of enactment of COVID-19 prevention behaviors, but higher narcissistic sanctity predicted higher likelihood of enactment of COVID-19 prevention behaviors. Further, whereas the heroism, admiration, and rivalry narcissism forms acted in a typically antisocial manner, with high narcissism predicting greater endorsement of unfounded health beliefs, the sanctity form acted in a prosocial manner, with higher narcissism being linked to lower endorsement of unfounded COVID-19 health beliefs. Thus, the findings (a) support the idea of four narcissism forms acting differently, and (b) show that these differences reflect a double-edged sword, sometimes linking to an anti-social orientation, and sometimes linking to a pro-social orientation.

Full text

1
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:17503 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67954-2
www.nature.com/scientificreports
Grandiose narcissism, unfounded
beliefs, and behavioral reactions
during the COVID‑19 pandemic
Magdalena Żemojtel‑Piotrowska
1*, Artur Sawicki
2, Jarosław Piotrowski
1, Uri Lifshin
3,
Mabelle Kretchner
4, John J. Skowronski
5, Constantine Sedikides
6, Peter K. Jonason
1,7,
Mladen Adamovic
8, Oli Ahmed
9, Kokou A. Atitsogbe
10, Laith Al‑Shawaf
11,
Seth Christopher Yaw Appiah
12, Rahkman Ardi
13, Uzma Azam
14, Zana Hasan Babakr
15,
Einar Baldvin Baldursson
16, Sergiu Bălțătescu
17, Konstantin Bochaver
18,
Aidos Bolatov
19, Mario Bonato
20, Harshalini Y. Bundhoo
21, Trawin Chaleeraktrakoon
22,
Phatthanakit Chobthamkit
22, Richard G. Cowden
23, Victor Counted
24, Gisela de Clunie
25,
Sonya Dragova‑Koleva
26, Carla Soa Esteves
27, Valdiney V. Gouveia
28, Katherine Gundolf
29,
OPEN
1Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw, Wóycickiego 1/3, 01-938 Warsaw, Poland. 2University of Gdansk,
Gdańsk, Poland. 3Reichman University, Herzliya, Israel. 4Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel. 5Northern
Illinois University, DeKalb, USA. 6University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 7Padova University, Padova,
Italy. 8King’s College London, London, UK. 9University of Chittagong, Chittagong, Bangladesh. 10University of
Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 11University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA. 12Department of Sociology
and Social Work, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. 13Universitas Airlangga,
Surabaya, Indonesia. 14Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India. 15Soran University, Soran, Iraq. 16Aalborg
University, Aalborg, Denmark. 17University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania. 18Independent Researcher, Dubna,
Russia. 19Astana Medical University, Astana, Kazakhstan. 20University of Padova, Padova, Italy. 21University of
Mauritius, Reduit, Moka, Mauritius. 22Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand. 23Harvard University, Boston,
MA, USA. 24Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA. 25Universidad Tecnológica de Panamá, Panama City,
Panama. 26New Bulgarian University, Soa, Bulgaria. 27Católica Lisbon Research Unit in Business and Economics,
Católica Lisbon School of Business and Economics, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Lisboa, Portugal. 28Federal
University of Paraiba, Paraiba, Brazil. 29University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Wels, Austria. 30University
of Biskra, Biskra, Algeria. 31Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa, Montevideo, Uruguay. 32University of
Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. 33Daugavpils University, Daugavpils, Latvia. 34University of Sargodha, Sargodha,
Pakistan. 35De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines. 36Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ, USA. 37University
of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia. 38Josip Juraj Strossmayer University, Osijek, Croatia. 39School of Medicine,
University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia. 40Karnatak University, Dharwad, Karnataka, India. 41Yerevan State
University, Yerevan, Armenia. 42Czech Academy of Sciences, Praha, Czech Republic. 43Tilburg University, Tilburg,
The Netherlands. 44International University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. 45New Bulgarian
University, Soa, Bulgaria. 46ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary. 47Department of Education and
Psychology, Faculty of Science and Arts in Qurayyat, Al Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia. 48Department of
Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Menoua University, Shebin El-Kom, Egypt. 49Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU),
Leioa, Spain. 50Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia. 51University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. 52Taras Shevchenko
National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine. 53Mother Theresa University, Tirana, Albania. 54University of Sarajevo,
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. 55Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK. 56University of Waikato,
Tauranga, New Zealand. 57Department of Psychology and Psychodynamics, Division of Work, Organizational,
and Economic Psychology, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems, Austria. 58University of
Padova, Padova, Italy. 59Sakarya University, Serdivan, Turkey. 60Graduate School of Education, Kyoto University,
Kyoto, Japan. 61Universidad Católica del Uruguay, Montevideo, Uruguay. 62Facultad de Ciencias de La Salud,
Universidad Privada del Norte, Lima, Peru. 63SRH Mobile University, Riedlingen, Germany. 64M. Narikbayev
KAZGUU University, Astana, Kazakhstan. 65University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 66Lucian Blaga University
of Sibiu, Sibiu, Romania. 67Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. 68University
of Oran2 Mohamed Ben Ahmed, Belgaid, Oran, Algeria. 69Research Institute for Child Psychology and
Pathopsychology, Bratislava, Slovakia. 70Department of Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences, University
of Granada, Granada, Spain. 71College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria. 72Los Andes University,
Bogotá, Colombia. 73Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta, Chile. 74United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain,
United Arab Emirates. 75Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIS-IUL, Lisboa, Portugal. 76University of
Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. *email: m.zemojtel-piotrowska@uksw.edu.pl
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

2
Vol:.(1234567890)
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:17503 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67954-2
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Salima Hamouda
30, Carmen Haretche
31, Evelyn Hye Kyung Jeong
32, Dzintra Iliško
33,
Najma Iqbal Malik
34, John Jamir Benzon Aruta
35, Fanli Jia
36, Veljko Jovanović
37,
Tomislav Jukić
38, Doroteja Pavan Jukić
39, Shanmukh V. Kamble
40, Narine Khachatryan
41,
Martina Klicperova‑Baker
42, Christoph Kogler
43, Emil Knezović
44, Metodi Koralov
45,
Monika Kovacs
46, Walaa Labib M. Eldesoki
47,48, Aitor Larzabal Fernandez
49, Kadi Liik
50,
Sadia Malik
34, John Maltby
51, Karine Malysheva
52, Agim Mamuti
53, Jasmina Mangac
54,
Chanki Moon
55, Taciano L. Milfont
56, Stephan Muehlbacher
57, Reza Naja
58,
Emrah Özsoy
59, Joonha Park
60, Pablo Pérez de León
61, Iva Polackova Solcova
42,
Jano Ramos‑Diaz
62, Goran Ridic
63, Ognjen Riđić
44, Adil Samekin
64, Andrea Spoto
20,
Andrej Starc
65, Delia Stefenel
66, Kiều Thị Thanh Trà
67, Habib Tiliouine
68, Robert Tomšik
69,
Jorge Torres‑Marín
70, Charles S. Umeh
71, Eduardo Wills‑Herrera
72, Anna Wlodarczyk
73,
Zahir Vally
74, Christin‐Melanie Vauclair
75, Illia Yahiiaiev
52 & Somayeh Zand
76
A theoretical perspective on grandiose narcissism suggests four forms of it (sanctity, admiration,
heroism, rivalry) and states that these forms conduce to dierent ways of thinking and acting. Guided
by this perspective, we examined in a multinational and multicultural study (61 countries; N = 15,039)
how narcissism forms are linked to cognitions and behaviors prompted by the COVID‑19 pandemic.
As expected, dierences in cognitions and behaviors across narcissism forms emerged. For example,
higher narcissistic rivalry predicted lower likelihood of enactment of COVID‑19 prevention behaviors,
but higher narcissistic sanctity predicted higher likelihood of enactment of COVID‑19 prevention
behaviors. Further, whereas the heroism, admiration, and rivalry narcissism forms acted in a typically
antisocial manner, with high narcissism predicting greater endorsement of unfounded health
beliefs, the sanctity form acted in a prosocial manner, with higher narcissism being linked to lower
endorsement of unfounded COVID‑19 health beliefs. Thus, the ndings (a) support the idea of four
narcissism forms acting dierently, and (b) show that these dierences reect a double‑edged sword,
sometimes linking to an anti‑social orientation, and sometimes linking to a pro‑social orientation.
Research into the COVID-19 pandemic explored, in part, links between psychosocial functioning and responses
to it1–3. One stream of this research focused on grandiose narcissism4–6, characterized by self-absorbing self-
aggrandizement5,6, distinctly from vulnerable narcissism that is characterized by feelings of inadequacy and
incompetence5–7. In the context of the pandemic, which required a socially coordinated and collective response
to combat the crisis eectively, this focus makes sense. Given that (grandiose) narcissists are oen seen as self-
serving, ostentatious, and exploitative6,8, they might not be especially helpful in responding to collective crises
like the pandemic. Indeed, the early narcissism literature in the context of the pandemic examined associations
between grandiose narcissism and various anti-social variables, such as (a) failing to respect national restric-
tions, (b) selsh behavior (e.g., hoarding), and (c) the adoption of unfounded beliefs about the pandemic (e.g.,
Coronavirus was created to be a bioweapon).
e pertinent ndings have been informative, but somewhat limited. First, grandiose narcissism was oen
treated as a primarily agentic construct4,5,9,10, although some research also addressed communal narcissism11,12.
As suggested by recent theorizing, this view of narcissism may be too restrictive6. Second, the emphasis was on
the association between narcissism and undesirable thoughts and behaviors, largely neglecting the potential link
between narcissism and desirable thoughts and behaviors such as helping, with notable exceptions11,13,14. We aim
to address these limitations by exploring the relation between grandiose narcissism and psychosocial functioning
via (a) a fourfold model, and (b) assessments of both negative and positive elements of psychosocial functioning
likely to be inuenced by the pandemic. When we use the term “narcissism,” we imply grandiose narcissism.
Forms of Grandiose Narcissism
Grandiose narcissists strive to maintain an inated self-view in domains central or important to them15,16. ese
domains can be agentic (involving such attributes as competition, achievement, and eectiveness) or communal
(involving such attributes as cooperation, morality, and kindness17). Grandiose narcissism, then, can comprise
two forms: agentic and communal18,19. Supporting this distinction are ndings indicating that agentic narcissists
and communal narcissists evince distinct beliefs and behaviors6. Specically, communal (but not agentic) nar-
cissists report that they are more prosocial10,15, more trustworthy20, and less likely to obey immoral authority14,
while overestimating their knowledge on communal topics15.
However, each of these two forms of grandiose narcissism can be subdivided further based on the motive,
self-enhancement or self-protection, driving the narcissism5,21. is motivational distinction leads to the proposal
that there are two forms of agentic narcissism: admiration and rivalry22. Admirative narcissists are thought to be
guided by the self-enhancement motive23,24 to gain an ego boost by seeing themselves as highly agentic or eective
(e.g., that they are exceptionally mentally stable or a genius). In comparison, rivalrous narcissists are thought to
be guided by the self-protection motive16,25 to gain an ego boost by denigrating others’ agency or eectiveness
(asserting that others are especially mentally unstable or especially stupid). Further, this motivation distinction
leads to the proposal that there are two forms of communal narcissism: sanctity and heroism26. Narcissistic
sanctity produces an ego boost by thinking of oneself as especially moral or saintly, or by acting in these ways,
and is thought to be driven by the self-enhancement motive. In comparison, narcissistic heroism produces an
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

3
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:17503 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67954-2
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
ego boost by inducing positive crisis-related thoughts (e.g., only I alone can save us) or actions (developing novel
technology to ght climate change), and is thought to be driven by the self-protection motive.
is fourfold model is of interest because it potentially contradicts the standard view of narcissists as acting
to the detriment of others. Instead, a communal narcissist can augment their perceived grandiosity via their
helping-related actions and thoughts26–28. e fourfold model suggests that sometimes helping-related actions
and thoughts4,28,29 are driven by self-enhancement (e.g., “all the people I helped worship me and say they love
me and admire me—I’m great!”). However, there are other prosocial routes to boosting a narcissist’s ego. For
example, sometimes a narcissist’s grandiosity might be augmented by the mere thought that only the heroic,
self-protecting, narcissist has the power to eliminate a collective’s troubles (e.g., “We are all going to be doomed
unless you let me x this!”), and the narcissist may act accordingly.
Fourfold grandiose narcissism and variation in responses to the COVID‑19 pandemic
e implication of the fourfold model of grandiose narcissism, then, is that there are dierent motives that
underlie narcissism (self-enhancement vs. self-protection) and distinct domains in which narcissism can be
expressed (agentic vs. communal). is view implies that forms of narcissists may think and behave dierently,
and for varying reasons. We sought evidence for these possibilities in the context of the pandemic.
We used existing instruments to measure the extent to which individuals evinced each of the four narcissism
forms (admiration, rivalry, sanctity, heroism). In addition, to replicate and extend results from prior COVID-19
psychosocial research30,31, we assessed the extent to which individuals endorsed unfounded beliefs about the
pandemic. Some of these were conspiracy beliefs (e.g., “Coronavirus was created to be a bioweapon”) and some
were health beliefs (e.g., “Eating garlic cures the coronavirus”). We also pursued our replication and extension
goal by building on COVID-19 psychosocial research that examined behaviors32. As in that research, we assessed
the extent to which individuals engaged in three types of behavioral responses to the pandemic: prevention (e.g.,
“more frequent washing hands”), hoarding (e.g., “buying food products, like rice, our, milk, canned goods,
rice”), and helping (e.g., “provide emotional help those in need”).
We explored (a) the extent to which the narcissism forms independently predicted thoughts or behaviors,
(b) whether these predictive eects varied across narcissism forms, and (c) whether any lack of independence
reected commonality either in underlying motive (self-enhancement vs. self-protection) or domain (agentic vs.
communal). e fourfold model would be supported by results showing that (a) any of the four narcissism forms
uniquely predict thoughts or behaviors, (b) the four narcissism forms predict thoughts and behaviors dierently
(e.g., one form might positively predict a thought/behavior, whereas another form might negatively predict the
same thought/behavior), and (c) the observed patterns make sense in terms of the dimensions of the fourfold
model (self-enhancement vs. self-protection, agentic vs. communal).
What result patterns would be consistent with the fourfold model? One such pattern might show that, though
all forms of heightened narcissism are positively related to unfounded beliefs of COVID-19 being the conse-
quence of conspiracy, this positive relation is stronger for narcissism’s self-protection (rivalry, heroism) than
self-enhancement (admiration, sanctity) forms. is hypothesis relies on the idea that threat to the self prompts
explanatory behavior deecting the threat away from the self16,25, but this tendency will be pronounced in nar-
cissists who are particularly responsive to self-threat, regardless of domain. Another possible pattern of results
might show that both narcissism forms in the communal domain (sanctity, heroism) positively predict the extent
to which an individual provides emotional COVID-related support to others, but that narcissism forms in the
agentic domain (admiration, rivalry) negatively predict such behavior. is hypothesis is grounded in the idea
that a narcissist can be prosocial (e.g., help others) to boost the self via social approval for one’s prosocial-actions,
regardless of whether those actions result from the motive to promote the self (e.g., appearing saintly) or protect
the self (e.g., avoid appearing indierent). We note that our hypotheses for the agentic domain derive from the
notion that agentic narcissists get their ego boost from the extent to which they are perceived to be eective;
as such, unless eectiveness information can be derived from a thought or behavior, agentic narcissists will be
highly unlikely to engage in, or endorse, behaviors such as providing emotional support to others.
ese ndings, should they occur, will have implications for the literature on narcissism and responses to
the pandemic. Specically, the conclusions from that literature, which generally treated narcissism as a unitary
construct, will need to be revised if the narcissism forms predict outcomes independently or dierently. ey
will also need to be revised if narcissism sometimes promotes pro-social thoughts and behaviors.
Methods
Participants
We used data collected, via convenience sampling, between 24 April and 20 November 2020. e data were col-
lected as part of the international (and preregistered at OSF) project, “COVID-19, personality and quality of life:
Self-enhancement in the time of pandemic.” Other studies have also relied on this dataset30,33,34.
e project obtained ethical approval from the Bioethics board of Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in
Warsaw [KEiB – 32/2020]. Each participant provided informed consent prior to participation. All methods were
carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.
Participants were invited to engage in the study via email or an announcement on Facebook forums devoted
to COVID-related topics. ese communications included a link to the project’s website. Aer accessing the
website, participants reported their nationality and country of residence, and selected their preferred language
version (out of 35 language options). [We distributed invitations and announcements in ocial languages.
Most participants in each country (M = 96.17%, SD = 6.46%) selected the country’s ocial language (e.g., Ital-
ians selected Italian). Latvians were the exception: Only 64.90% of them selected Latvian]. We did not oer
remuneration, except for participants from the Republic of South Africa and the United Kingdom (2GBP or
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

4
Vol:.(1234567890)
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:17503 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67954-2
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
≈2.5USD). [We lacked funding for data collection, and so we did not pay participants in general. However, in
these two countries, we encountered insurmountable diculties with data collection. We managed to carry out
the surveys aer local collaborators secured funding from their home institutions].
For a country’s data to be included in the sample, the country needed to provide at least 40 usable
participants34. Aer exclusions, the nal sample included data from 61 countries. We report each country’s
sample composition in Supplementary Information, TableS1.
With one exception, we deemed data usable if participants (a) were over the age of 18years, (b) responded
to all scales, and (c) passed all three randomly placed attention-check items (e.g., “is item aims to check your
attention. Please mark 2”). e exception involved gender. We did not include in the analyses data from 90
(0.6%) non-binary individuals because gender was a predictor in our analyses, and we deemed the sample size
of the non-binary individual group too small and too unbalanced across countries to yield trustworthy results.
e nal sample comprised 15,093 participants (65.7% women, 34.3% men) aged between 18 and 87years
(M = 31.7, SD = 12.3). Of them, 0.80% had a primary education level, 30.53% a secondary education level, 38.97%
a bachelor’s level, 23.32% a master’s level, and 6.39% a doctoral level or higher.
Measures
Narcissism Predictors
We assessed four forms of grandiose narcissism: admiration, rivalry, sanctity, heroism. We assessed admiration
and rivalry using the 6-item shortened version of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire22.
ree items pertain to admiration (e.g., “I deserve to be seen as a great personality”) and three to rivalry (e.g.,
“I want my rivals to fail”). We assessed sanctity and heroism with the 10-item Narcissistic Sanctity and Heroism
Questionnaire26. Five items pertain to sanctity (e.g., “I can understand everyone in every situation”) and three to
heroism (e.g., “ere is no one except me who can deal with threats to my surroundings”). All response options
ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
Criterion variables
We were interested in the extent to which the measures of narcissism predicted both thoughts about COVID-19
and behaviors related to COVID-19. To replicate and extend prior research, we focused on unfounded beliefs
about the coronavirus in our assessment of thoughts. We measured them with the Unfounded Beliefs of COVID-
19 Misperceptions Scale30,31. Four items refer to conspiratorial beliefs (e.g., “A cure for the coronavirus has
already been discovered but is being suppressed by people who want the pandemic to continue”) and four to
health beliefs (e.g., “If one gargles with warm water and salt or vinegar it eliminates the coronavirus”). Response
options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Our interest in replication and extension also drove the behavior assessments that we used. In particular, we
adapted previously used three types of behavioral responses to the pandemic32: prevention (e.g., “more frequent
washing hands”), hoarding (e.g., “buying food products, like rice, our, milk, canned goods, rice”), helping (e.g.,
“provide emotional help those in need”). We assessed each of them with three items. Participants indicated
the extent (1 = denitely not, 4 = denitely yes) to which they enacted each behavior in the week preceding data
collection.
All measures were translated by local teams using a standard back-translation procedure35. Each participant
received (a) a version of the measures that matched their preferred language, and (b) the measures in a separate
random. We report descriptive statistics for all measures in all countries in Supplementary Information, TableS2.
With two exceptions, the scales’ internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) was adequate or better in all countries and
for all variables. e exceptions were for the measures of rivalry and helping behaviors, which evinced an aver-
age Cronbach’s α of 0.57 in both cases. We report coecients across countries in Supplementary Information,
TableS3.
Data‑analytic strategy
We conducted an initial wave of analyses that focused on describing the sample characteristics and calculated
the simple correlations among variables. However, given the nested structure of the data, we recognized that we
needed to go beyond such simple descriptors to test our hypotheses, especially the extent to which each of the
four narcissism forms evinced predictive power that was independent of the other forms. In pursuit of this goal,
we carried out a set of Multilevel Models (MLM), which simultaneously included all the forms of narcissism
that we had studied.
Acknowledging that at least a metric level of measurement invariance is necessary for the predictiveness of
the narcissism measures to be valid, we rst assessed whether the responses to the narcissism assessments and
to unfounded belief items were comparable across countries. We did not include the measures of behavioral
responses in this analysis step because the behavior items were not part of a response scale with known psycho-
metric properties and, thus, were not suited for our analytic approach.
To examine whether responses to the narcissism and belief measures provided structurally valid data across
countries, we rst conducted Conrmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs) across all countries, when possible (n > 100,
50 countries). Second, we conducted Multigroup Conrmatory Factor Analyses, allowing for partial metric
invariance, and excluded items in some cases (for details, see Supplementary Information, Factor Analyses of
Used Instruments section). ird, we estimated latent variable scores for each participant using CFA on the
whole sample (61 countries).
To test whether the four narcissism forms independently predicted unfounded COVID-19 beliefs and
COVID-19 related behavior, we relied on a series of Multilevel Models (MLM). We report results from the models
in Supplementary Information, Tables S5–S9. As depicted in those tables, the analyses proceeded hierarchically.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

5
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:17503 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67954-2
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
We added sequentially each predictor or group of predictors to help highlight the shared eects of the predictors
and the unique eects of each predictor. In the rst step of each model and for each criterion variable, we entered
control variables such as the age, gender, and economic status of participants. In the second step of each model,
we included admiration and rivalry in one common analysis (2A) and sanctity and heroism in a second common
analysis (2B) to control for their common eects and to examine their residual eects within each dimension of
the fourfold model (i.e., agency vs. communion, self-enhancement vs. self-protection). Finally, in the third step,
we entered all four narcissism forms as simultaneous predictors to examine their incremental predictive eects.
In all analyses, we used R soware with the “dplyr” package for basic data analyses, the “lavaan” package for
factor analyses, and the “lme4” package for MLM analyses. In the factor analyses, we used the Robust Maximum
Likelihood (MLR) estimator to account for deviations from normality36 and relied on the following thresholds of
t: CFI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08, SRMR < 0.0837,38. In the cross-national Multigroup Conrmatory Factor Analyses,
we relied on the thresholds: ΔCFI < − 0.02, ΔRMSEA < 0.0339. To compare coecients, we relied on 95% con-
dence intervals of standardized eects. We interpreted overlapping CIs as indicative of no signicant dierence
between the compared coecients.
Results
Preliminary analyses
We provided the zero-order correlations among variables for the whole sample (i.e., ignoring the data’s nested
structure) in Supplementary Information, TableS4. With one exception (rivalry did not predict prevention
behavior), all narcissism forms signicantly and positively predicted all criterion variables.
ese signicant correlations present a mixed picture with regard to whether narcissists can be pro-social
or anti-social. e simple correlations suggest that narcissists are likely to endorse both unfounded conspiracy
beliefs and unfounded health beliefs about COVID-19 and are more likely to engage in hoarding behavior. How-
ever, these correlations also suggest that narcissists are more likely to engage in COVID-19 prevention behavior
and to provide COVID-19 related emotional support to others.
e initial suggestion that high narcissism may conduce to pro-sociality is controversial. However, these
simple correlations may be misleading. For example, if the narcissism form predictors are correlated with each
other (and they are: see Supplementary Information, TableS4), the correlation between any given narcissism
form predictor and a criterion variable might be contaminated by the other narcissism forms. Consequently,
we engaged in analyses that allow assessment of the extent to which a narcissism form predicts beliefs and
behaviors in a manner that is uncontaminated by, or independent of, other narcissism forms. e Multilevel
Modeling Analyses, summarized in the section that follows (and fully presented in Supplementary Informa-
tion, TablesS5–S9), accomplish that goal. ese analyses probe the extent to which the predictive eects of each
narcissism form are independent, controlling for other potential confounds such as between-country eects
(accounted for via the ICC term in the models) and participant characteristics (e.g., gender).
Narcissism and unfounded beliefs about the coronavirus
Unfounded conspiracy beliefs
Results from the MLM analyses conducted on the unfounded conspiracy beliefs showed that all narcissism
forms were positively related to conspiracy beliefs (for a summary, see Table1; for full results, see Supplementary
Information, TableS5). However, the results also indicated that the narcissism-unfounded belief endorsement
association was signicant and independent only for narcissism’s self-protection forms (i.e., rivalry, heroism)
and not its self-enhancement ones (i.e., admiration, sanctity). e 95% CIs of the standardized coecients were
[0.07, 0.12] for rivalry, [−0.02, 0.04] for admiration, [0.10, 0.16] for heroism, and [0.00, 0.06] for sanctity.
ese results point to several conclusions. First, not all narcissism forms are equal. Instead, they are dieren-
tially linked to the unfounded conspiracy belief criterion variable: some independently predict the endorsement
of unfounded conspiracy beliefs but others do not. Second, narcissistic thoughts can be motivated by either
self-enhancement or self-protection. In this case, it was only the self-protective narcissism forms (rivalry and
heroism) that independently predicted the endorsement of unfounded conspiracy beliefs.
Unfounded health beliefs
Results from the MLM analyses conducted on the unfounded health beliefs showed that all narcissism forms were
signicantly related to unfounded health beliefs (for a summary, see Table1; for full results, see Supplementary
Information, TableS6). However, the direction of this relation diered across forms. Heroism (95% CI = [0.13,
0.19]), admiration (95% CI = [01, 0.07]), and rivalry (95% CI = [0.03, 0.08]) all positively and independently
predicted endorsement of unfounded health beliefs, but sanctity [−0.06, 0.00] negatively and independently
predicted endorsement of such beliefs.
ese results allude to the same two conclusions as above. Narcissism forms are dierentially associated
with the unfounded health belief. In this case, although the heroism, admiration, and rivalry forms act in a typi-
cally antisocial manner, with high narcissism predicting greater endorsement of unfounded health beliefs, the
sanctity acts in a prosocial manner, with higher narcissism being linked to lower endorsement of unfounded
COVID-19 health beliefs.
Narcissism and behavioral responses to the pandemic
Enactment of prevention behaviors
Results from the MLM analyses conducted on the likelihood of an individual enacting COVID-19 prevention
behaviors in the past week (for a summary, see Table1; for full results, see Supplementary Information, TableS7)
indicated that the criterion variable was predicted only by rivalry (95% CI = [−0.06, −0.01]) and sanctity (95%
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

6
Vol:.(1234567890)
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:17503 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67954-2
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
CI = [0.04, 0.10]), and not by heroism (95% CI = [0.00, 0.06]) or admiration (95% CI = [−0.02, 0.03]). Notably,
the direction of the predictive relation diered for rivalry and sanctity: Higher narcissistic rivalry predicted a
lower likelihood of enactment of COVID-19 prevention behaviors, but higher narcissistic sanctity predicted a
higher likelihood of enactment of COVID-19 prevention behaviors.
erefore, when narcissism does predict the enactment of prevention behaviors, the direction of that relation
diers across forms. Whereas rivalrous narcissists behaved in the anti-social manner (i.e., higher narcissism
predicted lower enactment likelihood), sanctimonious narcissists behaved in a prosocial manner (i.e., higher
narcissism predicted greater enactment likelihood).
Hoarding
Results from the MLM analyses conducted on the extent to which an individual enacted COVID-19-related
hoarding behaviors (for a summary, see Table1; for full results, see Supplementary Information, TableS8)
revealed that hoarding was signicantly and independently predicted by only one form of narcissism: heroism
(95% CI = [0.06, 0.12]; for sanctity, 95% CI = [−0.02, 0.05]; for admiration, 95% CI = [−0.02, 0.04]; and for rivalry
95% CI = [0.00, 0.05]).
Helping via provision ofemotional support
Results from the MLM analyses conducted on the extent to which an individual enacted COVID-19-related
behaviors that involved providing emotional support to others (for a summary, see Table1; for full results, see
Supplementary Information, TableS9) revealed that all narcissism forms were signicantly and independently
linked to helping. However, these eects were not all in the same direction. e predictive eects were positive
for sanctity (95% CI = [0.10, 0.16]), heroism (95% CI = [0.08, 0.14]), and admiration (95% CI = [0.04, 0.10]), but
negative for rivalry (95% CI = [−0.11, −0.05]). Perhaps surprisingly, three of these independent and signicant
eects indicate that high (sanctity, heroism, admiration) narcissism predicted greater rates of pro-social behavior.
Only heightened rivalrous narcissism yielded the pattern that would be considered to be typical of narcissism,
with high rivalrous narcissism predicting lower rates of emotional support behavior. Hence, across all analyses,
we found that not all forms of narcissism are equal, as they are dierentially related to the probablity of enact-
ing COVID-related behaviors. is mirrors results found for COVID-related thoughts, supporting hypotheses
derived from the fourfold model.
Discussion
We examined whether (a) each grandiose narcissism form (sanctity, heroism, admiration, rivalry) predicted
unfounded beliefs about COVID-19 and some COVID-19-linked behaviors; (b) these predictive eects varied
across forms; and (c) any lack of independence among the forms reected commonality in either domain (agentic
vs. communal) or underlying motive (self-enhancement vs. self-protection) linked to the four forms. We expected
results showing that (a) forms uniquely predicted beliefs or actions, (b) forms predicted beliefs and behaviors
Table 1. Standardized coecients of multilevel models—unfounded beliefs about COVID-19. N = 15,039;
Number of countries = 61; SES = socioeconomical status; GDP = Gross Domestic Product per capita. Signicant
links are bolded. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Unfounded beliefs Behavioral responses
Conspiracy Health Prevention Hoarding Prosocialness
Fixed Eects
Covariates
Sex (men) −.03 .00 − .19** − .02 − .04*
Age − .03** .05** .02* .01 .11**
Education level − .12** − .07** .03** .00 .02
SES − .07** − .04** .02* .02** .01
GDP − .26** − .32** − .14* − .14** − .15**
Narcissism forms
Admiration .01 .04* .00 .01 .07**
Rivalry .09** .06** − .04* .02 − .08**
Sanctity .03 − .03* .07** .02 .13**
Heroism .13** .16** .03 .09** .11**
Random eects
ICC .11 .17 .27 .11 .08
Country: intercept 0.13 0.19 0.14 0.08 0.04
Residual 1.02 0.94 0.36 0.65 0.05
Marginal R2.18 .19 .04 .05 .11
Conditional R2.27 .33 .30 .15 .18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

7
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:17503 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67954-2
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
dierently, and (c) the patterns observed in the relations make sense in terms of the dimensions of the fourfold
model (self-enhancement vs. self-protection, agentic vs. communal) thought to produce the four forms.
e results indicated that the fourfold model is valid in that it possesses predictive utility. In two cases
(unfounded health beliefs and the provision of emotional support), all four narcissism forms independently
predicted each criterion variable. In two other cases (endorsement of conspiracy beliefs and enactment of pre-
vention behavior), two narcissism forms signicantly and independently predicted each criterion variable. In
the nal case (enactment of hoarding behavior), only one form signicantly and independently predicted the
extent to which an individual engaged in hoarding behavior. ese results suggest that the fourfold model is an
improvement over simpler models, such as those that only made a distinction between agentic narcissism and
communal narcissism15. Taking into account the motives (self-enhancement and self-protection) presumed to
underlie narcissism contributes to the construct’s predictive power of thought and behavior26,34,40.
Also, we found that higher narcissism can prompt pro-social thought and behavior. Specically, we observed
that (a) increases in sanctity were independently linked to weaker endorsement of unfounded COVID-19 health
beliefs, (b) increases in sanctity independently predicted higher enactment likelihood of COVID-19 prevention
behaviors, and (c) high sanctity, high heroism, and high admiration independently predicted stronger rates of
emotional support to others.
Hence, narcissists will not always act and think in an antisocial manner. Instead, narcissism can be a double-
edged sword: sometimes it is linked to anti-social thoughts and actions, whereas other times it is linked to proso-
cial thoughts and actions. Whether the consequence is anti-social or pro-social depends on the joint action of the
domain in which the narcissism exists (agentic vs. communal), the motives that underlie it (self-enhancement vs.
self-protection), and the criterion variable that is being predicted by any of the four grandiose narcissism forms.
Strengths, limitations, and future research
Our study is a foray into examining the diverse responses of narcissists to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our research
has several strengths. For example, we: (a) tested a large sample; (b) obtained data from participants in many
countries; (c) used varied instruments and methods; and (d) employed statistical techniques appropriate to the
pertinent research questions. Importantly, our study was the rst to draw a distinction between sanctity and
heroism, indicating the validity of the fourfold model and its utility in predicting human thoughts and behaviors
at least in the context of the pandemic. Relatedly, we provided initial evidence that communal narcissism can be
understood in terms of self-enhancement and self-protection, similar to agentic narcissism in the NARC model22.
However, our research also has limitations that can be addressed in future research. To begin, we collected the
data via convenience sampling and computer. ese procedures may have led to less educated and less auent
people being underrepresented in the sample. us, despite our large and cross-cultural sample, the generalizabil-
ity of our ndings to the general population may be restricted. We focused solely on grandiose narcissism, albeit
vulnerable narcissism might be relevant in explaining COVID-related thoughts and behaviors, as it is related to
lower subjective well-being, poorer mental health, and stronger responses to stressful events7. Also, we assessed
beliefs and behaviors via retrospection: we asked participants to remember what they did at an earlier time.
Retrospections sometimes do not accurately reect the thoughts that people had or the behaviors they enacted
during an earlier time in their life41. Follow-up research will do well to use ecological momentary assessment.
ird, the COVID-19 crisis may have unique features and characteristics that inuenced our results. For example,
the politics of the era may have caused the COVID-19 crisis to be viewed through a conservative versus liberal
political lens, which might not be present in other crises. Additionally, our data could be re-analyzed to detect
latent proles that describe narcissistic individuals and their behaviors instead of forms of narcissism or motives.
For instance, such proling might identify rivalrous narcissists who are not grandiose. ese individuals could
be of interest to policymakers, as they are unlikely to follow medical recommendations in future crises. In the
same vein, communal narcissists may be likely to help others assuming that their actions are noticed.11,19,42 La stl y,
admirative narcissists might assist in practical matters (e.g., food provision, prevention of contagious diseases)
assuming their actions are public and receive praise21.
Coda
We validated the fourfold model of grandiose narcissism, proposing four forms (admiration, rivalry, sanctity,
heroism) based on distinctions between motives (self-enhancement vs. self-protection) and domains (agentic
vs. communal). Further, we showed that these forms contribute to distinct thoughts and behaviors, at least dur-
ing a societal crisis. Finally, we demonstrated that narcissism can be linked to pro-social thinking and behaving
during such a crisis. Our research expands the narcissism literature and is generative.
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary
information les] available on the project’s OSF page: https:// osf. io/ pv2zy/? view_ only= f7e74 5f913 3a4b9 78af1
d26b7 3ae19 63.
Received: 1 February 2024; Accepted: 17 July 2024
References
1. Ahorsu, D. K. et al. e fear of COVID-19 scale: Development and initial validation. Int. J. Ment. Heal. Addict. 20, 1537–1545
(2022).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

8
Vol:.(1234567890)
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:17503 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67954-2
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
2. Ernst, M. et al. Loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Am. Psychol. 77,
660–677 (2022).
3. omaes, S., Brummelman, E. & Sedikides, C. Narcissism: A social-developmental perspective. In e SAGE Handbook of Personal‑
ity and Individual Dierences (eds Zeigler-Hill, V. & Shackelford, T. K.) 377–396 (Sage Publications, London, 2018).
4. Grapsas, S., Brummelman, E., Back, M. D. & Denissen, J. J. e “why” and “how” of narcissism: A process model of narcissistic
status pursuit. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 150–172 (2020).
5. Miller, J. D., Back, M. D., Lynam, D. R. & Wright, A. G. C. Narcissism today: What we know and what we need to learn. Cu rr. D ir.
Psychol. Sci. 30, 519–525 (2021).
6. Sedikides, C. In search of Narcissus. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 67–80 (2021).
7. Miller, J. D. et al. Vulnerable narcissism is (mostly) a disorder of neuroticism. J. Personal. 86, 186–199 (2018).
8. Sedikides, C. & Campbell, W. K. Narcissistic force meets systemic resistance: e energy clash model. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12,
400–421 (2017).
9. Dinic, B. & Bodroza, B. COVID-19 protective behaviors are forms of prosocial and unselsh behaviors. Front. Psychol. 12, 647710
(2021).
10. Yang, Z. et al. Communal narcissism: Social decisions and neurophysiological reactions. J. Res. Personal. 76, 65–73 (2018).
11. Freis, S. D. & Brunell, A. B. Narcissistic motivations to help during the COVID-19 quarantine. Personal. Individ. Dier. 194, 111623
(2022).
12. Gąsiorowska, W., Sioch, M. & Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M. A. Narcissism, social support, and loneliness during the pandemic. Personal.
Individ. Dier. 181, Article 111002 (2021).
13. Federico, C. M., Golec de Zavala, A. & Baran, T. Collective narcissism, in-group satisfaction, and solidarity in the face of COVID-
19. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 12, 1071–1081 (2021).
14. Zdunek, R. R., Czarna, A. Z. & Sedikides, C. Grandiose (communal and agentic) narcissism and predicted (dis)obedience in the
Milgram paradigm. Personal. Individ. Dier. 189, 111514 (2022).
15. Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., Verplanken, B. & Maio, G. R. Communal narcissism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 854–878 (2012).
16. S edikides, C. Self-protection. In Handbook of Self and Identity 2nd edn (eds Leary, M. R. & Tangney, J. P.) 327–353 (Guilford Press,
New York, 2012).
17. Abele, A. E. & Wojciszke, B. Agency and communion from the perspective of self and others. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93, 751–763
(2007).
18. Gebauer, J. E. & Sedikides, C. Communal narcissism: eoretical and empirical support. In Handbook of Trait Narcissism (eds
Hermann, A. D. et al.) 69–77 (Springer, New York, 2018).
19. Gebauer, J. E. & Sedikides, C. Agency and communion in grandiose narcissism. In Agency and Communion in Social Psychology
(eds Abele, A. E. & Wojciszke, B.) 90–102 (Routledge Press, New York, 2018).
20. Kwiatkowska, M. M., Jułkowski, T., Rogoza, R., Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M. & Fatfouta, R. Narcissism and trust: Dierential impact
of agentic, antagonistic, and communal narcissism. Personal. Individ. Dier. 137, 139–143 (2019).
21. Mahadevan, N., Gregg, A. P. & Sedikides, C. Is self-regard a sociometer or a hierometer? Self-esteem tracks status and inclusion,
narcissism tracks status. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 116(3), 444–466 (2019).
22. Back, M. D. et al. Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
105, 1013–1037 (2013).
23. Alicke, M. D. & Sedikides, C. Self-enhancement and self-protection: What they are and what they do. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 20(1),
1–48 (2009).
24. Sedikides, C. & Gregg, A. P. Self-enhancement: Food for thought. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3(2), 102–116 (2008).
25. Sedikides, C. Self-construction, self-protection, and self-enhancement: A homeostatic model of identity protection. Psychol. Inq.
32, 197–221 (2021).
26. Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., et al. Narcissism and Social Domain Beliefs: Communal Narcissists Can Perceive emselves to be Either
Saints or Superheroes. Unpublished manuscript, Institute of Psychology, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw (2023a).
27. Giacomin, M. & Jordan, C. H. Validating power makes communal narcissists less communal. Self Identity 14, 583–601 (2015).
28. Konrath, S., Ho, M. H. & Zarins, S. e strategic helper: Narcissism and prosocial motives and behaviors. Curr. Psychol. 35, 182–194
(2016).
29. Van Lange, P. A. M. & Sedikides, C. Being more honest but not necessarily more intelligent than others: Generality and explana-
tions for the Muhammad Ali eect. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 28, 675–680 (1998).
30. Brzóska, P. et al. Testing the underlying structure of unfounded beliefs about COVID-19 around the world. ink. Reason. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13546 783. 2023. 22595 39 (2023).
31. Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Bago, B. & Rand, D. G. Beliefs about COVID-19 in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United
States: A novel test of political polarization and motivated reasoning. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 48, 750–765 (2022).
32. Nowak, B. et al. Adaptive and maladaptive behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic: e roles of Dark Triad traits, collective
narcissism, and health beliefs. Personal. Individ. Dier. 167, 110232 (2020).
33. Sawicki, A. J., et al. e fear of COVID-19 scale: Its structure and measurement invariance across 48 countries. Psychol. Assess. 34,
294–310 (2022).
34. Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., et al. reat or Opportunity to Support the Ingroup? Collective Narcissists’ Motivation During the COVID‑
19 Pandemic. Unpublished manuscript, Institute of Psychology, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw (2023b).
35. Brislin, R. W. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 1(3), 185–216 (1970).
36. Yuan, K. H. & Bentler, P. M. ree likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing
data. Sociol. Methodol. 30, 165–200 (2000).
37. Brown, T. A. Conrmatory factor analysis for applied research (Guilford Press, New York, 2015).
38. Byrne, B. M. Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows (Sage Publications, London, 1994).
39. Rutkowski, L. & Svetina, D. Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys.
Educ. Psychol. Measur. 74, 31–57 (2014).
40. Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Piotrowski, J., Sawicki, A. & Jonason, P. K. We will rescue Italy, but we dislike the European Union:
Collective narcissism and the COVID-19 threat. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 25, 892–901 (2021).
41. Unsworth, N., McMillan, B. D., Brewer, G. A. & Spillers, G. J. Individual dierences in everyday retrospective memory failures. J.
Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2(1), 7–13 (2013).
42. Van Bavel, J. J. et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 460–471
(2020).
Acknowledgements
e work of Magdalena Żemojtel-Piotrowska and Jarosław Piotrowski was supported by grant 2017/26/E/
HS6/00282 from the National Science Centre, Poland. e work of Artur Sawicki was supported by grant
number 0086/DIA/2017/46 nanced by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland. e work
of Peter K. Jonason was partially funded by the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (PPN/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

9
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientic Reports | (2024) 14:17503 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67954-2
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
ULM/2019/1/00019/U/00001) and a grant from the National Science Centre of Poland (2019/35/B/HS6/00682).
e work of Martina Klicperova-Baker and Iva Polackova Solcova was supported by the NPO "Systemic Risk
Institute" no. LX22NPO5101, funded by European Union—Next Generation EU (Ministry of Education, Youth
and Sports, NPO: EXCELES), IOCB, and Strategie AV21.e work of Narine Khachatryan was supported by the
RA Science Committee, in the frames of the research project № 20TTSH-070. e authors declare, in accordance
to national laws, that there was no direct collaboration between researchers from conicting countries, where
applicable.
Author contributions
Magdalena Żemojtel-Piotrowska: writing a rst dra, conceptualization, funding, study design, supervision
of the project. Artur Sawicki: statistical analysis, data curation, commenting, writing method and results sec-
tion. Jarosław Piotrowski: co-supervising the project, study design, commenting. John Skowronski, Constantine
Sedikides: co-writing and editing a dra, conceptualization, supervising. Uri Lifshin, Mabelle Kretchner, Peter
Jonason: commenting, conceptualization, data collection. Remaining authors: data collection in their countries,
preparing national versions of their surveys, commenting, co-funding (as indicated in the Authors note).
Additional information
Supplementary Information e online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/
10. 1038/ s41598- 024- 67954-2.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to M.Ż.-P.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional aliations.
Open Access is article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing,
distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modied the
licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this
article or parts of it. e images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative
Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
© e Author(s) 2024
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com