C, . ..
25"..

 

xiii
.....

 

III! Ollllvav . vAOQlllv1 .3.qu1 .X‘II?
. ‘ .v... 1

‘1‘. 1. tr
.8011- l‘i‘llﬂlﬂii‘l .. . . ,. 1.....- .

4:133:12 L, , . 9.33%. $3-: . é. a . . ; ‘ . $2....3Eﬁ:

 

 

f\ [x

w ;« .
, 3 /: 11k, 7»

n

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

NARCISSISM AND SELF-PRESENTATION:
CONCEPTUALIZATION AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

presented by

EUNSOON LEE

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the mquirements for the

MA. degree in Communication

_//m———’ y I //W
/ ' z!”

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature
CCI. IQ L 2,609!
Date

MSU Is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 ot/CIRC/DateDuepeS-p. 15

 

 

NARCISISSM AND SELF-PRESENTATION: CONCEPTUALIZAT ION AND
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

By

Eunsoon Lee

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication
2004

ABSTRACT

NARCISISSM AND SELF -PRESENTATION: CONCEPTUALIZATION AND
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

By

Eunsoon Lee

This study conceptually deﬁnes narcissism as having an inﬂated self-image and a
feeling of entitlement over others through exhibitionistic behaviors resulting from a
failure in regulating self-respect and other respect in social interaction. Empirically, the
study examined the relationship between narcissism and self-presentation. Participants (N
= 17 8) responded to questionnaires measuring narcissism, self-presentation tactics,
dominance, perspective-taking, and self-esteem. Multiple measures of narcissism, self-
presentation, and dominance were included. Narcissism had signiﬁcantly positive
associations with all Self Presentation Inﬂuence Tactics’ (SPIT) Ratings— self-promotion,
ingratiation, intimidation, and supplication. However, in the coded self-presentation
responses, narcissism was positively related with the use of intimidation tactics and not
the other tactics. Compared with the new narcissism scale, the shortened Margolis-
Thomas Measure of Narcissism (MT) scale seems to show pathological aspect of

narcissism with respect to association with self-esteem and perspective taking.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people deserve thanks for their assistance in the preparation of the thesis. I
wish to thank Dr. Timothy Levine for his support, advice, and guidance throughout my
master studies. I especially appreciate Tim’s mentorship, his enthusiasm for intellectual
inquiry and narcissism research, and his willingness to take a great deal of interest in my
academic development and research activities.

I wish to thank Dr. Sandi Smith for her help throughout my graduate studies at
MSU. Sandi’s encouragement and warm guidance helped me a great deal to move on my
next academic career. Her advice on conceptual and editorial issues of the thesis helped
to improve the quality of organization and writing. I wish to thank Dr. Lawrence Messé
for his insightful coursework which nurtured my knowledge on Narcissism. I sincerely
wish for his quick recovery against illness. I wish to thank Dr. Pamela \Vrtten for her
willingness to join in my thesis project. Her comments helped to clarify a number of
practical issues.

Much deserved thanks go to people who sacriﬁced their time and efforts helping
me to go through difﬁcult times: Jina, Alysa, Kate, Jeung-An, Mikeung, Jaemin, and our
Absolute members. Thanks so much to my dear EunSeok, too

Finally, I want to thank my precious two parents, my American family - Barbara
and Donald — and my home family — Mom and Dad - in South Korea, for being a
constant source of strength, understandings, and for the endless help they provided

throughout my master studies.

iii

“it

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................... v
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................... 3
Conceptualizing Narcissism ............................................................ 3
Clinical Deﬁnition and Its Origin .............................................. 3
Two Faces of Narcissism - Overt and Covert ................................ 6
The Core Features of Narcissism ................................................ 7
The Measurement of Narcissism ..................................................... 10
NARCISSISM AND SELF-PRESENTATION ......................................... 17
CHAPTER 2
METHOD ..................................................................................... 22
Overview ................................................................................ 22
Participants .............................................................................. 23
Procedures .............................................................................. 23
Measurement ........................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS ..................................................................................... 29
Preliminary Analyses .................................................................. 29
Initial Item Screening ............................................................ 29
Conﬁrrnatory Factor Analyses ................................................. 30
Coding Reliability ............................................................... 32
Linearity, Normal Distribution, and Outliers ................................. 33
Hypotheses Testing .................................................................... 34
Supplemental Analyses ............................................................... 36
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 37
Are Narcissists Impression Managers or Socially Mal-poised Pe0ple? ....... 38
The Narcissism Construct ............................................................ 40
Limitations and Implications ......................................................... 42
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................... 46
FOOTNOTES ........................................................................................ 48
REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 50
APPENDICES ....................................................................................... 57
TABLES .............................................................................................. 67

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities for Eight Independent and Dependent

Variables ............................................................................................. 67
Bivariate Correlations among Independent Variables and Dependent Variables .......... 68
Summary of Bivariate Correlations for Hypotheses Testing .................................. 69

Summary of Multiple Regression Separately Conducted for each Self-Presentation

Tactic ................................................................................................. 70

Multiple Regression of All Predictors for Self-Promotion Tactic ............................ 71
Multiple Regression of All Predictors for Ingratiation Tactic ................................. 72
Multiple Regression of All Predictors for Intimidation Tactic ................................ 73
Multiple Regression of All Predictors for Supplication Tactic ................................ 74
Multiple Regression of All Predictors for Cooperation Tactic ................................ 75

Chapter]: Introduction

Individual differences in communication behaviors can aﬁ‘ect interpersonal
relationships, and narcissism may be among the most important of those individual
differences. Narcissism has become an increasingly popular construct for studies of social,
clinical and organizational psychology during the last three decades (Soyer, Rovenpor,
Kopelman, Mullins, & Watson, 2001).1 Catt argued that “to ignore narcissism is to
ignore one of the most signiﬁcant problems of our time” (1986, p.242). Vangelisti, Knapp,
and Daly pointed out that “given society’s continuing interest in narcissistic behavior, it is
surprising how little attention scholars of social interaction pay the topic” (1990, p.252).

Interpersonal communication is a transactional process (Miller & Steinberg, 1975)
and eﬁ‘ective or competent communication requires some degree of perspective-taking
(e.g., Davis, 1983; Stiﬂ‘, Dillard, Somera, Kim, & Sleight, 1988), ﬂexibility (Martin &
Rubin, 1995), or other-centerness. Anything that systematically lowers perspective-taking,
other-centerness, or ﬂexibility should aﬁ'ect communication competence adversely.
Narcissists are excessively self-focused to the exclusion of others. Therefore, narcissism
should have important and detrimental effects on interpersonal communication.

Despite these prevalent and serious effects of narcissism in society and its
importance to the study of communication, the current state of narcissism in theory and
research is problematic for scholars interested in furthering empirical research on a
normal population rather than on a clinical population, for at least two reasons. First,
there is a theoretical expansiveness in deﬁning narcissism as a distinct diagnostic entity
(American Psychiatric Association, 1980, 1987, 1994) inasmuch as the construct of
narcissism has been regarded as multiple sets of interpersonal characteristics. Second, the

resulting theoretical “ﬁrssiness” has led to diﬁiculties in empirical construct validation

 

_' l ‘ ‘ -'. i .1 ‘
v I ‘ x 0. g- l"
. .7
‘r
i .)
_. ‘ , .‘r s.. \l .4, ‘ . u ., A,

u . . .s 1
.
.
P
.
)f' hl‘ ' '. ’
i . _. .
.
I f
. . .
n ‘ I ‘ I ‘ T o '
. , - I h
' l
.’ - ‘
I‘ I
I ~ '
i .
.

 

 

 

 

studies (Morey & Jones, 1998; Mullins & Kopelman, 1988; Soyer et al., 2001). Many
scholars have generated different types of self-report measures of narcissism, each
reﬂecting different theoretical perspectives.

In the middle of this theoretical and empirical turmoil, narcissism can be regarded
as a condition awaiting an integrated and comprehensive framework. As Beatty pointed
out, “challenges to trait conceptualizations were brieﬂy popular in psychology and a few
personality communication scholars followed suit” (1998, p.309). The theory
construction tradition in the communication ﬁeld has also emphasized that theories can
be evaluated according to parsimony and elegance, as well as their internal consistency,
testability, predictive power, explanatory scope, empirical relevance (Miller & Nicholson,
1976). Many theorists seem to agree that “simple” theories are preferred to more complex
ones, assuming that both predict and explain equally well (e. g., Chaﬁ‘ee & Berger, 1987).
This rule of parsimony can be applicable in developing the construct of narcissism.

Therefore, based upon a literature review involving both clinical speculation and
empirical research, one purpose of this paper is to reduce the current, multifaceted and
complex concepts of narcissism into a smaller and more parsimonious set which
encompasses the core of narcissism. To accomplish that goal, the ﬁrst section of the
literature review will focus on identifying those points of agreement among scholars who
have published studies on narcissism. Consistent with this conceptualization, previous
empirical research on narcissism will be scrutinized with regard to the narcissistic self-
concept and the measurement validity controversy. Several aspects of narcissism such as
cognitive, affective, and behavioral motivations will be provided in this theoretical
ﬁamework.

The second part of this literature review will focus on behavioral aspects of

narcissism as they relate to self-presentation styles, and the need for greater
understanding of those behaviors by scholars of social interaction. The relationship
between narcissism and commonly used self-presentation styles will be tested empirically
from the communication perspective

Literature Review
Conceptualizing chissim

Clinical Deﬁnition and Its Origin

The self has a long and controversial history in psychology (e.g., Pervin, 2002). In
terms of narcissism, Millon declared that “given our dominant cultural orientation toward
self-enhancement,2 it is often diﬂicult to determine which self-focused traits indicate a
narcissistic disorder and which are merely adaptive styles that ﬁt societal modes” (1998,
p. 90). Thus, where to draw the line between self-conﬁdent, healthy self-esteem and an
artiﬁcially inﬂated, empty sense of self-worth, has not been always an easy task (Millon,
1998).

The term “narcissism” was originally used in psychoanalysis to refer to a
pathological state. That meaning has changed over time. Today, in its broadest sense, it
refers to an interest in or concern with the self along a broad continuum (Cooper, 1998).
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IH; American
Psychiatric Association, 1980) deﬁned the narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) as
“self-admiration that is characterized by tendencies toward grandiose ideas, farrtasicd
talents, exhibitionism, and defensiveness in response to criticism; interpersonal
relationships are characterized by feelings of entitlement, exploitativeness, and a lack of
empathy.” Later versions, issued as DSM-lIl-R (American Psychiatric Association, 1987)

and DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). DSM-III-R modiﬁed the

‘1

.I

a):

 

 

 

. .
. v. .
v n
. . .
r
. .
”It; . .
f .
.2 ..
r u i
/ a
.. .
. r .
r .
.r.. ..
I ,
.
.
. r .
. i
on
r ..
.
r.
r.-
. .
I l.
.r
.
. I. i
.
i
n \s T
Y I
. . .
..
. .
41
.
U .
. ,
.. ....
I . V
I. t
.r .
at r
A
, v.
.r. i
. .
c. u
I I n .
C
.r
. .
.1
s
v ..
. . x .
a.
r r
. . .o.
I . ..
.e.
e a
), .
,
1 .
m. It
..
. . .
a V
.
1C . _
.
. .
a .
7 .
It 5 O
.
.
. v .
7
; l
.
. a
. .. . .

 

 

 

 

.
. l . .
u \ o
..
. . z ..\
. t... . .
a .
s v. A
1 vi! \I
It. _ r
I.» .
D. I
It 1 . r
. . . .
.
V
.. . 3
r .
t
. . o
.\. y . n
. . I
D
.1 . z.
. D\
x y, .
r. .. _
. y . .0
v . « r.
. . . l
. s
r . . eTo
.1
0.. .

. O y . r . In rll
.f . . t f
c . . < a a I
a! r . .
.1 1 o . \f

o r
. .

u . a ‘1‘

. . ..
l I I‘ll

. . .
.I . \ .b‘.
r P.-

 

 

 

 

. x
c a ‘
4 _
. i n .
V s I
. r .. I
. . I;
.1 I r
_ . r l
.
. i
. . a .
. . o 4'. . . I.
r . I g l
O
. F
J
. \
. . . b
.i. ,
.r .
. .. x
u. c a!
.
r A v
v .— A
I v . .
.. qr
. .o .
v I
w. . n. .
4 v I‘
. x 1
. o.
. . .
. s
. v.r .
. . I Q 1
.o i is .
n . o a.
.
.
, o.
,
f . t
. . .
_ .
. J . .
. . } ..
.. .
.
.

a
s
r
..
a
..
Z.
V
r.
o.
.
.
_
.
4
.
v .
r
o
I.

 

\ \O O
_ \l
. .
..
r . a
.l/

. ,
wt
to
a a '\
c n
.J .. .
5....
in
. C .W

I}.

a
re.
1
in.
y I
...
_ .
v a
I.
.4 .
. I
.5
«r
u. a .
p
. .
a
.. ~ v

deﬁnitional criteria from mixed polythetic / monothetic criteria to entirely polythetic
criteria, subdividing “grandiosity” and “uniqueness” into separate criteria as well as
adding “feelings of envy.” The DSM-IV changed “exhibitionism” to “requires excessive
admiration” and dropped “defensiveness in response to criticism”, at the same time
adding “arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes” from DSM-III-R Therefore, DSM-IV
speciﬁed diagnostic criteria of narcissistic personality disorder as “a pervasive pattern of
grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and
present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by ﬁve (or more) of the following: has 1) a
grandiose sense of self-importance, 2) farrtacies of unlimited success, power, etc., 3) a
feeling of their specialty, 4) need for admiration, 5) a sense of entitlement, 6) lack of
empathy, 7) a feeling of envy, 8) interpersonal exploitativeness, and 9) arrogant and
haughty attitudes.”

In terms of the clinical tradition, the contemporary descriptions of the narcissistic
personality disorder (NPD) incorporate elements from the writings of earlier theorists.
Freud (1914) regarded narcissism as involving self-love, vulnerabilities concerning self-
esteem and fear of failure, and feelings of entitlement involving the expectation of special
privileges over others - including a tendency to be critical of others who are diﬁ‘erent
from oneself. On the other hand, however, Freud used narcissism to describe “all human
efforts,” “man’s most sublime aspirations,” and even “the guiding motive of nature
herself” (Ellis, 1927).

More recently, the works of Kohut and Kernberg have been hugely inﬂuential, not
only among psychoanalysts but also among personality researchers and theorists
interested in narcissism. Kohut (1971), a student of Freud, viewed narcissism as a natural

and potentially healthy dimension of personality. All individuals possess the need to be

 

1.! -

lb

v.’.

.
u
f
t.
O .
\Da
,
0‘
.0:
AI
0.
'1
r .
u‘
h . .
T
h .
J I
r
I
l
r
I
I . .
i
» .
l i
.p.
.
. 4
a .
.
s r

mirrored (usually by the mother) and the need to idealize (usually the father). Healthy
narcissism assists during childhood in the formation of stable self-representation and the
reliance on internal (e. g., self) rather than external (e.g., parent) resources to remain
stable when subjected to external and possibly threatening information with regard to the
actual self (Kohut, 1971). Conversely, pathological narcissism involves a grandiose
reliance on approval from and idealization by powerful others to bolster and preserve the
narcissist’s fragile self-esteem. Therefore, pathological narcissism develops out of the
parents’ failure to meet one or both needs and is viewed as a disruption of the normal
development of the self.

In contrast to Kohut’s view, Kernberg’s (1975) notion is that unacceptable or
negative aspects of the self are “split oﬁ” from the main self, but nonetheless inﬂuence
the functioning of the self. Thus, for Kemberg the narcissistic self is pathological. Cooper
(1998) observed that Kernberg gave greater emphasis to the aggressive and denigrating
aspects of narcissistic pathology and said the pathology as mainly a result of intrapsychic
conﬂict.

Despite their differences in the etiology of narcissism, both Kernberg and Kohut
agreed that one aspect of the narcissist is the intensely ambitious, self-absorbed, and
overly dependent focus on acclaim. Another facet of the narcissist is characterized by a
lack of empathy and interpersonal disturbances (Kemberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971;
Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995).

The intense ambitiousness and self-absorption of narcissists is believed to be the
result of unresolved inner conﬂicts. People conceive both actual self and ideal self and
sometimes experience a conﬂict between the two distinct concepts. In the maturation

process of the self in normal people, there should be a realistic and integrated perception

of oneself with one’s actual positive and negative aspects, which is in harmony with the
wishful concept of oneself representing the ideal self (Kernberg, 1998). Pathological
narcissism, however, fails in regulating harmony between actual and ideal self by
excluding or ignoring negative aspects of the self.

In addition to an integrated self-concept, normal people have a quasi-realistic
perception of others in their positive and negative qualities. Pathological narcissism,
however, fails to perceive in others those integrated aspects, because of their inﬂated and
grandiose self. According to Kemberg (1998), “regular sources of self-esteem that stem
ﬁom interaction with others - ﬁrst with parents and later with playmates and ﬁiends — are
obstructed by the grandiose self for narcissists ...The grandiose self has to extrude
negative aspect by projecting them onto others” (p. 105). In other words, one’s own self
becomes inﬂated and others become denigrated.

Two Faces of Nw'cissism - Overt and Covert

Before mentioning common symptoms of narcissists’, two distinct faces of
narcissism need to be addressed. One trend of research on narcissism lms been focused on
the distinction between overt narcissism and covert narcissism (Cooper, 1998; VVrnk,
1991). In clinical tradition, Cooper (1998) contended that NPD must be recognized in
two different presentations, covert and overt. Further, he argued that DSM-IV quite
adequately describes the overt type but it fails to give a description of covert narcissism.
The popular conception of the narcissistic person as the loud, ostentatious, self-centered
braggart is the version of the overt narcissism, while a group of shy, seemingly timid, and
inhibited individuals are the covert narcissists. Individuals who have covert narcissism
have the same defects in structure of the self-representation and self-esteem regulation

and have similar fantasies of grandiosity, However, they have a diﬁ‘erent social self-

 

O‘I'

If.

.tre

presentation, which substitutes inhibitions of assertion, exhibitionism, and grandiosity
with apparent shyness, sensitivity, and empathic capacity.

In empirical research, VVrnk (1991) concluded that the ﬁndings are consistent with
the view that there are two distinct overt and covert forms of narcissism. He described
overt narcissism as the “grandiosity-exhibitionism” form and covert narcissism as the
“vulnerability-sensitivity” form. Overt narcissists are marked as “grandiosity-
exhibitionism,” and exhibit self-assuredness, exhibitionism, self-indulgence and
disrespect for the needs of others. In the case of overt narcissism, the diﬂiculties are
overconﬁdence, aggressiveness at the cost of others, and an excessive need for
admiration from others. Covertly narcissistic people can be defensive, hypersensitive,
anxious and timid, and insecure, but at the same time are marked by self-indulgence,
conceit and arrogance, and an insistence on having their own way. In the case of covert
narcissism, the most visible diﬂiculties are anxiety, pessimism, lack of fulﬁllment, and
vulnerability to life’s traumas.

The Core Features of Narcissism

Both the overt and covert narcissists share exploitativeness, a sense of entitlement,
excessive envy, a diminished capacity for empathy, and a lack of sustained enthusiasm
for their activities or their relationships (Cooper, 1998; \Vrnk 1991). Both types are
incapable of maintaining enduring personal relationships, lack of concern for others, and
hungry for acclaim. That is, the same defects in structure of the self-representation, self-
esteem regulation, and fantasies of grandiosity lead to both covert and overt narcissistic
symptoms. Consistent with this view, Cooper and Ronningstarn (1992) mentioned that
both overt and covert patients are equally involved in grandiose, exhibitionistic fantasy

and equally unable to maintain deep ties to another person. Rhodewalt and Morf’s (1995)

results showed that the adaptive and maladaptive aspects of narcissism co-occur. In other
words, narcissism should be deﬁned as a mental state of cohabitation between overt and
covert aspects of narcissism. Robbins and Dupont (1992) also argued that both overt and
covert aspects of narcissism relate to a fragile self-esteem and strategies to regulate self-
esteem by means of others.

Inﬂated self-image is the core feature of narcissism which derives ﬁ'om the inability
to regulate the actual self and the ideal self (Millon, 1998). It is also problematic because
one’s self-esteem becomes unstable and insecure. Thus, narcissists have a “fragile self.”
Worse still in pathological narcissism, others become non-valuable objects for the sake of
enhancing the narcissistic grandiose self. Kemberg (1998) noted that, for narcissists,
external objects are used and acknowledged only to conﬁrm the individual’s own
grandiose self. Communication between narcissists and others is not grounded in reality,
but rather in fantasies of inﬂated self-image. Their selves are enveloped in their ideal
world. Due to this enveloped selﬁ narcissists cannot functionally communicate with the
outer world. In this sense, narcissism may be regarded as a miscommunicated trey4

As a result, the key narcissistic themes regardless of whether overt and covert, are
conceit and arrogance, and the tendency to prioritize one’s own needs while disregarding
others. These narcissistic core features result from malfunctions in the regulation of self-
esteem and others-respect.

This study, therefore, conceptualizes narcissism as a “tendency to inﬂate one’s
fragile self image at the cost of others.” First, “inﬂated fragile-self concept” means that
the narcissistic self has an extreme sense of grandiosity encompassing superiority, self-
absorption, self-admiration and so on. On one hand, the inﬂated self may have a sense of

authority and leadership by means of exhibitionism, which are subcategorized as

characteristics of overt narcissism. On the other hand, a person obsessed with one’s
inﬂated self image may respond hyper-sensitively to criticism, that is viewed as covert
narcissism. The fragile self seems to lead to two types of narcissism because the ﬁagile
self appears insecure and unstable. Several factors of narcissism that have been
diﬂerently titled by diﬁ‘erent scholars seem to stem from this one root: the inﬂated self. 5
Second, reference to “at the cost of others” means that a narcissistic person is
indiﬂ‘erent towards, or lacks empathy for, others and/or lacks respect to the point of
exploitativeness. Among the factors, entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of
especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her own ends) seems
be somewhere along the spectrum between inﬂated self for the person’s own ego and
excessive narcissism exhibited at the cost of others. A feeling of entitlement may result
from one’s self-view over others. Therefore, a narcissistic personality demonstrates an
individual’s failure to regulate self-respect Vrs-a-Vrs respect for another individual.

This paper argues that to deﬁne narcissism, these two concepts have to go hand in
hand. Ifa person has a slightly inﬂated self-image without denigrating others, he or she
might merely have self-conﬁdence, high self-esteem or an extrovert personality, which
can be regarded as socially appropriate especially in individualistic cultures. Ifa person
has an exploitative or heartless characteristic without bearing an inﬂated fragile self; she
or he may be classiﬁed as Machiavellian. However, if a person has the tendency to
project and preserve an inﬂated self-image in keeping others down, or in using others for
their own purpose, he or she has pathological symptoms such as excessive fantasies of
own self and talent, exploitativeness and entitlement. As a consequence, he or she has

diﬂiculty in showing empathy to others.

r‘ ’ J . ' ' h
. i . .
, > ‘ ’ ~
. I H
. . . .
A D I A - .
; I
1‘ r - r . V; ’
. 1 .
l I I I- I . l - I
. . ' ,
. . ‘
. ' .
I
. ' .
, , . .
I 4
3 1 I ’
’ ‘ r
.
L r
. '1 '
.
s
F.

I _ ‘ . ‘
. ' .'...)‘r.tkl‘, ‘._.. b-0Ir.‘g>
. . .
' ‘ ‘r . . 1 .

 

The Measurement of chissr'sm

This conceptual deﬁnition of narcissism - tendency to inﬂate one’s fragile self
image at the expense of others - aids in integrating pervious research results. In this
section, several measurements of narcissism and their associations with other constructs
will be presented in terms of self-regulation and relations with others. Buss and Chiodo’s
(1991) and Vangelisti et al.’s (1990) studies will be summarized from behavioral and
communication perspectives.

Several attempts to construct measures of narcissism have been tried but the results
have been mixed at best. Raskin and Hall (1979) constructed the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory (NPI), a 54-item, forced-choice questionnaire assessing individual differences
in narcissism as a personal trait. Subsequent studies on the NPI have reduced the scale to
40 items focusing on identifying its major components (e. g., Emmons, 1984; Raskin &
Terry, 1988). Studies of the factor structure of the NPI have yielded four or seven
components, depending upon the investigator. Emmons (1984, 1987), in two separate
studies, found evidence for four principal factors: exploitativeness/entitlement,
leadership/authority, superiority/arrogance, and self-absorption/self-admiration. In
contrast, Raskin and Terry (1988) found evidence for seven components of the NPI:
authority, self-suﬂ'rciency, exhibitionism, explotiativeness, vanity, entitlement, and
superiority.

Although the NPI inventory is based on the DSM-III criteria, the assumption is that
when exhibited in less extreme forms, these behaviors are reﬂective of narcissism as a
“normal” personality trait (Emmons, 1987). There is a growing body of research that
proposes that narcissism scales can help deﬁne a broad psychological continuum related

to healthy self-esteem at one pole and maladjusted self-ﬁrnctioning at the other

10

(Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002; Watson, Little, Sawrie, & Biderman, 1992). That
is, a continuum exists between normality and abnormality and narcissism is a personality
trait possessed to varying degrees by normal persons.

Emmons (1984) labeled the leadership, superiority, and self-absorption subscales as
indices of healthy narcissism and entitlement as an index of maladaptive narcissism. The
exploitativeness/entitlement subscale of four factors correlated positively with the
interpersonal styles labeled aggressive/sadistic and rebellious/distrustful (Emmons, 1984),
as well as with measures of pathological narcissism (Emmons, 1987). It was found to
correlate negatively with empathy and social desirability (Watson, Grisham, Trotter, &
Biderman, 1984).

Soyer et al. (2001) reexamined the hypothesized continuum between more adjusted
and more maladjusted narcissism. Zero-order and partial correlations of seven factors of
the narcissism pathology inventory (NPI) were consistent with the continuum hypothesis.
When the more adaptive factors such as authority and self-suﬂiciency were removed,
people with higher scores displayed clearer associations with psychological dysﬁrnction,
so—called covert narcissism. They were positively associated with Machiavellianism and
inversely related with life, job, and family satisfaction. Removing the more maladaptive
factors such as the exploitativeness and entitlement factors, in contrast, eliminated the
association with Machiavellianism, but the correlation with self-satisfaction was
strengthened slightly.

Even though the NPI has been used the most widely by empirical scholars in
psychology, the generalizability of the ﬁndings by the NPI has been questioned
(Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995; Soyer et al., 2001). Instead of the NPI, the Margolis-Thomas

Measure of Narcissism (MT scale, Margolis & Thomas, 1980) is reported to show the

11

best validity with respect to association with other variables, such as Machiavellism (+),
need for achievement (+), life/self] general job satisfaction (-) and no relationship with
self-esteem (Mullins & Kopelman, 1988).

According to Pervin (2001), the self ﬁrnctions in three ways: Cognitive, aﬂ‘ective
and behavioral aspects. First, cognitive aspect of self would appear to represent an
important part of the way a person construes the world. The cognitive self is related to the
ability to differentiate ourselves from others and to reﬂect back upon ourselves. Second,
in terms of affective aspects of the self-concept, individuals strive to behave and view
their behavior in ways that are consistent with their self-image, which is usually deﬁned
as the ideal self. Third, the relationship of the self to behavior can be explained by the
presentation of self in everyday life. We may behave in certain ways to create an
impression on others as to what we are like according to social and cultural contexts.

Previous research on narcissism has mainly focused on the aﬁ‘ective aspect of the
self which is explained by self-esteem and real-ideal self incongruency. Even though
narcissists are conceptually regarded as having fragile and inﬂated selves, capturing
the“ﬁagile” and “inﬂated” self empirically has not been easy task. Instead, a considerable
amount of previous research has reported that narcissism is positively related to self-
esteem in a nonclinical population (Emmons, 1984; Kemis & Sun, 1994; Morf &
Rhodewalt, 1993; Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991; Raskin & Terry, 1988; Watson,
Talyor, & Morris, 1987). Although the relations between narcissism and self-esteem are
consistemly positive, Rhodewalt and Morf(1995) concluded that they may be different
constructs. As John and Robins (1994) pointed out, narcissism involves feeling superior
to others, while self-esteem involves evaluating oneself positively. That is, “narcissism is

more than high self-regard” (Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995, p. 20).

12

Raskin et al. (1991) examined narcissistic self-esteem management based on
clinical observation and theorizing that narcissistic persons are aggressive and
domineering and have grandiose self-theories. The results showed that although hostility
and self-esteem appeared to be uncorrelated, when grandiosity, dominance, and
narcissism were taken into account, hostility and self-esteem exhibited signiﬁcant
negative covariation. That is, in the absence of grandiosity, dominance, and narcissism,
people who express higher hostility also report lower self-esteem. The results also
indicated that the indirect inﬂuence mediated by grandiosity, dominance, and narcissism
of hostility on self-esteem was substantial and positive. This study indicates that
narcissistic behaviors marking hostility toward the worid may be one way that protects a
sense of inﬂated self-image. This result also implied the possibility of the coexistence of
grandiose fantasies with feeling of inferiority.

Several studies have tried to measure the inﬂated self using the degree of
incongruency between real self and ideal self descriptions by the interpersonal check list
(Emmons, 1984; Raskin & Terry, 1988). But this type of diagnosis of narcissism is
contaminated because narcissistic individuals are oriented to distort representations of
themselves as inﬂated and grandiose. Measuring actual-ideal self discrepancy as well as
the self-esteem of narcissist individuals has been widely reported to reﬂect the self
defense mechanism of the narcissism construct itself (Mullins & Kopelman, 1988; Raskin
& Terry, 1988; ka, 1991). But it is important to note here that even though the total
NPI was associated with self esteem and low actual-ideal self discrepancy, a series of
studies indicated that E/E (exploitativeness! entitlement) among the NPI subscales was
uncorrelated with self-esteem and positively correlated with actual-ideal self discrepancy
(Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995).

13

 

 

,.

 
 

 

 

 

_.
‘v.’
1‘)
‘0
1"
f
I 4
, r
. .
.-
s
.
I
b
,

‘ .
.f
..
'_ u.
o
i
r
-.
.' ~
.
. s
,s I. ’
.-

 

 

In terms of cognitive aspects of narcissism, Weston (1990) provided further
elaboration by deﬁning a cognitive-aﬁ‘ective preoccupation with self. These self-concepts
are characterized by “fusion” or the failure to diﬂ‘erontiato between real and ideal selves.
Weston contends that the narcissists’ inability to regulate self-concept would lead to low
self-complexity. Self-complexity refers to the capacity to differentiate among aspects of
the self, such as one’s professional self, ono’s social self, and one’s family self (Linvillo,
1987). Emmons (1987) also suggested that narcissists are low in self-complexity or the
capacity to differentiate among multiple aspects of the self. More recently, Rhodewalt
and Morf(1995) found that the NPI (Narcissistic Personality Inventory) is correlated with
low self-complexity. Linvillo has found that greater self-complexity results in less
extreme and variable moods and fewer ﬂuctuations in self-appraisal (1987).

In summary, the entitlement / exploitativeness subtype of narcissism, as
incorporated on the concept 0 “at the expense of others,” is central to deﬁning
pathological narcissism. This provides a strong basis for deﬁning narcissism as
necessarily including relational defects with others. Concomitantly, a question arises that
“without malﬁrnctions of narcissism such as entitlement or exploitativeness, are normal
or healthy narcissists “real” narcissists?” Going back to the Narcissus myth, Narcissus’
chief problem, in addition to his excessive self-love, was his inability to love others.

As an alternative, instead of depending on scale approaches and focusing on the
self-concept of narcissism, Buss and Chiodo (1991) and Vangolisti ot al. (1990)
approached narcissism from the layperson’s view in everyday life and investigated
behavior aspects of narcissism. Buss and Chiodo (1991) complemented previous research
on narcissism using the act frequency approach to provide a more complete depiction of

narcissistic behaviors in everyday life. Series of studies identiﬁed a large number of acts

l4

 

 

‘ ll
,
. ' ‘ ‘ v
r
. ‘ . ; '
- D
.
' 1
. ' > 0
.
- i ' l v l
. . I A ‘ t .
~ . ‘ J ’l I ‘ ‘ ‘
, I ’
. , . I
. _ . k . ’
I I ‘ ' . . .
i
’ I
.. 1 r H
. _ . ‘ ‘ ‘ .
I !I>‘.‘I } a. ‘
. . .3 .(r‘ _ ‘
I . ‘,Y. I . IV I V
' ' n—o I ‘
“II I I t .
.
V I ‘ . . ' a .
. ..r a, n ..J,» lJ/qo...’"|' -I-o|$: urtl. H.“h'
‘ r
3 .1 _. III , y
I ' Is ‘
. , {I
. l
. . . . . 1 L
: ‘ ‘ I I
‘ - . ~ I , I
.

 

in everyday life from direct observation by peers, family members, or clinicians, assessed
the prototypical acts nominated by them, and identiﬁed which acts are most and least
central to narcissism as well as which clinically relevant dispositions are most central to
narcissism. Based on this result of narcissistic act performance in everyday life, Buss and
Chiodo (1991) further tested the validity of the NPI scale and located narcissistic act
performance within each of three major taxonomies of personality psychology: the
Interpersonal Adjective Scales, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, and the Big Five
personality dimensions.

The most frequently performed narcissistic acts are condescension (e. g., insulting
others’ intelligence, reﬁising to go out with someone who was not “good enough,”
avoiding talking to people who were “low life,” associating mainly with high-status
people, pointing out the faults of others, etc.) and extreme attention to one’s physical
appearance (e. g., watching ones’ biceps, looking in a mirror while talking to others,
commenting on weight loss, walking around with one’s chest out, frequent grooming,
etc.) (Buss & Chiodo, 1991). Both the NPI and the narcissistic act composites correlated
positively with ambitious-dominant, arrogant-calculating, and extraversion, but
negatively with lazy-submissive, unassuming-ingenuous, and warm-agreeable. The NPI
and the narcissistic act composites, however, did not have the same results with respect to
several other psychological traits. Only narcissistic acts were positively correlated with
neuroticism and negatively correlated with emotional stability, and component act
summaries were largely uncorrelated with these indices of adjustment. The NPI is
negatively associated with neuroticism and positively linked with emotional stability
personality measures reﬂecting adjustment. This result implies that the NPI may not

capture the conceptual deﬁnition of pathological narcissism.

15

First used by Derber (1979) , “Conversational narcissism” refers to the attention.
getting psychology pervasive in individualistic cultures such as America. It was described
as the “ways that American conversationalists act to turn the t0pics of ordinary
conversations to themselves without showing sustained interest in other’ topics” (Derber,
1979, p. 5). Further, based on laypersons’ behavioral reference to the term conversational
narcissism, Vangelisti et al. (1990) related conversational narcissism with acts such as
boasting, refocusing the topic of the conversation on the self, exaggerating hand and body
movements, using a loud tone of voice, overusing “l” statements and “glazing over”
when others speak. Consistent with this, high scores on the NPI tend to use personal
singular pronouns (e. g., I am I did...) more frequently and use personal plural
pronouns (e.g., we are...) less frequently than low scores (Raskin & Shaw, 1988).

People who enact narcissistic conversational behaviors are perceived as less
socially attractive than others (Vangelisti et al., 1990). Interestingly, they noted four
situations when conversational narcissism was considered appropriate. These include
when one person wants to show his or her superior knowledge and the other wants or
needs that expertise, situations where one person wants control of conversation, to carry
the burden of the conversation, to entertain the other, or guide the other, and the other is
willing to comply. All these acceptable narcissistic behaviors, however, are ruled by
social norms and assume the other’s beneﬁts as well. In general, more narcissists
typically displayed attempts to focus the conversation on himself or herself to the
“exclusion of the other” whereas less narcissists combined their use of self-references
with references to a variety of other persons, objects, and events.

In summary, whether or not research depends on narcissism measurement scales, a

consensus seems to emerge on that a construct of narcissism has to be explained by two

16

 

‘ .5-
...v.
.0
.-
. .
'lx
.VO
J I
ﬁt.
I
..-
v .
a}.
t
- t
.‘i l
4 rJ
J.
I.
ﬂ .
‘
. . . l.
I...
,
.tl.
.
.
.

main features: 1) excessive self-focus, and 2) making little or no positive reference to
others except in service to self (such as exploitativeness). In addition, an argument
between healthy or unhealthy encompassing overt or covert narcissism has been an
interesting domain of previous researchers. The common perception of narcissism also
has been related with exhibitionistic behaviors (Buss & Chiodo, 1991; Vangelisti et al.,
1990). For this reason, exhibitionistic behaviors was included as the second feature of
narcissism.

Narcissism and Self-Presentation

This study aims to investigate how narcissists present themselves to others
differently from less narcissistic individuals. Over many years within the clinical and
psychoanalytic tradition, a variety of narcissistic behaviors have been reported. However,
the empirical tradition has been relatively short and most efforts seem to focus on
construct validation or self-concept. In contrast, the purpose of this study is to ﬁnd
behavioral aspects of narcissism in self-presentation styles.

Goﬁ‘man’s (1959) original work provides a theoretical ground for behavior aspects
of the presentation of self. According to Goﬂ‘man (1955), just as the member of any
group is expected to have self-respect, so also every person is expected to sustain a
standard of considerateness. In other words, people are expected to communicate in such
a way that they present themselves positively while at the same time protecting the
feelings and the face of others. Attention to others’ face is done willingly and
spontaneously because of emotional identiﬁcation with the others and with their feelings.
Goﬂinan noted that “this kind of mutual acceptance seems to be a basic structural feature
of interaction, especially the interaction of face-to-face” (1955, p. 325). Speciﬁcally

relating to conversation in social interaction, Pin (1985) notes that people must balance

17

conversational demands in order to “discover the identities of others” and to “make
evident their own” (p. 173).

Narcissistic personality results ﬁom a failure to regulate self and other esteem. In
Goﬂ'man’s words, a narcissistic person may not be able to balance “self-respect” and
“considerateness” properly in social interaction. In conversational narcissism, Vangelisti
et al. (1990) noted a perceived “imbalance” of conversational participation. Taking little
or no notice of the other’s needs or variations in contextual demands across time and
situations was perceived as dispositionally narcissistic.

As an extension of Goﬁ‘man’s interest in social interaction, a large body of studies in
social science has focused on self-presentation (or impression management) as a means
of interpersonal inﬂuence. Self-presentations are deﬁned as “attempts to influence others
to perceive the actor as having a particular identity” (Tedeschi & Norman, 1985, p. 293).
This approach views self-presentation as a primary means of interpersonal inﬂuence.
Jones and Pittman (1982) suggested that self-presentation serves to maintain or augment
one’s power in relationships with other people because the impressions that people make
on others can be a primary determinant of their outcomes in life.

There are different approaches to how to categorize impression management tactics.
This study focuses on four main self-presentation styles: ingratiation, self-promotion,
intimidation, and supplication (Brehm, Miller, Perlman, & Campbell, 2002; Jones &
Pittman, 1982). Ingratiation is used when we seek acceptance and liking from others.
Ingratiation includes several kinds of behavior such as ﬂattery, opinion conformity, and
doing favors. The second tactic of impression management is self-promotion, which takes
the form of more direct attempts to establish one’s competence, intelligence, knowledge,

skills or prowess. Both ingratiation and self-promotion tactics attempt to create socially

18

 

 

 

 

. ‘ ‘ 5 .
. . / ' ‘
. - .
. v ' y ! ﬁ
1’ . l . - .
.
. t .
. r
‘ o
‘ - . I b
' 1‘ ‘ ‘1
’ . .- r _
. , - . . .
. . .
a , __. ~- _ ,
.
‘ r .‘ , ~ (.
. . . A ,, r 4.
‘ ‘.I , .. . ~. . . l ,
'., 'l - . ~ ‘
‘) A r ‘ l_ ‘
A It ‘ ‘ .3
‘ l
. l
’( 1,,-
r A . , '
- 1 I,. , n‘
- . . 1 f , -.
I
t - .
V'.l 1.. v. {- \>'
V *‘ ' 'a . _.
, . . . 4 .
. _ 4 . .
r V" ' .'r . .
. ‘
s ..
l . r
1' '1. ‘ ,r
r . , . it . —
. . 4 '-
t ‘ i. U
‘ .
.. ‘. .. 0 ’ r‘
\ .
ys' ‘ a
‘ < .. 4‘ . ‘ , I
r , . ,.. , ‘ _
h . ~ I a A t I
V
4 L
~ 4 . r .
.' r
‘ '\ 4.
" a I ‘1
. . . ' '.
t
. , . .
r. r. ..I .I {D ,.
. '1! > "‘ , .
. ‘7 " r 1 |-‘ '
r r , .

 

 

 

 

 

i ,.
‘ j ' . ‘ . . ,, '_
‘ ~' . . . ' — . ' _ ““7.
. J . ‘
3. « .‘ .
‘ ’ 1'
. G
. . ‘ . . _ , H
’ A - ‘,‘ ' .,‘ . 4 4 u r . .'
s e 1 . n, . 'It 0“ ' " ' . , I.
‘ J ‘ ‘ ~ I r ‘
‘ ‘ .‘ 41‘ .‘ ‘ ' 1
i O
t o'. - ' ‘ a,. 1‘, A . .
I . ‘ o . - ’ J 7- . '
. . . .
.. .‘
' . l , v ' v A
‘ , I s
. p t s . . . t. .’ s_ I. ' ‘ -
' . l . , r ‘ . ‘ '
v’ ' " ‘v n ' _ ‘l _ .'1
.
,5 . V a. .. . . , , . _ . .' , ‘_
' t . r ‘ . ‘ ‘v .
s s
v ' 4 r. . ‘ . .,, ’y ; ‘ _ ’
., a __ _ '1 j . l ...'l" . . 1 4".
3
“‘ ‘ n y l r “‘g‘ ‘1 ' h‘r ‘
- I .- ~r : «‘ ) ‘A ..
I ‘ - ,
v.1 . .{ ,.- .J -~‘ t. ». ,«
t v ' ,1 Al: I . . ‘.I‘
D ' . ‘
' ‘ u ." ‘3 _ 3‘“ 'g . .-.. . \ v p , v '.
‘ J ,,. . . . .. .. .- '»‘ ,~t - . ‘s - l _,
. .
.. - .
. -..- . 1.. 'r..'.‘ .‘v, “1" .. - ' .r',‘_ v .
‘ " ’ k ' - a .‘ . r ,
y‘ . .' . . . '
' ' .- - r - '..~ - I _ .. . . . .
, ' " t. . .‘ . . _ ‘ .‘. ' rl.- . . . \
‘ i
. r .. N A ‘. ,.. it _. ‘._ r‘ .
. . . , u r
. - . ‘ . . . . .
- v A I
. ‘ I ' .' .. . . ‘ r. . l '
' .y , '5 .l 4' , -‘ .I‘ ‘-
. ‘ .
' ” . I . ‘, '
‘ . l. ,. .‘I " r , .. '. . v
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘- . - v . .7 . ..
(' ’ ' ' ’ '. , z w l" '_ 4 . .
‘ | . ‘ s _. ; “
. A ‘. . ‘. ‘
' r
‘ ~ I
K. I " I I ' w a! '
~ 7 n
’ I .A ‘ a , v '
-. ' t .v r. .r ; .~ I - , ‘
, - - )1 . r . ‘ - .l. . - '1 n
I J' ' . - ‘u a ' a.‘ . _v
r " . .. , ~ I

 

Lil 1'» “'1; all is ‘4} Kim»; ,' :4 in ,s
.l ' : , ,. . , ' .‘ ... ,"g, ’

. . l ‘ .1

. ' 1,). v ‘

 

 

 

desirable impressions (Brehm et al., 2002), but the two tactics have different goals
conceptually. The ingratiator wants to be liked while the self-promotor wants to be seen
as competent (Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986; Jones & Pittman, 1982).

Intimidation is designed to induce fear in another and, in turn, to make attempts at
social inﬂuence (Jones & Pittman, 1982). Although the effectiveness of intimidation may
be quite restricted, there are subcultures where intimidation is a frequent tactic in gaining
advantage over others.

The ﬁnal tactic of self-presentation is supplication. The supplicant seeks to
demonstrate his or her helplessness. The goal of the actor is to gain some interpersonal
advantage by invoking, directly or indirectly, a norm of social responsibility over others.
Intimidation and supplication are basically posited from distinct power gaps in social
status, which may create undesirable images.

To understand narcissism in relation to self-presentation styles, it may be worthwhile
to discuss the role of dominance and aﬂ'rliation in social interaction. Many theorists argue
that dominance and afﬁliation are the fundamental principal dimensions underlying social
interaction (Dillard, Solomon, & Palmer, 1999; T. Leary, 1956; Ruiz, Smith, &
Rhodewalt, 2001; Wiggins, 1979). Hogan (1983) argues that needs for status and social
approval are primary themes in interpersonal behavior and are satisﬁed through
competition and aﬂiliation. Similarly Wolfe, Lennox, and Cuttler (1986) noted that self-
presentational strategies tend to concern either “getting along” or “getting ahead.” By
deﬁnition, we cannot think of narcissists without dominance-oriented characteristic such
as grandiosity, superiority, and entitlement over others. In a good deal of previous
research, narcissism has been reported to have a positive association with dominance and

need for power (e.g., Bannett, 1988; Biscardi & Schill, 1985; Buss & Chiodo, 1991;

19

 

 

 

-
a
Q
J.
9
a
r
't.
. .
t '
. .
. .-
«I
r t-
t
q
I
O
.
l.
_‘
.
.
\
p
.
.
r i
_
I in
s .
I
.f

Carroll, 1987; Emmons, 1984; Raskin et al., 1991; Raskin & Terry, 1988; Ruiz et al.,
2001). Especially Ruiz et al. (2001) pointed out that higher composite NPI scores were
associated with higher dominance and lower afﬁliation, and ﬁrrthermore concluded
dominance was the best predictor of higher scores on the NPI.

Wrth regard to self-promotion tactics, previous research on narcissism has focused
mainly on self-enhancement strategies, which is one form of self-promotion (T edeschi &
Norman, 1985). Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, and Elliot (2000), for example, found that
narcissists are willing to use self-enhancement strategies at the expense of the partners.
The results of their investigation, coupled with those of previous researchers (e.g.,
Rhodewalt & Morf, 1998), showed that although identifying narcissists from less
narcissistic persons with self-enhancement is somewhat imprecise, narcissists express and
maintain an elevated view of self in relation to others. In other words, if the negative
behaviors such as exploitativeness are controlled, self-enhancement can be regard as an
adjusted behavior.

This is consistent with self-enhancement theory (Paulhus & Reid, 1991; Taylor,
1989). People are motivated to maintain and enhance their self-esteem. For example,
John and Robins (1994) said that general ﬁndings provide support for the basic premise
of self-enhancement theory. Moreover, their study showed that even though people
generally used self-enhancement strategies to make their performance look good,
narcissists were considerably more biased to enhance their performance than people in
general. Individuals high in narcissism showed substantial overestimation of their
performance, compared to individuals low in narcissism (substantial underestimation)
and the intermediate group (no bias). Thus, the relationship between self-enhancement

bias and narcissism is pervasive and strong, whether the data are analyzed across all

20

subjects or separately within each group. Accordingly, the ﬁrst hypothesis is advanced:

H1: Scores on narcissism will be associated positively with the self-promotion
tactic.

In terms of ingratiation tactics, narcissism is reported to lack intimate bonds and
empathy (e. g., Carroll, 1987; Ronningstarn, Gunderson, & Lyons, 1995; Watson et al.,
1984) and moreover involve contempt for and devaluation of others. This tactic is
typiﬁed by such behaviors as ﬂattery and doing favors for other. However, previous study
on narcissism reported unﬁiendliness of individuals high in narcissism. Therefore, the
following hypothesis is advanced:

HZ: Scores on narcissism will be associated negatively with the ingratiation tactic.

The fact that narcissism is positively related to hostility (Emmons, 1984; Raskin et
al., 1991; Raskin & Terry, 1988) will provide evidence that narcissists tend to engage in
intimidation tactics more often. Baumeister, Smart and Boden (1996), for example, found
that inﬂated and fragile self-esteem, central in most descriptions of narcissism, underlies
aggressive responses to threatened egotism. Individuals high in narcissism appear to have
higher levels of hostility, feelings of anger, and aggressive behavior in reaction to
negative or ego threatening criticism (Kernis & Sun, 1994; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1998). In
sum, previous results indicated that when narcissists received negative feedback from
others, their reactions more likely would be aggressive and hostile. Furthermore, by
deﬁnition, narcissists conceive a hostile feeling toward others or an inclination of
denigrating others because they do not have balanced regulating system considering
others’ respect as well as own self. Therefore, without any negative criticism, individuals
high in narcissism may use more intimidation tactics because they intrinsically have a

feeling of hostility, than those low in narcissism.

21

Additionally, there is another reason that it might be interesting to take a look at
intimidation and supplication tactics. Intimidation and submissive tactics are related to
power distance (Jones & Pittman, 1982). Even though there is no clear power gap
between individuals high in narcissism and individuals low in narcissism, there is much
evidence that narcissists tend to assume they are superior and dominant compared with
others. Hence, the following hypotheses are advanced:

H3: Scores on narcissism will be associated positively with the intimidation tactic.

H4: Scores on narcissism will be associated negatively with the supplication
tactic.

In sum, this study assumes that imbalanced self and other respect, which is the core
root of narcissism, may affect behaviors of self-presentation in social interaction Based
on previous discussion, excessive self-respect may result in excessive self-promotion
tactics, which is related to self-enhancement strategies. Lack of other-respect - e. g.,
empathy or considerateness — suggests a negative relationship with ingratiation tactics in
the self-presentation process. Since narcissists tend to feel arrogant and assert entitlement
over others, individuals high in narcissism can be expected to use intimidation tactics
more oﬁen and use supplication tactics less seldom than individuals low in narcissism.

Chapter2: Method
Overview
This study views narcissism as a failure in regulating self-respect and other respect
in social interaction. The general goal of this study is to examine the relationship between
narcissism and self-presentation. Scores on narcissism are predicted to be systematically
associated with self-presentation. Speciﬁcally, it was hypothesized that: individuals high

in narcissism are expected to present more frequently self-promotion tactics tapping self-

22

enhancement strategies (HI) and intimidation tactics (H3) than individuals low in
narcissism. Further, individuals high in narcissism are expected to less frequently show
ingratiation tactics (HZ) and supplication tactics (H4) than individuals low in narcissism.
Additionally, although not included as part of the hypotheses, to further investigate the
conceptual deﬁnition of narcissism, four additional variables deemed to be important in
discussing the relationship between narcissism and self-presentation will be measured:
perspective-taking, empathic concern, dominance and self-esteem.
Pm'ticipants

Participants who enrolled in communication courses and a tourism course at a large
Midwestern University participated in this study. Although 181 completed the
questionnaire, three were eliminated due to no response to three scenarios. In the analyses,
178 participants were considered. There were 85 men (48%), and 93 women (52%) in the
sample. On average, participants were 20 years old (SD = 1.9), and the range of age was
17 to 31. Participants consisted of 55 ﬁ'eshmen (31%), 35 sophomores (20%), 36 juniors
(20%), 49 seniors (28%), and 3 graduates (2%). Most were recruited from
communication courses (N = 147, 83%).
Procedures

Participants from communication courses were recruited for this study, which was
labeled “Presenting Yourself,” in an exchange of one hour of research credit and those
ﬁom a tourism course were asked to participate in the survey after that regularly
scheduled class and were given packages of snacks and candies alter completing the
survey. During the survey administration in the classroom, participants were told that
their participation is entirely voluntary and that the information gathered would be kept

conﬁdential and anonymous. They were asked to sign a consent form (see Appendix A),

23

 

 

 

J

an .

which was turned in separately from the rest of the survey materials. The data collection
was IRB approved.

Self-report measures of self-presentation tactics were employed because individuals
are likely to be knowledgeable about their own general behaviors (Honoree, 2000). Both
open-ended and close-ended measures were employed. Participants were asked to read
the Self-Presentation Scenarios ﬁrst and ﬁll in their likely behaviors in each blank space
as an open-ended question. Then, they were asked to complete a packet of personality
questionnaires. After the session, participants were thanked for their participation and
debriefed about the purpose of the study.

Measurement

For the current study, the survey is composed of three different types of response
formats. The ﬁrst is a 5-point Likert style, anchored from “strongly agree” (score 5) to
“strongly disagree” (score 1) for a new Narcissism scale, Need for Control, Perspective
Taking, Empathic Concern, and Self-Esteem and anchored from “very often” (score 5) to
“never” (score 1) for four Self-Presentation Inﬂuence Tactics. The second is a forced
response style. MT Narcissism is a forced-choice and Dominance scale is a true-false
choice. The last is an open-ended response format for three scenarios for self-presentation
situations.

chissim. Although the NIP scale by Raskin and Hall (1979) has been used
widely in previous research on narcissism, this study did not use the NPI, for several
reasons. First, previous results involving the NPI have been questioned on the ground that
relationships with other variables such as self-esteem, life satisfaction, and neuroticism
are not consistent with construct validity (Buss & Chiodo, 1991; Kopelman & Mullins,

1992; Mullins & Kopelman, 1987, 1988; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995; Soyer et al., 2001).

24

Second, the results seemed to show the confounded and unstable structure of the NPI
because four or seven factors were found to function diﬂ‘erently in the literature
(Emmons, 1984; Raskin & Terry, 1988). This may lead to diﬂiculties in making
predictions or drawing reliable conclusions. Third, the factor structure is complex so the
scale lacks parsimony.

As an alternative, this study used the MT scale by Margolis and Thomas (1980) and
a new Narcissism scale curremly being developed by Levine. The MT is reported to show
the best validity with respect to association with other variables (Mullins & Kopelman,
1988). The MT Narcissism Scale initially was composed of 122 dyadic items. Each pair
contained complementary statements, one representing a pathologically narcissistic
orientation and the other reﬂecting a socially acceptable form of narcissism. All items
were evaluated by a panel of experts in psychology and psychiatry to enhance construct
validity. Mullins and Kopelman (1988) reduced the scale to 24 items, after eliminating
those with poor discrimination (Margolis & Thomas, 1980). This shortened MT scale had
clear internal reliability (and construct validity (Kopelman & Mullins, 1992; Mullins &
Kopelman, 1988; Soyer et al., 2001). Unfortunately, the factor structure of the MT has
not been clariﬁed yet (See Appendix B).

A new scale developed by Levine (See Appendix C) was expected to shed light on
narcissism that needs to be more focused on the core concept, since narcissism has been
too multifaceted to research empirically. This scale aimed to provide a more
parsimonious conception of narcissism consistent with the conceptual deﬁnition of this
study. The scale added overt symptom of narcissism— inflated self and entitlement over
others through exhibitionistic behaviors. Therefore, the new scale, composed of 7-item

Entitlement, 6-item Exhibitionism, and 7-item Grandiosity, was expected to produce

25

.q.

 

three factors, consistent with the current conceptual deﬁnition of narcissism.

Dominance. Dominance was measured with Need for Control lastly developed by
Levine (1992) based on the work of Marshall (1990) and Schutz (1958) . Original items
from Marshall (1990) yield to ﬁve items - 5 point Likert type response dropping three
items as results of item analysis and CFAs (Levine, 1992). The resulting alpha coefﬁcient
was .88. In addition, Dominance was assessed through a shortened version of the
Dominance scale of the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1969). The validity
of these measures, as well as their particular relevance for person perception processes,
has been widely demonstrated in past work (e. g., Assor, Aronoﬂ‘, & Messe, 1986) (see
Appendix E).

Two dominance scales were distributed for this study because the different
orientations of two scales might provide insight useﬁrl to understanding dominance in
terms of narcissism as well as strengthened reliability. Need for Control aimed to capture
behavioral tendency of participants, while Dominance of the CPI is oriented mainly to
measure personal motives. For example, Need for Control items include “ I try to take
charge of things when I am with people” and “I try to have others do things I want done,”
while Dominance includes “1 like to give orders an get things moving” and “I think I
would enjoy having authority over other people.” The 22 true — false Dominance scale
included 24 screening items to minimize response bias.

Perspective- Taking and Empathic Concern. Measures of Perspective-Taking and
Empathic Concern were modiﬁed from scales developed by Davis (1983). Perspective-
Taking refers to the ability of an individual to adopt the viewpoint of another. Empathic
concerns include two features: 1) a general concern and regard for the welfare of others

and 2) the stipulation that the aﬂ'ect is not parallel to that of the target person. Davis

26

(1983) provides evidence of the construct validity and structural quality of two
measurements for predicting prosocial behaviors motivated by concern for others. Nine
items of Perspective-taking and six items of Empathic Concern were employed in this
study (See Appendix F).

Self-Esteem. Self-esteem was measured with the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Inventory (Rosenberg, 1965), which has been widely used for decades. (See Appendix D).
Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
In terms of validity, RSE scores have been linked negatively to depressive aﬂ‘ect, anxiety,
psychosomatic symptoms, and interpersonal insecurity.

Self —Presentation Inﬂuence Tactics (SP1 7) Questionnaire. The Self-Presentation
Inﬂuence Tactic questionnaire (SPIT) was developed for the purpose of this study (See
Appendix G). These questions concerned the four self-presentation tactics- self-
promotion, ingratiation, intimidation, and supplication - according to Brehm et al. ’s
(2002) categorization in interpersonal relationships. The original version of the SPIT
consisted of six items for self-presentation, seven items for ingratiation, ﬁve items for
intimidation, and ﬁve items for supplication. Self-promotion items, for example, include
“To make a good impression on others, I try to let people know about my
accomplishments” and “To make a good impression on others, I brag about my
strengths.” Ingratiation items include “I am nice to other people so that they will like me
more,” and Intimidation scale includes “To make a good impression on others, I act
powerful and controlling.” Lastly, Supplication items include “I practice self—deprecating
humor.”

The items were designed to measure impression management concerns in general

circumstances rather than speciﬁc situations. Apart from Self-Presentation Scenarios,

27

participants were asked to indicate their response which best describes the degree to
which the statement applies to their behavior or attitude.

The Sci-Presentation Scenarios. Participants were asked to respond to the Self-
Presentation Scenarios (SPSs) for three hypothetical situations as open-ended questions
(See Appendix H). Answers to open-ended questions asking one’s own behavioral and
verbal reaction to each scenario were coded according to the four SPIT categories: self-
promotion, ingratiation, intimidation, and supplication. Self-promotion category includes
talking about own strengths, and bragging such as “I am a hard-working and good
student,” “I did my best for our project,” etc. Ingratiation encompasses ﬂattery,
compliment, and support for others such as “I admire your group’s reliability,” “The
project turned out to be great with your eﬂ'ort,” etc. Intimidation category includes
intimidating and blaming remarks such as “Why don’t you ﬁnd another group?”, “I feel
that you and the others only gave me a small part in the group,” etc. Supplication inchrdes
apologizing or self-debasement remarks such as “I am really sorry that I missed a few
meetings,” “I was in a desperate situation,” etc.

Two coders including the author rated ten samples of open-ended answers
independently to validate coding schema, using the four categories with coded values of
absence (0) and presence (1). Priorto their coding, a second coder participated in a
training session provided by the author, and the second coder learned the same
instructions for coding schema Sentences were the unit of analysis in the coding In a
process of solving confusing remarks”, a new category was added called the Cooperation
tactic. Examples included “If I can do anything to make up for that just let me know,” “If
it is the same as mine, let’s decide who is going to ask that group in a fair manner,” “I am

willing to meet you to make up. . .,” etc. The coders were allowed to categorize a remark

28

 

.
.
a.
.\t
.
4
41
a
r
u.
I:
‘
.

on
/,

 

 

into more than one category, if it clearly showed dual meanings. For example, “We will
be a great team” can count as both self-presentation and ingratiation. After training, an
inter-coder check was performed to examine the extent to which diﬂ'erent coders got
equivalent results in coding self-presentation tactics, using the same instructions. Pre
inter-coder reliability check was performed several times until two coders achieved
satisfying results in agreement of coding.

The two coders independently assessed self presentation strategies in all three
scenarios for all participants. After the ﬁrst training session, the overall percentage
agreement was 85%. Coding in supplication tactics (70%) lowered the overall agreement.
After one more training session, the inter—coder agreement improved to 87%. Agreements
on each tactic in each scenario will be provided with Cohen’s Kappa in the following
results section. All disagreements were resolved by discussion, and post resolution data
were reported in the results.

Chapter3: Results
Preliminary analyses

There are four sections for preliminary analyses: Reliability of continuous variables,
conﬁrmatory factor analyses for continuous variables, inter-coder reliability for scenario
coding, and checks for linearity and normality.

Initial item screening

First, initial item screening was conducted using internal reliability analyses. Three
criteria were employed to decide which items would be retained or deleted. These
included corrected item total correlation of .4 or greater, a positive contribution to scale
reliability, and the appearance of an approximately ﬂat positive inter-item correlation

matrix. For the new Narcissism scale, the original seven Entitlement items were reduced

29

to four items with standardized item alpha .77. The ﬁve Exhibitionism items were
reduced to three items with or= .77 and the seven Grandiosity items were reduced to ﬁve
items with or=.83 (See Appendix C). Only one item was deleted for the original nine
Perspective-Taking items (a=.83), but the reliability for the six Empathic Concern items
were unacceptably low (or=.65). Consequemly Empathic Concern has not been
considered for further analyses (See Appendix F). Self-Esteem and Need for Control
retained all ten and ﬁve items with or=.85 (See Appendix D)and or=.82 (See Appendix B),
respectively. In terms of Self-Presentation Inﬂuence Tactics (SPIT), the six Self-
Promotion items were reduced to four items (or=.7 9), the seven Ingratiation items were
reduced to ﬁve items (or=.76), the ﬁve Intimidation items were reduced to four items
(or=.79), and the ﬁve Supplication items were reduced to two items (0t=.73) alter deleting
two items, two items, one items, and three items, respectively (See Appendix G).

Reliabilities for the MT narcissism scale and Dominance of the CPI were assessed
with Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR20) coefﬁcients for dichotomous scales. After deleting
two items, the reliability of MT became .74 (See Appendix B) and the original 22
Dominance scale was .83. MT and Dominance were each summed to yield a total score
that ranged from 0 to 22. Higher scores indicate higher narcissism and dominance.

C onﬁrmatory Factor Analyses

Second, conﬁrmatory factor analyses (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982) were performed to
test the dimensionality of all Likert-format multiple item scales after the initial screening.
The remaining items were consistent with the anticipated ten-factor model based on

internal consistency and parallelism. Root mean squared error for the entire model

was .087.

Tests of the statistical signiﬁcance of errors were determined by the standard of 95%
30

conﬁdence intervals of the obtained values falling within the predicted values. The four
Entitlement items showed 8% signiﬁcant error rate for parallelism, while no error was
signiﬁcant for internal consistency theorem. Only one error was .20. The three
Exhibitionism items showed 11 % error rate for parallelism, while no error was
signiﬁcant for internal consistency theorem. Two errors exceeded .20. The four
Grandiosity items showed 7 % error rate for parallelism, while no error was signiﬁcant
for internal consistency theorem. Three errors above .20 were observed. The eight
Perspective-Taking items showed 6 % signiﬁcant error rate for parallelism, while no error
was signiﬁcant for internal consistency theorem. Five errors above .20 were evident. The
ten Self-Esteem items showed 5.5 % signiﬁcant error rate for parallelism, but internal
consistency theorem was not met suﬁiciently with six signiﬁcant errors (17% error rate)
that ranged ﬁ'om -.16 to .30. Six of 28 errors were larger than .20. The ﬁve Need for
Control items showed 5 % error rate for parallelism, while only one error was signiﬁcant
for the internal consistency test. Two errors exceeded .20. The four Self—promotion items
showed 7 % signiﬁcant error rate for parallelism, while no error was signiﬁcant for
internal consistency test. Four errors above .20 were observed. The ﬁve Ingratiation items
showed 7 % signiﬁcant error rate for parallelism, while no error was signiﬁcant for
internal consistency test. Four errors were larger than .20. The four Intimidation items
showed 5 % error rate for parallelism, while no error was signiﬁcant for internal
consistency theorem. Only one error exceeded .20. Due to lack of items, the two
Supplication items could be tested for parallelism only. Wrth 4 % error rate for
parallelism, no error above .20 was found.

Therefore, given that the test of parallelism theorem is more stringent and given the

present sample size of 178, we can conclude that the data were generally consistent with

31

a ten-factor model. Some concern, however, is warranted about the self-esteem scale’s
internal consistency. The decision was made to retain the scale. After item screening, all
scales were averaged to yield a mean score ranging ﬁ'om 1 to 5.

Coding Reliability

Third, in order to measure self-presentation patterns as dependent variables along
with the SPIT scale, respondents were asked to provide an open-ended description of
their communication with one group leader and one competitor in three situations. Their
descriptions were coded into ﬁve categories by two independent coders: self-promotion,
ingratiation, intimidation, supplication, and cooperation. All disagreements were
dissolved through discussion by two coders and the post resolution data were used in
sub sequent analyses.

In the ﬁrst scenario, one hundred six respondents (60%) were coded as using the
self-promotion tactic. Raw agreement was 88% and inter-coder reliability of Cohen’s
Kappa equaled to .75. Seventy six respondents (43%) used ingratiation tactic
(Kappa=.85) and there was 93% agreement between the coders. Only one person was
coded as using the intimidation tactic. Raw agreement was 97%, but Kappa was not
produced due to uneven distribution of coded values and low variation.7 Eighty ﬁve
respondents (48%) used supplication (86%-agreement, Kappa=.72). Fifty eight
respondents (33%) used cooperation tactic (7 6%-agreement, Kappa=.35). For the entire
scenario 1, overall percent agreement of inter-coder reliability was 88%.

In the second scenario, ten respondents (6%) used self-promotion tactic with 94 %
inter-coder agreement and .47 Cohen’s Kappa. Twenty one respondents (12%) used
ingratiation tactic with 88% agreement (Kappa=.85). Twenty respondents used

intimidation tactic with 88% agreement (Kappa=.43). Twenty nine respondents (16%)

32

used supplication (88%-agreement, Kappa=.53). Twenty four respondents (14%) used
cooperation tactic (84%-agreement, Kappa=.09). For the entire scenario 2, percent
agreement of inter-coder reliability was 88%.

In the third scenario, 86 respondents (48%) used selfopromotion tactic with 83%
inter—coder agreement and .61 of Cohen’s Kappa. Twenty nine respondents (16%) used
ingratiation tactic with 84% agreement (Kappa=.39). Fifteen respondents (8%) used
intimidation tactic with 90% agreement (Kappa=.43). Sixty one respondents (34%) used
supplication (76%-agreement, Kappa=.52). Twenty two respondents (12%) used
cooperation tactic (92%-agreement, Kappa=.67). For the entire scenario 3, the percent
agreement of inter-coder reliability was 85%.

To test hypotheses, a total score for each tactic individuals used across three
scenarios was calculated with a range of 0 to 3. Descriptive statistics including means,
standard deviations, and reliabilities with them of other variables are reported in Table l.
The correlation matrix for all variables - eight independents and nine dependents — are
reported in Table 2.

Linearity, normal distribution, and outliers

F omth, in preparation for correlation and regression analyses, the data were
screened for linearity, normal distribution, and outliers. Scatter plots of all independent-
dependent variable relationships were observed visually for linearity. No evidence of
nonlinearity was observed. Second, the shapes of the distributions of variables were
inspected to see if they were normal. Entitlement, SelfoEsteem and Dominance had non-
normal negative skews whereas MT narcissism, Intimidation tactic, Supplication tactic,
Total Ingratiation, Total Intimidation, and Total Cooperation had statistical non-normal

positive skews. The reason the MT scale is extremely positively skewed may stem ﬁom

33

 

4]" (1‘71: . ‘:

J

ills
' |

the fact that it was originally invented for a clinical population.

To identify outliers that can cause misleading results, the data were inspected with
scatter plots and histograms. Two outliers in Entitlement and one outlier in Self-Esteem
with z-scores greater than 3 were omitted from further analyses. Means and standard
deviations excluding outliers are reported in Table 1. The variables that were non-
nonnally distributed were investigated with nonparametric method for further analyses.
Kendall's Tau-b was performed to calculate correlation coefﬁcients for non-normality
data. Tau-b correlation measures how rank orders are related. Tau-b correlations are
reported along with the zero-order correlations in Table 2.

Hypotheses Testing

One primary goal of this study is to examine the relationships between narcissism
and self-presentation. It was hypothesized that narcissism is expected to be positively
associated with self-promotion tactics tapping self-enhancement strategies (HI) and
intimidation tactics (P13). Narcissism is expected to be negatively associated with
ingratiation tactics (HZ) and supplication tactics (H4). Correlational analyses were used
to examine primary relationships between narcissism and self-presentation.

First, three narcissism subscores and the MT score were positively associated with
self-promotion tactics of the SPIT at the signiﬁcance level of .01 [Entitlement, Tau-b
(174) = .32, p < .001; Exhibitionism, r (176) = .30, p < .001; Grandiosity, r (176) = .26, p
< .001; MT, r (176) = .15, p < .01]. However, none of the four narcissism scales were
positively related with the total number of used self-promotion tactics in the three
scenarios. Contrary to the prediction, the Exhibitionism score was negatively and
signiﬁcantly associated with Self-Promotion tactic in scenarios [r (176) = -. 17, p < .05].

Other narcissism scores were not signiﬁcantly related with Self-Promotion in three

34

l-i
“-I

 

~‘o

scenarios. Therefore, the positive relationship between narcissism and self-promotion
predicted by H1 was partially supported.

The second hypothesis predicted the negative association between narcissism and
ingratiation tactics. Contrary to the expectation, however, the three narcissism subscores
and the MT score were positively associated with the Ingratiation tactic of the SPIT at the
signiﬁcant level of .001 [Entitlement, Tau-b (174) = .34, p < .001; Exhibitionism, r (176)
= .22,p < .01; Grandiosity, r (176) = .19,p < .05; MT, r (176) = .30,p < .01]. None ofthe
four narcissism scales were signiﬁcamly related with the total number of used
Ingratiation tactic in three scenarios. Therefore, the negative relationship between
narcissism and ingratiation predicted by H2 was not supported at all in this study.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that people who score higher in narcissism score would show
more intimidation tactics than those lower in narcissism score. The result showed the
positive relationship between narcissism and intimidation tactics. Three narcissism sub
scores and the MT score were positively associated with Intimidation tactic of the SPIT
[Entitlement, Tau-b (174) = .23, p < .001; Exhibitionism, Tau-b (176) = .30, p < .001;
Grandiosity, Tau-b (176) = .31, p < .001; MT, Tau-b (176) = .28, p < .001]. However,
intimidation tactics used in three scenarios had mixed results with narcissism scores. The
Entitlement subscale and Grandiosity subscale were positively associated with
Intimidation tactic used in three scenarios [Entitlement Tau-b (174) = .15, p < .05;
Grandiosity Tau-b (176) = .15, p < .05], while Exhibitionism subscale and MT were not
signiﬁcantly related [Exhibitionism Tau-b (176) = -.09, ns; MT, Tau-b (176) = .12, p
= .06]. Although a positive association between narcissism and intimidation predicted
by hypothesis 3 was not entirely supported, it is noteworthy that this association was

partially supported by three scenarios as well as the SPIT scales. Moreover the zero-order

35

 

correlation coefﬁcient between MT and intimidation tactic used in scenarios was
signiﬁcant as r (178) = .15, p < .05 before it was treated as nonparametric data.

Fourth, it was expected that people who are more narcissistic would show less
supplication tactics than people who are less narcissistic. The negative association
between narcissism and supplication tactics was not found in this study. On the contrary,
three narcissism sub scores and the MT score were positively associated with
Supplication tactic of the SPIT [Entitlement, Tau-b (174) = .14, p < .05; Exhibitionism,
Tau-b (176) = .14,p < .05; Grandiosity, Tau—b (176) = .18,p < .01; MT, Tau-b (176) = .38,
p < .001]. None of the four narcissism scales were signiﬁcantly related with the total
number of used supplication tactics in three scenarios. Therefore, results did not support
the negative relationship between narcissism and supplication predicted by the fourth
hypothesis.

One additional tactic - Cooperation — used in three scenarios was analyzed with the
correlation coefﬁcient. None of the narcissism scores were positively or negatively
related with the Cooperation tactic at a signiﬁcant level. The results of hypotheses testing
are summarized in Table 2.

Supplemental Analyses

Although not included as part of the hypotheses, to ﬁrrther investigate relative
impact of narcissism and relevant variables on self—presentation tactics, multiple
regression analysis was performed. The results indicated that when all independent
variables (3 narcissism subscales, perspective taking, self esteem, MT scale, and
dominance) were included to predict each SPIT tactic, each regression model
signiﬁcantly predicted each of the SPIT variables. Multiple regression models, however,

were only signiﬁcant for some of the coded SPIT. The only coded tactics yielding

36

signiﬁcant results was intimidation. Summary of multiple regression analyses is reported
in Table 4.

The analysis showed that Need for Control was a signiﬁcant predictor for Self-
Promotion tactic ([3= .34, t= 3.89,p < .001). Entitlement (ﬂ= .26, t = 3.44,p < .001),
Need for Control (ﬂ= .25, t= 2.86,p < .01), and MT (,6= .24, t = 2.8,p < .01) were
signiﬁcant predictors for Ingratiation tactic. For Intimidation tactic, Need for Control (,6
= .39, t = 5.30,p < .001), MT (,6: .26, t= 3.55,p = .001), and Dominance (,6= .14, t=
1.98, p = .05) were signiﬁcant predictors. For Supplication tactic, Grandiosity (,6 == .20, t
= 2.72, p < .01), Perspective-Taking (ﬂ = .22, t= 3.41, p = .001), Self-Esteem (ﬂ =-.348, t
=-4.32,p < .001), MT (,6= .19, t= 2.35,p < .05), and Dominance (ﬂ=-.18,t= -2.26,p
< .05) were signiﬁcant predictors.

Among regression analyses for self-presentation tactics used in the three scenarios,
only Intimidation tactic showed a signiﬁcant result, F (8, 169) =3.86, p < .001, adjusted
R2=.11. Exhibitionism (,6 = -. 18, t=-2.23, p < .05), Grandiosity (,6 = .22, t = 2.46, p < .05),
and Dominance (ﬂ = -.24, t =-2.6l, p = .01) were signiﬁcant predictors for intimidation
tactics used in the three scenarios. It should be noted that Dominance scale showed
contradictory results in this study. Dominance was a positively signiﬁcant predictor of
Intimidation tactic in rating scale, but a negative signiﬁcant predictor of coded
Intimidation tactic in scenarios. The detailed results of regression analyses for each
dependent variable are reported in Table 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Chapter 4: Discussion

The major goal of the current study was to explore the self-presentation of

narcissistic people. This study conceptually deﬁned narcissism as having an inﬂated self-

image and a feeling of entitlement over others through exhibitionistic behaviors resulting
37

from a failure in regulating self—respect and other respect in social interaction.
Consequently, scores on narcissism were predicted to be systematically associated with
self-presentation behaviors across situations. Speciﬁcally, this study hypothesized that
individuals high in narcissism are expected to more frequently present self-promotion
tactics tapping self-enhancement strategies (1-11) and intimidation tactics (H3) than
individuals low in narcissism. Individuals high in narcissism are expected to be
negatively related with ingratiation tactics (HZ) and supplication tactics (H4).
Discussions of whether related hypotheses were supported are presented ﬁrst, and several
ﬁndings about the narcissism construct in relation to other variables follow. Finally,
several limitations of this study and future suggestions are provided.

Are narcissists impression managers or socially trial-poised people?

The hypothesis that narcissists would tend to present themselves in a more positive
way was supported by only rating reports of the Self Presentation Inﬂuence Tactics
(SPIT) but not by the open answers in three hypothetical situations. The expectation that
narcissists would be reluctant to present themselves by a means of supporting or
complimenting others was not supported at all in this study. Rather narcissists rate
themselves as likely to ingratiate more frequently when they are concerned about their
impression despite not showing this trend in three hypothetical scenarios. The hypothesis
that narcissists would tend to present themselves in a more controlling way was
supported by both the SPIT ratings for the general impression management and open
reactions to speciﬁc situations provided by this study. Although one subscale of new
narcissism scale - exhibitionism — was not related with intimidation tactics used in three
scenarios, the remainder of the narcissism scales showed signiﬁcantly positive

associations with intimidation. In this study, the relationship between narcissism and

38

 

intimidation was the only signiﬁcant result for the coded responses to the three
hypothetical scenarios. At the end, the expectation that narcissists would be reluctant to
present themselves by a means of self put-downs or self-deprecation was not found at all
in this study. Results showed that scores on narcissism are positively associated with the
likelihood of use ratings of supplication. This reverse result, however, was not replicated
in the open-ended data.

The present study showed divergent results for the rating data and the open-ended
data. According to the rating responses, narcissism had positive associations with all Self
Presentation Inﬂuence Tactics (SPIT), which tap concern for general impression
management. In other words, in terms of the explicit goal of impression management,
narcissists tended to engage in a variety of self-presentation tactics in their attempts. Even
though the current study fails to predict the direction of ingratiation and supplication of
narcissists, an alternative explanation is plausible. According to Leary (1995; M. R Leary
& Kowalski, 1990) and Leary and Kowalski (1990), one of the factors tlmt motivate self-
presentation involves the degree of discrepancy between the image one would like others
to have of oneself (the desired image) and the image that others appear to hold (the actual
image). According to Rhodewalt and Morf (1995), more narcissistic people experience
discrepancies between the actual self and ideal self to a greater extent than less
narcissistic people. If this is the case, then narcissists may be consciously aware of
impression management issues because they suﬂ'er greater actual-ideal self discrepancies
and they consequently need to disguise this discrepancy. Consequently, they may be
obsessed with their image to others. Moreover, they may think that using all the possible
strategies is an effective means to look good to others. According to the results of rating

SPITs, the more narcissistic respondents were, the more they were willing to report using

39

f
i. " "
j:

. .
{,r.
Isl

f9

all types of impression management strategies. This tendency, however, was not
supported in the open ended data.

In the coded self-presentation responses, narcissism was only signiﬁcantly
associated with intimidation tactics. Different ﬁ'om the rating results, narcissists
presented themselves conspicuously by means of aggressive expression in such situations
as when they tried to ﬁt in a team, when they competed, and when they had to excuse
their own faults. This result is consistent with a broad range of previous literature on
narcissism. Individuals high in narcissism appeared to have higher levels of hostility
(Emmons, 1984; Raskin et al., 1991; Raskin & Terry, 1988), feelings of anger, and
aggressive behavior in reaction to negative or ego threatening criticism (Kernis & Sun,
1994; Rhodewalt & Morﬁ 1998). Bumeister et al. (1996) argued that these aggressive
responses are struggles of narcissists to compensate for their threatened ego to cover
inﬂated and ﬁagile self-esteem, central in most descriptions of narcissism.

Nonetheless, with the mixed results, the generalizability of the present ﬁndings to
the construct of narcissism and open-ended scenarios may be questioned. Next, several
issues of the narcissism construct will be discussed.

The Narcissism Construct

For a goal of parsimony, narcissism was deﬁned as an inﬂated ﬁagile self at the
cost of others at ﬁrst and this deﬁnition was expanded to include exhibitionistic behavior.
Therefore, this study conceptually deﬁned narcissism as having an inﬂated self-image
and a feeling of entitlement over others through exhibitionistic behaviors resulting from a
failure in regulating self-respect and other respect in social interaction. Measures of three
core concepts (grandiosity, entitlement, and exhibitionism) ﬁt a three-factor model and

provided good reliabilities. However, good reliability and a ﬁt factor model do not

40

guarantee construct validity. Central to construct validity, an examination of the
discriminant validity and the convergent validity were considered.

For discriminant validity, narcissism would be correlated negatively with
perspective taking and self-esteem. The MT was signiﬁcantly negatively related with
perspective taking and the new narcissism scale was marginally negatively related with
perspective taking. In terms of self-esteem, the MT showed a negative association,
whereas the new narcissism scale revealed a positive association. This result is replicated
MT ﬁndings in previous investigations by Mullin and Kopelman (1988; 1992) and Soyer
et al. (2001). Given the fact that high self-esteem shows the psychological well-being of
someone, and that narcissists are reliant on others as a source of self-esteem support, the
MT ﬁndings seem more guaranteed to show unstable and low self-esteem.

Meanwhile, the results of the MT and the new narcissism scales are not easy to
interpret considering a long history of self-esteem study in narcissism. A considerable
amount of research using self-reported Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin &
Hall, 1979) has shown that the narcissism construct has positive connection with self-
esteem in a nonclinical population (Emmons, 1984; Kernis & Sun, 1994; Morf &
Rhodewalt, 1993; Raskin et al., 1991; Raskin & Terry, 1988; Watson et al., 1987).
Knowing that narcissists suﬁ‘er from their discrepancy between ideal self and actual self
and inner conﬂicts beneath the surface, most psychological researchers excused this
opposite and unpredicted result as high likelihood of concern for self-presentational issue
itself among narcissists. That is the fact that the subject completes the questionnaire
knowing that his or her answers will be seen by others and these ratings can be distorted
in socially proper ways (Leary, 1995).

For the convergent validity, the MT and three narcissism subscales in this study

41

J-‘

 

 

 

 

were moderately intercorrelated. However, two dominance scales — need for control and
dominance of the CPI - showed disparate results, especially for the MT. Need for control
was strongly positively related with the MT, but dominance of the CPI was negatively
related with the MT, whereas the two dominance scales were positively related with the
two subscales of new narcissism — exhibitionism and grandiosity. For further inquiry, two
dominance scales were compared with self-esteem. Interestingly, even though the two
scales are moderately interrelated, dominance of the CPI has the strongest positive
connection with self-esteem, whereas need for control showed no relation with self-
esteem. It may be that two dominance scales reveal the different orientations. Need for
control is aimed to capture the behavioral tendency of participants in the behavioral
aspects while dominance of the CPI is mainly oriented to measure personal motives.
Dominance of the CPI may have a prosocial component of control based on the results of
no relation with perspective taking and strong positive relation with self-esteem, while
need for control may have a maladaptive component of control because it relates
negatively with perspective taking and negative relation with self-esteem.

In summary, the two narcissism scales - the MT and the new narcissism scale —
were intercorrelated. Compared with the new narcissism scale, the shortened MT scale
seems to show pathological aspect of narcissism with respect to association with self-
esteem and perspective taking.

Limitations and Implications

Self-reported narcissism is a complex phenomenon and, due to this complexity,
the present study was ambitious to attempt an integrated concept of narcissism and its
relationships with self-presentation in social settings. Several ﬁndings, nevertheless, were

ambiguous to interpret due to multiple measures and mixed results. Several limitations of

42

this study will be addressed next.

First, the process of validation is inseparable from that of general theory
development and testing (F iske, 1971). The conceptual deﬁnition of narcissism has been
drawn based on the core features of narcissism, and this study argued that the two
concepts - inﬂated self-image (grandiosity) and at the cost of others (entitlement) to go
hand in hand. To diﬂ‘erentiate narcissists from machiavellians, it needs to be shown hat
exploitative or entitled behaviors of narcissists stem ﬁom their chronically inﬂated and
fragile self. Conceptually, machiavellians exploit others as means of accomplishing their
tangible goals while narcissists use others to boost their fragile self image or to guise
their unstable self concept. Entitlement, as a subscale of the new narcissism scale, can not,
by its self, be used to make this distinction.

Moreover, although exhibitionism was added to examine overt characteristics of
narcissism, it could not have been fully investigated with relevant constructs such as
extroversion and agreeableness. In terms of the construct validity, ﬁrture research is
necessary. For an example of systematic approach, Cronbach and Meehl (1955) set forth
the “logic of construct validation” (p.290), a logic of “nomologial network” of lawful
relations with other constructs.

Meanwhile, this study assumes that the MT scale is an unidirnensional construct
encompassing general narcissistic behaviors whereas the new narcissism scale was tested
as a three-factor model. According to the results, the MT showed similar patterns as the
new narcissism scale with relations to self-presentation but diﬂ‘erent inner state such as
low self-esteem. At this, Problems may reside in the fact that a factor model of the MT is
still unknown and that a multifaceted construct is hard to interpret in empirical research.

In clinical setting, the DSM-IV deﬁnes narcissistic disorder as having ﬁve (or more)

43

symptoms out of nine descriptions. In empirical setting, a multidimensional construct is
difﬁcult to verify the target construct because it produces each problem whether it is
summed across subscales or treated as a distinct feature of each subscale all the time. Ifa
multidimensional construct is summed, data can be misleading because a person who had
one or two extremely high and low scores on speciﬁc subscales can be treated equally
with a person who has stably high scores on all subscales. If every subscale is treated as
one distinctive construct, then we can question “Is it really one construct?” For example,
the new narcissism construct has three factors — entitlement, grandiosity, and
exhibitionism. If we regard these subscales as unique, they are just entitlement,
grandiosity, and exhibitionism, respectively. Empirically, there is no evidence that
narcissism exists. In sum, the construct validation is a necessary and signiﬁcant process
of social science and should be precise to make claim for certain concept, but it still
needs conceptual and statistical development.

Second, there is the validation problem in self-presentation tactics as well. The
present study showed perplexing results according to response types. Sizable
discrepancies between self-rating responses and open-ended responses are seriously
problematic for interpreting results. Low correlation between rating Self Presentational
Inﬂuence Tactics (SPIT) and coded SPIT cannot guarantee the generalizability of the
ﬁndings. Low Cohen’s kappa for coded variables showed a major problem. Krippendorﬁ'
(2004) noted that when the four chance-corrected agreement coeﬁcients for the data turn
out to be near zero, it suggests the virtual absence of reliability. In this sense, low
Cohen’s kappa of this study resulting from low variation of occurrence in tactic usages
does not guarantee reliable measurement of coded SPIT variable and its ﬁndings.

These low correlations and reliabilities may be caused by four potentials: weak

44

scenarios which might not draw a variety of responses ﬁom respondents, restriction in
range inherent in strategy, problems of coding schemes, and inherent difficulties of self-
reported measures. To remedy the ﬁrst problem, ﬁrture research on self-presentational
issues may require more deﬁned scenarios and broad pre-testing before the main study.
For the reliable coding scheme of self-presentation, the Self Presentation Inﬂuence
Tactics (SPIT) this study invented may need revision. Since self-presentation has been a
blurred concept and over-expanded to many areas, a more focused approach such as one
tactic by different methods or settings could be more fruitﬁrl than a typology approach.
Third, in addition to problems of the open—ended questionnaire, the social
interaction setting itself matters. The present study assumes that narcissism is
pathological across situations and investigates its effect in a formal setting with relatively
new encounters that can occur in a classroom setting. However, a signiﬁcant pathological
narcissism was found, particularly in the areas of interpersonal relations and reactiveness.
For example, Ronningstam et al. (1995) found that an important indicator for the more
enduring forms of narcissistic personality disorder was the capacity to form commitments
to others. Chronically, people who suffer from narcissistic personality disorder have
difﬁculty in maintaining intimate relationships and deriving satisfaction ﬁ'om the
relationship itself. Recent research found that narcissism was associated with a game-
playing love style and narcissists’ self-reports of game playing were conﬁrmed by their
partners in past and current relationships (Campbell, Foster, & Finkel, 2002) and
narcissism was negatively related to commitment (Campbell & Foster, 2002). As such,
narcissistic behaviors may cause detrimental effects in intimate relationships rather than

in casual relationships.

45

Conclusions

Despite several drawbacks, the results conﬁrmed that narcissism showed
signiﬁcant associations with using self-presentation tactics to inﬂuence others. This study
overviews narcissistic association in self-presentation. Regarding general questions about
their self-presentation tactics, it was found that narcissists are likely to perceive
themselves as vivid impression managers. Given certain situations, narcissism was
related to showing intimidating strategy to inﬂuence others. In general, the present
ﬁndings do not support that narcissism is dramatically detrimental in social interaction
with a lack of social skill.

Concerning the narcissism construct, the two narcissism scales were fruitﬁrl in
predicting relationships with self-presentation in a same way. The MT contributes
towards showing the negative psychological well-being of individuals, which is low self-
esteem in accordance with what underlying narcissism mechanism predicts. Meanwhile
the new narcissism scale with a valid factor model contributes to replicating previous
common empirical ﬁndings in accordance with high self-esteem and dominance
association. It is clear that the MT scale this study employed, instead of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (NPI), is a promising tool to study narcissism for the ﬁrture.
Advanced validation techniques may be needed to compare and contrast the many
variables to reﬁne the narcissism construct. Follow-up research should examine
narcissism in more diverse situations.

Theory integration in research aids in the development of a more complex
understanding of personality such as narcissism. This study tries to demonstrate the
parsimonious construct of narcissism and corresponding measures of narcissism. Since

narcissistic personality has been rarely studied in the communication ﬁeld despite its

46

 

 

 

 

 

importance, this study advances our understanding in plausible connections between
narcissistic personality and communication behavior. As one of the predictors of unique
communication patterns, relationship formation and maintenance, narcissism may be a

promising but challenging construct to delve into for the future.

47

Footnotes

 

' Soyeretal(2001,p.246)reponedﬂtatPsyInfodatri1asereferenwstommissismandtoﬂrc
narcissisticpersonality increasedfrom 405 inthe 10-year periodofl969-1978, to 1,322 during 19781988,
andto 1,971 during 1989-1998.

2 Soupsychorogiasasmsspoaawseu-mmngmseH-deupammamasammwor
hmnanbehaviorapplieabletoallnorrnaLpsychologieally healthy individuals(Paulhus&Reid, 1991;
Taylor, 1989).

3 PmsimmimmhngmgeleadsuswmlkabommenmcissistmnmcissisﬁcuﬂividmlSmh
wordingmyamteﬂwimesﬁmmmmsnmisaeuegonmlandmmmntahmmuﬂly
andernpirieally,however,amrcissisﬁcpemomhty(asopposedmaCMdiagnosis)isaconﬁmms
varhbkwhmegmﬁommyemmudmﬂnmmfemwmempemnfmmof
expression, dremnhorreahzesandadvocatesminldngabGnmomorlessnmciaﬁsﬁcpeople.

‘ 'l'heselfemergestlnwghsocialinteraction (comm, 1959; Mead, 1934).]ntermsofdeﬁning
commummmanmgsodalnnaacﬁmCmvermdephy(2000)mteﬂm‘1heessenceof
communicationistheformationandexpression ofanidernity" (p. 125). Communieaﬁonthenisintegralto
meongomgmgoﬁaﬁonofxmaMsMﬂdbeammumgWMChmdiﬁduakmedeﬁmdwmhemm
they, inumdeﬁneamlredeﬁnethemselves (Coover&Murphy, 2000). Thecommunicatedselftl'esans
om’sidmﬁtyﬂongmmydimmsimsmrmghmdalimmmfacﬂhaﬁngadapmﬁmmdiﬁenm
communication settings For narcissists, however, once established as the grandiose self, narcissists not
onlyarebhndmdnndiverseaspeasofownselfhnalmhymusemhemmdsimaionsmservetheirown
grandiose self concept, which precludes effective communication

5 RaskinandTerry (1988) identiﬁed the seven Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) factors:
Authority, Exhibitionism, Superiority, Vanity, Exploitativeness, Entitlement, and Self- Sufﬁciency.
However, cventhoughusingthesameNPl, Emmons’s (1984) factoranalysis showed fourseparatefactors
he labeled as Exploitativeness/Entitlement, Leaderships/Authoriry, Superiority/Arrogance, and Self-
Absorptiorr/SeH-Adrniration Foranotherexample, Carroll, Hoenigmann-Stovall, and Whitehad III’s
(l996)resultsmdicamdeNﬁdpanmdidnmdiscﬁnnmbetweenﬂnfaamofenntkMandself-
absorption

48

 

6 Someresponses were diﬂ’rcult to code. Some examples of the diﬁ’rculties encountered included;
l)Sommimrwonwmrﬁmsmnuammmereponedbehaﬁm.mmismse,mebemmmmded
2)Remarksof “helping out,” “extrahand,”etc.werecodcdas cooperation. For example “lwillbea
gremhdpmthegrmrp,”asmopaaﬁmbmmhatamslike“value,”“mmnber,”etc.werccodedasself-
promotion, 3) “I would REALLY/GEATLYNERY MUCH like tobe inyour group” werccodedas
ingraﬁaﬁonBUTjustphin“Iworﬂdﬁketobe(oramiﬂerested)inyourgroup”wasncthing,4)“Allow
me,”“IREALLYneedymnpernﬁssionyourhelporagoodgrade,”and ”Thisclassorgradeis
REALLYIMPORTAN'I‘tome”werecodedassupplicationbeeause“allow”and“permission”assume
power gapand “need” and “importance “expresses the other’s assistance, 5) “I would REALLYappreciate
itifyouwoulddo...”or“Itwouldbeabighelporfavorifyouwoulddo...”werecodedassupplication
butplain“thankyou”wasnothing6)“lamreallysorryorapologizethatlmisscdafewmeetings
because ..... ”wascodedassupplication Bm“....sorry(plainsorry)BUTIdidmybest”ccuntsasself-
promotion.

7 NocodemagreedthtimimidaﬁmmcﬁcwasmlyusedmwemﬁolshowingWAofdwmw
percentagreementbatduetoabsenceofcasescausedittobeimpossibletocalculateCohen’sxreliability
WMChmnwmmechamecormedaywmemCoderAreponedmpesenmdimimidaﬁmmcﬁcam
CoderBreportedﬁvecasesoutofl78sample.AccordingtoKrippendorﬂ'(2004),whenthefourchance-
mrmaedagwnmmeﬂidmmforﬂndammanmbemarzaojtmggeﬂsmeﬁmnlabsemed'
reliability. For this reason, coded intimidation tactic in scenario 1 could not yield any reliability index such

asCohenxorScott’srt.

49

References

American Psychiatric Association (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders : DSM-HI-R (3rd ed). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Association

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders : DW-IV (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Assor, A, Aronoﬂ', J., & Messe, L. A (1986). An experimental test of defensive
processes in impression formation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
50(3), 644-650.

Bannett, J. B. (1988). Power and inﬂuence as distinct personality traits: Development and
validation of a psychometric measure. Journal of Research in Personality, 22,
361-394.

Baumeister, R F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatening egotism to
viloence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review,
103, 5-33.

Beatty, M. J. (1998). Future directions in communication: Trait theory and research. In M.
James C, J. A Daly, M. M. Martin & M. J. Beatty (Eds), Communication and
personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 309-319). New Jersey: Hampton.

Biscardi, D., & Schill, T. (1985). Correlations of narcissistic traits with defensive style,
machiavellianism, and empathy. Psychological Reports, 57(2), 354.

Brehm, S. S., Miller, R S., Perlman, D., & Campbell, S. M (2002). Intimate
relationships. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Buss, D. M., & Chiodo, L. M. (1991). Narcissistic acts in everyday life. Journal of
Personality, 59, 179-215.

Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A (2002). Narcissism and commitment in romantic
relationships: An investment model analysis. Personality & Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28(4), 484-495.

Campbell, W. K, Foster, C. A, & Finkel, E. J. (2002). Does self-love lead to love for
others? A story of narcissistic game playing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 340-354.

Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G D., Sedikides, C., & Elliot, A J. (2000). Narcissism and

 

a,"

comparative self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in Personality,
34(3), 329-347.

Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E. A, & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the
positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 358-368.

Carroll, L. (1987). A study of narcissism, aﬁ'rliation, intimacy, and power motives among
students in business administration Psychological Reports, 61, 355-358.

Carroll, L., Hoenigmann-Stovall, G I., & Whitehead, G 1., 1]]. (1996). The interpersonal
impact of narcissism: A comparative study of entitlement and self-absorption
factors. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11(3), 601-613.

Catt, I E. (1986). Rhetoric and narcissism: A critique of ideological selﬁsm Western
Journal of Speech Communication, 50(3), 242-253.

Chaﬁ‘ee, S. H., & Berger, C. R (1987). What communication scientists do. In C. R
Berger & S. H. Chaﬂ'ee (Eds), Hanﬂook qfcommunication science (pp. 99-122).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cooper, A M. (1998). Further developments in the clinical diagnosis of narcissistic
personaltiy disorder. In E. F. Ronningstam (Ed), Disorders of Narcissism:
Diagnositc, Clinical, turd Empirical Implications (pp. 53-74). Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press.

Cooper, A M., & Ronningstarn, E. F. (1992). Narcissistic personality disorder. In A
Tasman & M. B. Riba (Eds), American psychiatric press review of psychiatry
(Vol. 11, pp. 80-97). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Coover, G E., & Murphy, S. T. (2000). The communicated self: Exploring the interaction
between selfand social context. Human Communication Research, 26(1), 125-
147.

Cronbach, L. J ., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.
Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual diﬂ‘erences in empathy: Evidence for a
multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,
113-126.

Derber, C. (1979). The pursuit of attention: Power and individualism in everyday life.
Boston: G K. Hall.

Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Palmer, M. T. (1999). Structuring the concept of
relational communication. Communication Monographs, 66, 49-65.

51

Ellis, H. (1927). The concept of narcissism Psychoanalytic Review, 14, 129-153.

Emmons, R A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3 ), 291 -3 00.

Emmons, R A (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 52(1), 11-17.

Fiske, D. W. (1971). Measuring the concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine.

Freud, S. (1914). On narcissism: An introduction. In J. Strachey (Ed), The sttnrdard
edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14 (1957), pp.
73-102). London: Hogarth Press.

Godﬁ'ey, D. K., Jones, E. E., & Lord, C. G (1986). Self-promotion is not ingratiating.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50(1), 106-115.

Goﬁ‘man, E. (1955). On face work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction.
Psychiatry, 18, 319-345.

Goﬂ‘man, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.

Gough, H. G (1969). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory (rev. ed). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hogan, R (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed), Nebraska
symposium on motivation (Vol. 29, pp. 55-89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Prss.

Honoree, A L. (2000). Personality and impression management: An interactionist
perspective. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social
Sciences, 60(12-A), 4506.

Hunter, J., & Gerbing, D. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor
analysis, and causal models. Research in Organizational Behavior; 4, 267-320.

John, O. P., & Robins, R W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual
diﬁ‘erences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality
& Social Psychology, 66(1), 206-219.

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-
presentation. In J. Suls (Ed), Psychological perspectives on the self Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Kemberg, O. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissisrrr. New York:

52

Jason Aronson.

Kemberg, P. F. (1998). Developmental aspects of normal and pathological narcissism. In
E. F. Ronningstam (Ed), Disorders of Narcissism: Diagnostic, clinical, and
empirical implications (pp. 103-120). Northvale, NJ: Aronson.

Kernis, M. H., & Sun, C. (1994). Narcissism and reactions to interpersonal feedback.
Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 4-13.

Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the sea New York: International Universities Press.

Kopelman, R E., & Mullins, L. S. (1992). Is narcissism inversely related to satisfaction?
An example of data from two US. samples. The Journal of Psychology, 126, 121-
130.

Krippendorﬁ; K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions
and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30, 411-433.

Leary, M. R (1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal
behavior. Madison: Brown &Benchmark.

Leary, M. R, & Kowalski, R M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review
and two—component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.

Leary, T. (1956). A rrranual for the use of the interpersonal system of personality. Berkely,
CA: Psychological Consultation Service.

Levine, T. R (1992). The ejects of power and message factors upon success in gaining
compliance. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI.

Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buﬂ‘er against stress-related illness
and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 663-676.

Margolis, H. D., & Thomas, V. (1980). The measurement of narcissism in adolescents
with and without behavioral and emotional disabilities. United States
International University, San Diego, CA

Marshall, L. J. (1990). The development of paper turd pencil measures of need for
aﬁliation turd need for achievement. Unpublished Preliminary Paper, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, M].

Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive ﬂexibility.
Psychological Reports, 76, 623-626.

Mead, G H. (1934). Mind self and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

53

Miller, G R, & Nicholson, H. E. (1976). Communication inquiry : a perspective on a
process. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Miller, G R, & Steinberg, M. (1975). Between People: A new analysis of interpersonal
communication. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Millon, T. (1998). DSM narcissistic persornlity disorder: Historical reﬂections and future
directions. In E. F. Ronningstam (Ed), Disorders of Narcissism: Diagnostic,
clinical, and empirical implications (pp. 75-101). Northvale, NJ: Aronson.

Morey, L. C., & Jones, J. K. (1998). Empirical studies of the construct validity of
narcissistic personality. In E. F. Ronningstam (Ed), Disorders of Narcissism:
Diagnostic, Clinical, and Empirical Implications (pp. 351-372). Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press.

Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (1993). Narcissism and self-evaluation maintenance:
Explorations in object relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Mullins, L. S., & Kopelman, R E. (1987). Narcissism as a moderator of the relationship
between job characteristics and job reactions. Journal of Business & Psychology,
1(3), 264-275.

Mullins, L. S., & Kopelman, R E. (1988). Toward an assessment of the construct validity
of four measures of narcissism. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(4), 610-
625.

Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable
responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307-317.

Pervin, L. A (2002). Current controversies and issues in personality (3rd ed). New York:
Wiley.

Pin, E. J. (1985). The pleasure of your company: A soda-psychological analysis of
modern sociability. New York: Praeger.

Raskin, R, & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological
Reports, 45, 590.

Raskin, R, Novacek, J., & Hogan, R (1991). Narcissistic self-esteem management.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 60(6), 911-918.

Raskin, R, & Shaw, R (1988). Narcissism and the use of personal pronouns. Journal of
Personality, 56(2), 393-404.

Raskin, R, & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic

54

as.

-.¢

 

Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 54(5), 890-902.

Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1995). Self and interpersonal correlates of the narcissistic
personality inventory: A review and new ﬁndings. Journal of Research in
Personality, 29, 1-23.

Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1998). On self-aggrandizement and anger: Atemporal
analysis of narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 74(3), 672-685.

Robbins, S. B., & Dupont, P. (1992). Narcissistic needs of the self and perceptions of
interpersonal behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 462-467 .

Ronningstam, E., Gunderson, J., & Lyons, M. (1995). Changes in pathological narcissism.
Americrm Journal of Psychiatry, 152(2), 253-257.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Ruiz, J. M., Smith, T. W., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Distinguishing narcissism and
hostility: Similarities and differences in interpersonal circumplex and ﬁve-factor
correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76(3), 537-555.

Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Mnston.

Soyer, R B., Rovenpor, J. L., Kopelman, R E., Mullins, L. S., & Watson, P. J. (2001).
Further assessment of the construct validity of four measures of narcissism:
Replication and extension. Journal of Psychology, 135(3), 245-258.

Stiff, J. B., Dillard, J. P., Somera, L., Kim, H., & Sleight, C. (1988). Empathy,
communication, and prosocial behavior. Communication Monographs, 55, 198-
213.

Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions : creative self-deception and the healthy mind.
New York: Basic Books.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In B.
R Schlenker (Ed), The self and social life (pp. 293-322). New York: McGrow-
hill.

Vangelisti, A L., Knapp, M. L., & Daly, J. A (1990). Conversational narcissism.
Communication Monographs, 5 7, 251-274.

Watson, P. J., Grisharn, S. 0., Trotter, M. V., & Biderman, M. D. (1984). Narcissism and

55

empathy: Validity evidence for the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 48(3), 301-305.

Watson, P. J., Little, T., Sawrie, S. M., & Biderman, M. D. (1992). Measures of the
narcissistic personality: Complexity of relationships with self-esteem and empathy.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 43 4-449.

Watson, P. J., Talyor, D., & Morris, R J. (1987). Narcissism, sex roles, and self-
ﬁrnctioning. Sex Roles, 16, 335-3 50.

Westen, D. (1990). The relations among narcissism, egocentricism, self-concept, and self-
esteem: Experimental, clinical, and theoretical considerations. Psychoanalysis and
Contemporary Thought, 13, 183-239.

\Vrggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The
interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 3 7, 39-412.

ka, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
61(4), 590-597.

Wolfe, R N., Lennox, R D., & Cuttler, B. L. (1986). Getting along and getting ahead:

Empirical support for a theory of protective and acquisitive self-presentation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 3 56-361.

56

Appendix A Informed Consent Form

Title of Study: Communication Traits and Message Behaviors

Researcher: Dr. Timothy R Levine, Eunsoon Lee
e-mail: levinet@msu.edu,leeeunsZ @msu.edu.
Department of Communication Ofﬁce: CAS 482
Michigan State University Phone: 43 2-1 124

Information

We are interested in people’s communication traits and message behavior. You will be
asked to ﬁll out a questionnaire containing a couple of standardized scales, and three
hypothetical situations that require open-ended responses. Finally, you will be asked to
provide some basic demographic information. All answers are CONFIDENTIAL. Your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The total time
necessary is about forty-ﬁve minutes. Following completion of the research task, you will
be debriefed about the purpose of this research.

Participation in this study is voluntary, and you may withdraw your consent to participate
at any time without penalty.

While this study is not expected to yield any immediate beneﬁt to the individual
participations, it will add to the general store of Communication knowledge. There are no
anticipated risks associated with participation.

You will receive extra-credit in your class in exchange for your participation if your
instructor has previously agreed to provide extra-credit. Ifyou would receive extra-credit
in exchange for your participation, you can get an equivalent amount of credit by doing
an alternative should you choose not to participate in this study.

The ﬁnal results of the study will be made available, probably by the end of Spring of
2003. To obtain the report, please contact Tim Lwine at the above address or Eunsoon
(Soony) Lee at (517) 927-0815.

For questions regarding your rights as a human subject of research, contact UCRIHS

Chair: Ashir Kumar, MD, 202 Olds Hall, Telephone: (517) 355-2180, Email:
ucrihs@msu.edu

I voluntarily age to Ma'cr'pqte in this study.

 

 

 

 

Print your name Your signature Date

 

 

Your Instructor’s name Class and section you are receiving extra or research credit in

57

Appendix B. MT Narcissism Scale (Margolis-Thomas)

This section contains a series of statements on personality traits. Please choose the
member of each pair that you believe is more descriptive of yourself and circle the
corresponding letter of “A” or “B” that precedes that statement. For example:

A. I usually feel that life is worthwhile.
B. I rarely feel that life is worthwhile.

If you feel that the ﬁrst statement is more like you, then circle “A” Ifyou feel that the
second statement is more like you, then circle “B.” Select only one member of the pair of
statements.

1. A I am not concerned with looking good at all times.
B. I am concerned with looking good at all times.‘
2 A I tend to exaggerate my achievement so others will accept and respect me.
B. I try not to exaggerate my achievement, but sometimes my pride appears
as bragging.
3 A When I experience criticism and defeat, I learn about areas which need
improvement.
B. When I experience criticism and defeat, it reinforces my weakness and
inadequacies.
4 A When I give something my all but come up short, others still appreciate it.
B. When I give something my all but come up short, others don’t appreciate
it.
5 A I usually go out of my way to make sure that a person knows that I helped
him or her.
B. I like to help others even if they don’t know that I did it.
6 A Even when I am by myself, I rarely feel alone and uneasy.
B. Even when I am in a group of ﬁiends, I oﬁen feel very alone and uneasy.
7 A It would be nice to earn the attention and admiration of others.
B. It is very important that others pay attention to and admire what I do.
8 A. When ﬁiends play a joke on me, I try to enjoy it with them.
B. When ﬁiends play a joke on me, I wonder if they are laughing at me.
9 A. I foresee the day when life will be ideal.
B. I foresee the day when life will be better for me.*
10 A. It is partially my responsibility to be aware of others’ needs.
B. It is my responsibility to meet my own needs and nobody else’s.
11 A My life seems to have a normal number of ups and downs.
B. My life seems to have more than its share of downs.
12 A. I enjoy being with just a few select ﬁiends at parties.
B. I enjoy being the center of everyone’s attention at parties.
13 A. It is better to be yourself than to be popular.
B. It is better to be popular than to be yourself.

58

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

A Given the opportunity, I will take advantage without feeling guilty.

B. I ﬁnd it difﬁcult to take advantage of others.

A Itryto appreciateitwhenothershavewhatllack.

B. I resent others having what I lack.

A ldonotexpectotherstogooutoftheirway forme.

B. I do expect others to go out oftheir way for me.

A When I have been irresponsible, I try to lie my way out of it.

B. When I have been irresponsible, I am prepared to face the consequences.

A Howl appear to people is more important than how I feel.

B. Howl appear to people is not as important as how I feel

A Impressing others is important to get ahead.

B. Impressing others is okay only when it is truthful self-expression.

A I do not deceive others in order to obtain something.

B. I may deceive others by being ﬁiendly when I really dislike them in order
to obtain something.

A I tend to become involved in relationships in which I alternately adore and
despise my partner.

B. I tend to become involved in stable, long-lasting relationships.

A I am bound by the principle of fairness only when it is to my beneﬁt.

B. I am always bound by the principle of fairness.

A Life has been fairly exciting, but I am still not satisﬁed with it.

B. Life has been fairly exciting, and I am content with it.

A Defeat or disappointment usually make me try harder.

B. Defeat or disappointment usually shame or anger me, but I try not to show
it.

Note. * Items deleted after initial screening.

59

 

 

J . .‘ -
. ,
ﬂ
' i
, .
. . f ,
..
. l .

,

. _ , . -.
_ _‘. ‘ .‘
, r , '
. .
a-. .
. ' _
. . “ i
, . * . .
. v
- t . , .‘ l
I ‘\ . ' ‘ ’
. , l r
« . t ' '
. ., . i, ., .
.‘ 51- , ‘ .‘

 

Appendix C. Narcissism Scale by Levine

Please answer the following questions by using the scale below. Put the numberwhich
best reﬂects your answer in the space provided next each statement.

5 = Strongly Agree

4 = Agree
3 = Not sure or Neutral
2 = Disagree
1 = Strongly Disagree
Entitlement
1. I deserve praise and recognition ﬁom others.
___2. I feel I am entitled to favorable treatment from others.
___3. I am resentful when others don’t treat me well.‘
_4. I consider myself to be a deserving person.
__5. I have a sense of entitlement.
_6. I get uncomfortable when it seems I am getting special treatment .*
_____7. I want to be treated just like everyone else .*
Exhibitionism
__l. I enjoy being the center of attention.
_2. I sometimes “show oﬂ” to other people.
_3. I like talking about myself."
___4. I like people to pay attention to me.‘
_5. I am a modest person.’
_6. I am uncomfortable being the center of attention.
Grandiosity
____1. Deep down, Ithink I am better than most other people.
____2. I am more successful tlmn most of my ﬁiends.
____3. I often feel a sense of superiority over others.
___4. Other people often envy me.
__5. I am better than most other people.
_6. I am really kind of an average person.‘
__7. I often daydream about doing great things."I

Note. * Items deleted after initial screening before CFA.

Appendix D. Self-Esteem

Please answer the following questions by using the scale below. Put the number which
best reﬂects your answer in the space provided next each statement.

I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others.
I feel that I have a number of good qualities.

All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.

I am able to do things as well as most other people

I feel that I do not have much to be proud of.

I take a positive attitude toward myself.

On the whole, I am satisﬁed with myself.

I wish I could have more respect for myself.

I certainly feel useless at times.
_0.Attimeslthink1amnogoodatall.

61

Appendix E. Need for Control

Please answer the following questions by using the scale below. Put the number which
best reﬂects your answer in the space provided next each statement.

3 = Not sure or Neutral
2 = Disagree
1 = Strongly Disagree

I try to be the dominant person when I am with people.

I try to take charge of things when I am with people.

I try to have others do things I want done.

I try to inﬂuence other people’s actions

I try to have other people do things the way I want them done.

Dominance Scale of CPI (California Psychological Inventory)

Read each one, decide how you feel about it. If you agree with a statement, or feel that it
is true about you, indicate T (TRUE), if you disagree with a statement, or fell that it is not
true about you, indicate F (FALSE). Be sure to answer either TRUE or FALSE for every
statement, even if you have to guess at some!

1. I doubt whetherI would make a good leader.

_2. I think I would enjoy having authority over other mph.

_3. I ﬁnd it hard to keep my mind on atask orjob.‘

4. I have sometimes stayed away from another person because I feared doing or
saying something that I might regret afterwards.”

_5. When in a group of people I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk
about.

_F____6. School teachers complain a lot about their pay, but it seems to me that they get
as much as they deserve.‘

__ ___7. I don’t blame anyone for trying to grab all he can get in this world."I

_8. Every citizen should take the time to ﬁnd out about national affairs, even if it
means giving up some personal pleasures.‘

__ __9. I should like to belong to several clubs or lodges. "‘

_ _10. I am certainly lacking in self-conﬁdence.

_ _11. When I work on a committee I like totake charge ofthings.

_ _12. Ifgiven the chance I would make a good leader of people.

__ _13. Sometimes at elections I vote for men about whom I know very little.*

__ _14. I very much like hunting"

15. A person does not need to worry about other people if only he looks aﬂer

himself.”
_F 16. I can honestly say that I do not really mind paying my taxes because I fell

can-.-

”11"!1'1'1'1'1

lv-l t-lt-it-lt-l
"1'1'15 ”11"1'1 '11"!!! "1'1

"l'l'fl

t-i t-l—lt-lt-it-it-it-l 1-11-1 1-1
'1']

62

 

 

i
.
r
i
. i
V I

 

that’s one of the things I can do for what I get form the community.‘

T_F_17. When prices are high you can’t blame a person for getting all he can while the
getting is good"

T_F_18. In school I found it very hard to talk before the class.

T_F_19. I am a better talker than a listener.’

T_F_ZO. I would be willing to give money myself in order to right a wrong, even
though I was not mixed up in it in the ﬁrst place.’

T_F_Zl. We should cut down on our use of oil, if necessary, so that they will be plenty
left for the people ﬁfty or a hundred years from now.‘

T_F_ZZ. When the community makes a decision, it is up to a person to help carry it out
even ifhe had been against it.”

T_F_23. I would rather have people dislike me than look down on me.*

T_F_24. I must admit I try to see what others think before I take a stand“

T_F_25. People should not have to pay taxes for the schools if they do not have

children.‘I

_ _26. In a group, I usually take the responsibility for getting people introduced.

_ _27. I would be willing to describe myself as a pretty “strong” personality.

_ _28. There are times when I act like a coward.

_ _29. I must admit I am a pretty fair talker.

_ _30. I have strong political Opinion"

_ __31. Ithink I am usually a leader in my group.

_32. I seem to do things that I regret more often than other people do.

__33. Disobedience to any government is never justiﬁed.‘

_ _34. I enjoy planning things, and deciding what each person should do.

__35. I would rather not have very much responsibility for other people.

_ _36. I usually have to stop and think before I act even in triﬂing matters.”

__ _3 7. It is pretty easy for people to win arguments with me.‘

_ _38. I have not lived the right kind of life.

_ _39. I have a natural talent for inﬂuencing people.

_ __40. I like to give orders and get things moving.

_ _41. I am embarrassed with people I do not know well.

_42. The one to whom I was most attached and whom I most admired as a child

was a woman (mother, sister, aunt, or other woman). "‘

_F_43. I’m not the type to be a political leader.

__F_44. People seem naturally to turn to me when decisions have to be made.

__F 45. I dislike to have to talk in front of a group of people.

”11"1'1'11'1'1

'11"?!

t-lt-lt-lt-lt-lt-it-lt-i
'11

Flt-1
"rl'l'l

mmm-umI-rr

aae aeaaaaa
"l'l'l'l

1-1

F _46. I have more trouble concentrating than others seem to have. *

Note. * Items deleted for analysis.

63

Appendix F. Perspective Taking

Please answer the following questions by using the scale below. Put the number which
best reﬂects your answer in the space provided next each statement.

3 = Not sure or Neutral
2 = Disagree
1 = Strongly Disagree

_1. Before I criticize somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel in their place.

______2. If I’m sure I’m right about something, I don’t waste much time listening to other
people’s arguments. “

3. I believe there are two sides to every question, and I try to look at both of them.

4. I sometimes ﬁnd it difficult to see things ﬁ'om the other person’s point of view.

5. I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision.

6. When I am upset at someone, I usually try to put myself in his or her “shoes” for a
while.

__7. I usually try to see things from other people’s point of view.

_8. When I’m talking to other people, I try to understand their point of view.

____9. I am good at taking other people’s perspectives.

Empathic Concern
10. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward
them.‘
11. When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don’t feel much pity for
them.”
12. I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.*
13. I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person.‘
14. Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal.*
15. I am often touched by the things that I see happen"

Note. * Items deleted after initial screening before CFA.

 

 

Appendix G SPIT (Self-Presentation Inﬂuence Tactics)

The following questions address making impressions and how other people see you.
Please rate each item regarding how often you do each of the following with the scale
provided.

5 = Very often

4 = Somewhat often

3 = Once and a while

2 = Almost never

1 = Nevere
Self-promotion
1. To make a good impression on others, I try to let people know about my
accomplishments.

_2. To make a good impression on others, 1 brag about my strengths.

__3. To make a good impression, I try to make myself look good by focusing on my
achievements.

_4. To make a good impression, I try to make myself look good by focusing on my
good qualities.

__5. I practice self-promotion to make a good impression on others.‘

_6. I try to create an image of competence by emphasizing my eﬂ‘orts.’

Ingratiation
__1. To make a good impression on others, I ﬂatter the people I want to impress.
__2. I am nice to other people so that they will like me more.
3. To make a good impression on others, I try to compliment others.
4. I get people to like me by being nice to them.
5. I practice ingratiation to make a good impression on others.‘I
6. I try to be enthusiastic and supportive of others’ eﬁ‘orts or accomplishments. "'
7. I am willing to do personal favors for others to make a good impression.

llll

Intimidation

1. To make a good impression on others, I act powerful and controlling.
2. I act dominant and assertive to make an impression on others.

3. I take charge to other’s will respect me.

4. Itrytobeastrongleadersootherswill lookuptome.‘

5. I intimidate others to get my way.

Supplication

___1. I do self put-downs.

__2. I practice self-deprecating humor.

__3. I try to make others feel sorry for me.*

__4. I try to emphasize my dependence on other people for assistance, to make a
proper impression on others. *

_5. I am quick to admit my weakness so I can make a proper impression.’

Note. * Items deleted after initial screening before CFA.

65

 

all. :1

 

I
. r .
. a s .
.. a r
’t
t c
. I ..
o . .
.l' . r .
. a . 4 i _
I. a a
. . .
r .r t
l\ .
. . V
, I
. . . . s
V . r ,
r
v r C
. .1 y
t s t
s {I
l .I . i i .
t o .. .
i a
s .
4 . i t t
9 -
. O .
. a .
t J
.

Appendix H. SPIT (Self-Presentation Inﬂuence Tactics)

 

 

Instruction: Imagine you are in each of the hypothetical situations described below. For
each, describe in detail what you might say or do.

 

Scenario 1

Imagine that you are taking a class that has a group assignment. The class is in your
major and it is important to you to get a good grade in this class. The group project is
worth a big part of your ﬁnal grade. Half of group grade is the same for all group
members, and half of the grade is an individual grade assigned by the group leader.

You missed class on the day (for reasons beyond your control) other students in the
class picked their groups. There is one particular group you really want to join. All
the members seem smart, reliable, and nice, but you don’t know them well. You think that
if you become a member of that group, a good grade will be guaranteed.

The instructor says you can join that group if the group leader will allow you in.
Otherwise, you will have to be a group of other people who missed class, and that would
not be good. So, you need to e-mail the group leader and ask the group leader if you
can join in the group.

Write an e-mail to the group leader below:

Scenario 2

Same situation as above. Imagine that you are taking a class that has a group
assignment. The class is in your major and it is important to you to get a good grade in
this class. The group project is worth a big part of your ﬁnal grade. Half of group
grade is the same for all group members, and half of the grade is an individual grade
assigned by the group leader.

You missed class (for reasons beyond your control) on the day other students in the
class picked their groups. There is one particular group you really want to join. All
the members seem smart, reliable, and nice, but you don’t know them well. You think
that if you become a member of that group, a good grade will be guaranteed.

There is another student besides you that wants into the group, but there is only space
in the group for one of you. After class you see the “competition” (the other person who
wants in the group) in the hallway. What would you say to him/her?

Scenario 3

Now, move ahead in the ﬁrture. Imagine now that your group project is done.
You have become wonied about your individual evaluation by the group leader because,
while you did your best, you could not help missing some meetings from time to time
because you had to work. Also, you took charge of a relatively small part of your group
project.

Now, you want to have an opportunity to talk about your circumstance to the group
leader before the semester ends. That opportunity presents itself when you run into your
group leader in the library.

Describe in detail how you would communicate your concerns to the group leader
below:

 

 

I.
.l

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities for Eight Independent and Dependent
Variables

 

 

Variable (N=l78) M SD or or % Mean Range
Entitlement (N = 176)* 3.54 (3.56)* .72 (.67)* .77 1 ~ 5
Exhibitionism 3.25 1.00 .77 1 ~ 5
Grandiosity 2.71 .87 .83 1 ~ 5
Perspective-Taking 3.60 .64 .84 , 1 ~ 5
Self-Esteem (N = 177)* 3.98 (3.99)” .63 (.60)* .85 1 ~ 5
Need for Control 2.92 .85 .83 1 ~ 5
Sum ofMT 5.09 3.51 .74 0 ~ 22
Sum of Dominance 15.60 4.54 .83 0 ~ 22
Self-Promotion (SP) 2.77 .7 7 .79 1 ~ 5
Ingratiation (ING) 3.45 .72 .76 1 ~ 5
Intimidation (INT) 2.26 .80 .79 1 ~ 5
Supplication (SUP) 2.21 .95 .73 1 ~ 5
Total_SP 1.13 .76 89% 0 ~ 3
Total_ING .71 .72 88% 0 ~ 3
Total_INT .20 .50 92% 0 ~ 3
Total_SUP 1.25 .79 83% 0 ~ 3
Total_Cooperation .58 .7 3 84% 0 ~ 3

 

Note. ( )* when excluding outliers

67

.~8.V&... AQVQ: .mo.v&.

.88888 use i 81a. 4.8835 any n .53. 838:5 _aop u Hz: access: 33 u 9,: e aoeoaoaeom

.38 u awry .8588 u on .28. aaaeaz E u .5 £28383 n .Sm dozens? u :5 seasons u 9,: eoeoaoa
..zom H mm .3280 he 302 n OZ .Eoonmdnm u um meghbéooaﬁom u .5 $38855 u g0 .EmmeoEnExm .1. EB
cacao—Eem u Em .32 on. .58 ”SH: 23 .mm com 52": 92m cow oSHZ .33 33:85: 05 com Rom—So meta—ow 8% 356503
coma—8.80 gigs 30:. 8032 2:. 39:38 BEE 05 n3 883:8 $56608 corn—oboe L ransom 39: Home: 05. .862

 

 

t. No. 8.. 8. mo. No.. 8.. 3.. 3.. S. 3.. no: 8. 8.. N_.. 8.. 8.. Durant
3. t. 3. 8. N_. 8. no: mo. .5th6_
2.. .2: t. N_.. ..MN. 2.. N_. mo. 8. S. 8. 8. No. 8.. .m _. 8.. .2. Elﬁﬂ
co. N_. .2 .. t. No; 8. 2.. 8.. 3.. 3. S. 3.. mo. 8.. 8.. 8. S. 07:19.:
08. No: ..VN. 8. .t 8.. mo... 8.. .3; 8.. 3. mmth.m~
8.- 3. .2; 3. 2.. t. .2: ..2: No: S. ..3. ...mm. ...3. 8. .2. ..2. 8. 8.9
3.. N_. .2. 2.. 8.. .._N.. t. ...wm. ...wN. ...om. ..2. ...bN. ...NN.. ...ONr ...NN ...MN. ..._N. :4:
No.. N". 2. 8.. No. .33.. ...mv. 1. ...MN. ...bN. .3. ..S. ...nN. 3. ...3. .3. .3. 5mg:
8.. mo. 2. No; 3.. ...wN. ...Nv. ..N. t. .38. ...mm. .33.. S. 2.3.. ..Lm. ...om. ...MN. Ed
2. 8. 3. no. 8. 8.. ...em. ...mm. .35. t. No.. ...3: OZ;
3.. .2. no. 5.. no. 1. ...bN. .2. .39. ...Nm. 1. 8. ...Nm. mmﬁ
No; no. 2. 8.. 3.. ..nN. ...wm. ..2. ...mo. .35. ...S. .t 8. ...am. 026
No. 3.. mo. 8. 8.. ...nn. .38.. .39... E. 8.. 8. mo. 1. 8. ..m _. S. ..2. man
8.. 8.. 8.. 8.. 8.. be. ...om.. 3. ..N.. 8.. .2: ..nNr 3.9. t. 2.. Ev
N_.. 5.. :8. 8.. 8.. .2. ...om. ..ON. ...8. .2. .38. .38. ..NN .2; .t 3.8. $06
8.. 2. N7 mm. .5; ..N. ...vm. ..2. ...am. ..NN. ...on. 3.5. S. 2.. .2. t. ..oN SN
3.. mo. .2. 30. No. 8. ...eN. .5. ...mm. ...om. ...Nm. ...ow. .2. .2: ...wm. ..oN t. a;
S 2 2 3 2 N. : 2 a w h o n v m N ~

 

833.83 ~=§&8Q ES» 833qu 3833835 «:38 goggou Setuéﬂ
N 035.

68

Table 3
Summwy of Bivariate Correlations for H )potheses Testing

 

 

 

Narcissism
Tactics Entitlement Exhibitionism Grandiosity MT
Scales
Self-Promotion 32*“ (T) 30*" .26‘" 27*"
Ingratiation .34***(T) .22" .19“ 39*"
Intimidation .23*"(T) .30"*(T) .31"*(T) .28"*(T)
Supplication .14‘(T) .1411) .18"('l) .38"*(T)
Coded
Self-Promotion .04(T) -. 17* -.06 -.08
Ingratiation . 10(T) .05(T) -.O6(T) .01 (T)
Intimidation .15*(T) -.O9(T) .15‘(T) .12(T)
Supplication .08(T) . -.Ol .12
Cooperation -.05(I) -.06(T) .1201 -.O3ﬂ')

 

Note. ('1') indicates an estimated of Tau-b correlation. No marking indicates an estimate of
Pearson r correlation. N = 176 for the column of Entitlement, and n = 17 8 for the rest.
* p < .05. ”p <.Ol. "*p <.001.

69

Table 4
Summary of Multiple Regression Separately Conducted for each Sey-Presentation Tactic

 

 

 

Adjusted
Dependent Variables Dfl Dﬂ F R2
Scale
Self-Promotion (SP) 8 169 7.74 .23 “*
Ingratiation (ING) 8 169 8.27 25*"
Intimidation (INT) 8 169 21.16 .48***
Supplication (SUP) 8 169 12.78 .35“.
Coded
Total_SP 8 169 1.09 .004
Total_ING 8 169 1.40 .02
Total_INT 8 169 3.86 11*”
Total_SUP 8 169 .73 -,01
Total_Cooperation 8 169 .76 -.01

 

Note. Predictors are all entered as Entitlement, Exhibitionism, Grandiosity, Perspective-
Taking, Self-Esteem, Need for Control, MT, and Dominance
*p < .05. ‘* p <.01."*p <.001.

70

Table 5

Multiple Regression of A ll Predictors for Self-Promotion Tactic

 

 

 

p t F (on, Da) Adjusted R2
DV: Scale SP
Entitlement . 12 1.62
Exhibitionism . 12 1 .56
Grandiosity -.02 -.29
MT .08 .96 7.74 (8, 169) 23*"
Perspective-Taking -.06 -.80
Self-Esteem .07 .84
Need for control 34*" 3.89
Dominance .00 .04
DV: Coded SP
Entitlement .07 .769
Exhibitionism -. 1 5 -l .793
Grandiosity -.06 -.642
MT -.09 -.92 1.09 (8,169) .004
Perspective-Taking -.07 -.89
Self-Esteem -.01 -.05
Need for Control .06 .59
Dominance -.O9 -.89

 

Note. DV = Dependent Variable. SP = Self-promotion.

*p < .05. "p <.01. "*p <.001.

71

Q1).

Table 6

Multiple Regression of A ll Predictors for Ingratiation Tactic

 

 

 

Predictors p T F (Dfl, D12) Adjusted R2
DV: Scale ING

Entitlement .26" 3.44

Exhibitionism .04 .5 1

Grandiosity -.07 -.87

MT .24” 2.82 8.27 (8,169) 25*“

Perspective-Taking .11 1.59

Self-Esteem .01 . l7

Nwd for control .25" 2.86

Dominance -.11 -l.35
DV: Coded ING

Entitlement . 14 1.62

Exhibitionism .08 1.00

Grandiosity -. l3 -1 .37

MT -.18 -1.85 1.40 (8,169) .02

Perspective-Taking -.13 -1.57

Self-Esteem .07 .67

Need for Control .02 .24

Dominance -.O7 -.67

 

Note. DV = Dependent variable. ING = Ingratiation.
*p < .05. "p <.01. "*p <.001.

72

Table 7

Multiple Regression of A ll Predictors for Intimidation Tactic

 

 

 

Predictors p t F (Dfl, D12) Adjusted 1?.2
DV: Scale INT

Entitlement .02 .28

Exhibitioni sm . 10 1.62

Grandiosity .11 1.60

MT .26" 3.55 21.16 (8,169) .48 ""

Perspective—Taking -.04 -.61

Self-Esteem . 10 l .44

Need for control .38’” 5.30

Dominance . 14* 1.98
DV: Coded INT

Entitlement .06 .7 3

Exhibitionism -.18" -2.23

Grandiosity .22“ 2.46

MT .11 1.12 3.86 (8,169) 11"”

Perspective-Taking .04 .52

Self-Esteem .13 1.42

Need for Control .08 .86

Dominance -.24“' -2.61

 

Note. DV= Dependent variable. INT = Intimidation.

‘p < .05. " p <01. m p <.001.

73

Table 8
Multiple Regression of A ll Predicth for Supplication Tactic

 

 

 

Predictors p T F (on, Do) Adjusted R2
DV: Scale SUP

Entitlement .09 1 .29

Exhibitionism .08 1 . 10

Grandiosity .20" 2.72

MT .19* 2.35 12.78 (8,169) .35 ***

Perspective-Taking .22" 3.41

Self-Esteem -.35*** -4.32

Need for control .08 1.03

Dominance -. 18* -2.26
DV: Coded SUP

Entitlement .07 .83

Exhibitionism .07 .84

Grandiosity -.09 -.92

MT .10 .99 .73 (8,169) -.01

Perspective-Taking -.02 -. 19

Self-Esteem -.04 -.39

Need for Control -.00 -.04

Dominance .08 .82

 

Note. DV = Dependent variable. SUP= Supplication.
*p < .05. ”p <.01. "*p <.001.

74

Table 9
Multiple Regression of A ll Predictors for Cooperation Tactic

 

 

Predictors p t F (on, D12) Adjusted R2
DV: Coded COO

Entitlement -.03 -.3O

Exhibitionism -.08 -.97

Grandiosity -.17 -1.79

MT .01 -.09 .76 (8,169) -.01

Perspective—Taking -.05 -.57

Self-Esteem . 1 1 1 .05

Need for Control .11 1.06

Dominance -.09 -.88

 

Note. DV = Dependent variable. COO = Cooperation.
1‘p < .05. "p <.Ol. *"p <.001.

75

1:11 .1...

 

—-._._.Jl_ .. '

 

'IllllllillllllI111