No abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated that highly narcissistic individuals perceive themselves as grandiose and devaluate and sometimes overvalue others. These results are mainly based on behavioural data, but we still know little about the neural correlates underlying, such as perceptional processes. To this end, we investigated event-related potential components (ERP) of visual face processing (P1 and N170) and their variations with narcissism. Participants (N = 59) completed the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire and were shown pictures of their own face, a celebrity’s face, and a stranger’s face. Variations of P1 and N170 with Admiration and Rivalry were analysed using multilevel models. Results revealed moderating effects of both narcissism dimensions on the ERP components of interest. Participants with either high Admiration or low Rivalry scores showed a lower P1 amplitude when viewing their own face compared with when viewing a celebrity’s face. Moreover, the Self-Stranger difference in the N170 component (higher N170 amplitude in the Self condition) was larger for higher Rivalry scores. The findings showed, for the first time, variations of both narcissism dimensions with ERPs of early face processing. We related these effects to processes of attentional selection, an expectancy-driven perception, and the mobilisation of defensive systems. The results demonstrated that by linking self-report instruments to P1 and N170, and possibly to other ERP components, we might better understand self- and other-perception in narcissism.

Perfectionists strive for a flawless performance because they are intrinsically motivated to set and achieve high goals (personal standards perfectionism; PSP) and/or because they are afraid to be negatively evaluated by others (evaluative concern perfectionism; ECP). We investigated the differential relationships of these perfectionism dimensions with performance, post-response adaptation, error processing (reflected by two components of the event-related potential: error/correct negativity – Ne/c; error/correct positivity – Pe/c) and error detection. In contrast to previous studies, we employed a task with increased response selection complexity providing more room for perfectionistic dispositions to manifest themselves. Although ECP was related to indicators of increased preoccupation with errors, high-EC perfectionists made more errors than low-EC perfectionists. This observation may be explained by insufficient early error processing as indicated by a reduced Ne/c effect and a lack of post-response adaptation. PSP had a moderating effect on the relationship between ECP and early error processing. Our results provide evidence that pure-EC perfectionists may spend many of their cognitive resources on error-related contents and worrying, leaving less capacity for cognitive control and thus producing a structural lack of error processing.

The literature on narcissism suggests two contradictory ways how highly narcissistic individuals deal with their failures: They might avoid consciously recognising their failures to protect their ego or they might vigilantly turn towards their failures to process cues that are important for maintaining their grandiosity. We tried to dissolve these contradictory positions by studying event-related potential components of error processing and their variations with narcissism. With a speeded go/no-go task, we examined how the error-related negativity (Ne; reflecting an early, automatic processing stage) and the error positivity (Pe; associated with conscious error detection) vary with Admiration and Rivalry, two narcissism dimensions, under ego-threatening conditions. Using multilevel models, we showed that participants with high Rivalry displayed higher Ne amplitudes suggesting a heightened trait of defensive reactivity. We did not find variations of either narcissism dimension with the Pe, which would have pointed to weaker error awareness. Thus, our results only supported the second position: a heightened vigilance to errors in narcissism at early, rather automatic processing stages.

Understanding human error processing is a highly relevant interdisciplinary goal. More than 30 years of research in this field have established the error negativity (Ne) as a fundamental electrophysiological marker of various types of erroneous decisions (e.g. perceptual, economic) and related clinically relevant variations. A common finding is that the Ne is more pronounced when participants are instructed to focus on response accuracy rather than response speed, an observation that has been interpreted as reflecting more thorough error processing. We challenge this wide-spread interpretation by demonstrating that when controlling for the level of non-event-related noise in the participant-average waveform and for single-trial peak latency variability, the significant speed-accuracy difference in the participant-average waveform vanishes. This suggests that the previously reported Ne differences may be mostly attributable to a more precise alignment of neuro-cognitive processes and not (only) to more intense error processing under accuracy instructions, opening up novel perspectives on previous findings.