Issues resolved and unresolved in pathological narcissism

Abstract

Narcissism is one of the oldest personality constructs, and yet debates about its definition and structure have been a topic of intense debate over the past decade. Recent independent reviews of the literature have proposed conceptually identical triarchic structural models of individual differences in pathological narcissism. In each model entitlement serves as the core of the construct, and its expression is moderated by basic personality/temperament to manifest in exhibitionism or vulnerability. However, the clinical observation that individuals high in pathological narcissism vacillate between grandiose and vulnerable states remains understudied and poorly understood. We review the recent research that has driven the contentious debates, emerging points of consensus, and necessary future directions for research.

Exploring the structure of narcissism: Toward an integrated solution

“…The underlying structures of narcissism have been proposed previously, but most have been theoretically driven or more limited in scope (e.g., Miller, Lynam, McCain et al, ; Pincus et al, ; Wink, ). There appears to be some degree of consensus among narcissism researchers that antagonism and entitlement are defining features of the domain (Campbell & Miller, ; Krizan & Herlache, ; Pincus et al, ; Wright & Edershile, ). This is made clear by the consistency with which such content appears across the range of narcissism measures.…”

“…Although both the trifurcated model and the NSM are effective in their ability to resolve many previously identified measurement conflicts (Wright & Edershile, ), the models have limitations that must be acknowledged. In both cases, subscale scores rather than individual items were submitted to factor analytic techniques.…”

“…Narcissism refers to a collection of personality traits. However, despite a century of scientific inquiry, a consensual definition of the construct (i.e., exactly which traits should be included within the structure) is still lacking (Krizan & Herlache, ; Miller, Lynam, Hyatt, & Campbell, ; Miller, Lynam, Siedor, Crowe, & Campbell, ; Wright & Edershile, ). This lack of a clear operational definition for the construct has impaired progress and led to conflicting accounts of narcissism's empirical profile, some indicating an association with self‐confident exhibitionism and others indicating shyness and social withdrawal (see Wink, for discussion), for instance.…”

preprint_A Comprehensive Examination of Narcissists’ Self-Perceived and Actual Socioemotional Cognition Ability

“…Although conceptual and taxonomic questions (as to the exact number, nature, and labeling of these dimensions) are a matter of an ongoing debate (e.g., Back et al, 2013;Barry & Kauten, 2014;Brown, Budzek, & Tamborski, 2009;Miller & Campbell, 2008), NARCISSISTS' SOCIOEMOTIONAL COGNITION ABILITY 12 researchers have recognized that not all aspects of narcissism are associated with negative emotional or behavioral outcomes (e.g., Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010;Back et al, 2013;Barry, Frick, Adler, & Grafeman, 2007;Barry & Wallace, 2010;Campbell, 2001;Campbell & Campbell, 2009;Rose, 2002;Washburn, McMahon, King, Reinecke, & Silver, 2004;Wink, 1991). These findings have also inspired researchers to acknowledge that the heterogeneity of the narcissism construct has to be taken into consideration when examining its associated correlates (e.g., Brown et al, 2009;Krizan & Herlache, 2018;Miller, Lynam, Hyatt, & Campbell, 2017;Wright & Edershile, 2018), especially in the domain of SECA (Vonk et al, 2013). According to a recent two-dimensional reconceptualization of grandiose narcissism, the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (NARC; Back et al, 2013), the wealth of narcissistic processes and correlates can be better understood by distinguishing between agentic and antagonistic aspects of grandiose narcissism (also see Paulhus, 2001).…”

“…The present findings might also inform research about the structure and dynamics of grandiose narcissism more generally. Recent research has highlighted the two-dimensional nature of grandiose narcissism (agentic and antagonistic narcissism) and the utility to differentiate between these two dimensions when examining the correlates and consequences of narcissism (e.g., Brown et al, 2009;Krizan & Herlache, 2018;Miller et al, 2017;Paulhus, 2001;Wright & Edershile, 2018). Although both narcissistic facets are related to each other (as evidenced by substantially positive correlations between them), they often diverge in terms of their associations with other variables.…”