Ever wondered how grandiose narcissism is related to vulnerable narcissism in the general population? Hint: At very high levels of grandiosity you also see lots of vulnerability

The nonlinear association between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: An individual data meta-analysis. Emanuel Jauk, Lisa Ulbrich, Paul Jorschick, Michael Höfler, Scott Barry Kaufman, Philipp Kanske. Journal of Personality, December 3 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12692

Abstract

Objective: Narcissism can manifest in grandiose and vulnerable patterns of experience and behavior. While largely unrelated in the general population, individuals with clinically relevant narcissism are thought to display both. Our previous studies showed that trait measures of grandiosity and vulnerability were unrelated at low-to-moderate levels of grandiose narcissism, but related at high levels.

Method: We replicate and extend these findings in a preregistered individual data meta-analysis (“mega-analysis”) using data from the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI)/Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS; N = 10,519, k = 28) and the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory (FFNI; N = 7,738, k = 17).

Results: There was strong evidence for the hypothesis in the FFNI (βGrandiose < 1SD = .08, βGrandiose > 1SD = .36, βGrandiose > 2SD = .53), and weaker evidence in the NPI/HSNS (βGrandiose < 1SD = .00, βGrandiose > 1SD = .12, βGrandiose > 2SD = .32). Nonlinearity increased with age but was invariant across other moderators. Higher vulnerability was predicted by elevated antagonistic and low agentic narcissism at subfactor level.

Conclusion: Narcissistic vulnerability increases at high levels of grandiosity. Interpreted along Whole Trait Theory, the effects are thought to reflect state changes echoing in trait measures and can help to link personality and clinical models.

 DISCUSSION

This study tested the nonlinearity hypothesis on the relation of narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability using a preregistered individual data meta-analysis (mega-analysis). We observed clear evidence (moderate to large effects) for the hypothesis in the FFNI and weaker evidence (small to moderate effects) in the NPI/HSNS. Specifically, findings for the FFNI showed that there is a sizeable difference in slope (Δβ = .28) between grandiosity and vulnerability at lower versus higher levels (+1 SD) of grandiosity, and this difference becomes stronger as grandiosity further increases (Δβ = .43 at +2 SD). Complementary empirical breakpoint detection yielded an estimate in between those two criteria (+1.35 SD). The effect was not dependent upon moderators such as country of assessment, questionnaire version, or participants' sex but was moderated by participants' age, which we elaborate on in the following. For the NPI/HSNS, we observed a small effect (Δβ = .12) for the hypothesized relation when comparing segments below and above +1 SD, and a moderate effect when applying a stricter criterion (Δβ = .31 at +2 SD). The empirical breakpoint estimate at +1.98 SD aligned with this latter criterion. There was no indication of heterogeneity across samples or a moderation effect, though the interaction seemed to depend on age (as for the FFNI).16 Taken together, these results show that there is evidence for an increase of narcissistic vulnerability at high levels of grandiosity as assessed by trait self-report scales. The differences are subtle, and their detection requires a nuanced and reliable assessment.

4.1 Personality and clinical perspectives on narcissism—paradox lost?

Given the near-orthogonality of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism measures in the general population (Jauk & Kaufman, 2018; Jauk et al., 2017; Krizan & Herlache, 2018; Miller et al., 2011; Wink, 1991), personality models tend to view these two expressions of narcissism as mostly distinct traits. Conversely, clinical perspectives are more inclined to see a common ground for both (cf. Wright & Edershile, 2018), and emphasize that individuals with pathological narcissism can fluctuate between grandiose and vulnerable states (Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010; Ronningstam, 2009). Higher state variability has also been confirmed in systematic research using different methods (Edershile & Wright, 2020; Gore & Widiger, 2016; Kanske et al., 2017; Oltmanns & Widiger, 2018). Our findings show that personality and clinical perspectives hold true for different subpopulations. While grandiose and vulnerable narcissism reflect largely orthogonal traits at low-to-moderate levels of grandiosity, they become more intertwined at higher levels (+1 SD, or top 15.9%), and substantially related at very high levels (+2 SD, or top 2.6%). This latter criterion lies within the prevalence estimates of NPD (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Ronningstam, 2009), a personality disorder characterized by extreme grandiosity (Miller et al., 2014).

What mechanisms might drive the increasing correlation of trait measures of grandiosity and vulnerability at high levels of grandiose narcissism? Based on accumulating evidence for variation in grandiose and vulnerable states, particularly at high levels of grandiose narcissism (Edershile & Wright, 2020; Gore & Widiger, 2016; Oltmanns & Widiger, 2018), we assume that increases in trait questionnaires of vulnerability likely reflect increases of such vulnerable states or episodes in those with high levels of grandiosity. That is, to some extent, the experience of vulnerable states likely echoes in trait measures. We base this interpretation on WTT, which assumes that traits can be understood as density distributions of states (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015; Jayawickreme et al., 2019), and trait scales, therefore, indicate the central tendency of intraindividual variation in experience and behavior. The highly grandiose individual might thus experience more frequent and/or more pronounced vulnerable states, which, to some extent, manifests in global self-ratings.

The nonlinear effect is specific for grandiosity and cannot be inversed (see FFNI segmented regression models). Highly vulnerable persons do not show increased grandiosity, which is in line with our previous study (Jauk & Kaufman, 2018) and research demonstrating with other methods that highly grandiose individuals show episodes of vulnerability, but not the other way around (Edershile & Wright, 2020; Gore & Widiger, 2016). However, unexpectedly, the results pattern for the NPI/HSNS deviated, in this regard, from that of the FFNI, as a positive change in slope was also observed along the HSNS distribution. While we have no clear interpretation for this result at this point, tentatively speaking, it might be that the HSNS, which has formerly also been considered a measure of “covert” narcissism (Wink, 1991), draws to some extent on hidden grandiose aspects (“I am secretly ‘put out’ or annoyed when other people come to me with their troubles, asking me for my time and sympathy”; Hendin & Cheek, 1997, p. 592). Higher scale scores might thus be accompanied by higher breakthroughs of grandiosity, so to speak. However, this speculation must remain subject to future studies, and as a whole, the results observed for the FFNI are in greater accordance with studies using different methods (Edershile & Wright, 2020; Gore & Widiger, 2016).

4.2 The nonlinear relationship through the lens of the three-factor model

Factor- and facet-level analyses for the NPI and FFNI showed that with increasing grandiose narcissism, grandiosity becomes less saturated with agentic aspects, and vulnerability becomes more saturated with antagonistic aspects. This is largely in accordance with our previous results (Jauk & Kaufman, 2018) and shows that, on the one hand, adaptive aspects of grandiosity, which could potentially counteract negative consequences (e.g., Kaufman et al., 2020), become less relevant as grandiosity increases. On the other, it shows that vulnerability is tied more strongly to antagonistic aspects, making the common core of grandiose and vulnerable aspects stronger at high levels of grandiosity (though a higher saturation of grandiosity with antagonism, as in our previous study [Jauk & Kaufman, 2018], was not evident).

To further study the interplay of different narcissism aspects directly at the three-factor level, we conducted exploratory response surface analyses, which allow to investigate nonlinear and interactive effects of agentic and antagonistic aspects. For both the NPI and the FFNI, these showed that it is neither agentic nor antagonistic aspects alone that increase vulnerable/neurotic aspects, but a combination of those. Specifically, agentic aspects—at least up to a certain point—seem to buffer antagonistic aspects when it comes to vulnerable/neurotic narcissism. This pattern was more clearly evident in the NPI/HSNS, where, at low levels of agentic narcissism, even mild increases in antagonistic narcissism are accompanied by increases in neurotic narcissism, whereas at high levels of agentic narcissism, it takes longer for antagonistic narcissism to increase neurotic narcissism. Agentic narcissism, however, continues to have this “protective” effect only up to an above-average level, where the relationship levels off. The FFNI results pointed in a similar direction, in that a combination of low agentic and elevated antagonistic narcissism is accompanied by higher neurotic narcissism. Here, however, we observed stronger quadratic effects, which indicate that high scores on either dimension decrease neurotic narcissism again.

Considering the evidence from factor correlation and response surface analyses together, we conclude that antagonistic narcissism does play a key role in explaining vulnerable/neurotic narcissism, but the absence of agentic aspects might be at least as important. Particularly those individuals who have an antagonistic interpersonal style, yet little “positive” and potentially stabilizing (even if self-aggrandizing) experiences linked to agentic narcissism, might display vulnerable/neurotic aspects of narcissism such as shame (which displayed the strongest increase in correlation with overall grandiose narcissism). Similar findings were obtained, for instance, for the absence of positive affect in the development of depression (Wood & Joseph, 2010). More generally, recent research suggested that personality disorders can be understood as emergent interpersonal syndromes (i.e., unlikely and socially problematic trait configurations; Lilienfeld et al., 2019), and the results observed here might be seen as supporting such an account to narcissism.

4.3 Normal and pathological narcissism

The results could further be seen as supporting to some degree the distinction between adaptive and maladaptive or normal and pathological expressions16 of narcissism. Research has long strived to delineate self-report scales of narcissism with respect to the extent to which they assess adaptive or maladaptive aspects (e.g., Ackerman et al., 2011; Pincus et al., 2009). These efforts commonly center around the identification of nomological networks as evident in validity measures, assuming linear effects of the respective scales. While these linear effects do certainly capture the most relevant general trends, it might well be the case that increasing narcissism levels are accompanied by qualitative shifts in the nomological networks. For instance, a person who behaves arrogant in some situations, but not in others, might be quite successful in the social realm, not display signs of psychological maladjustment, and might be considered an example of adaptive/normal narcissism. In contrast, a person who behaves arrogant in almost every situation—including those where others will certainly not tolerate it—will almost inevitably face social problems, which might unveil narcissistic vulnerability. Crucially, both of these persons can be placed on the same narcissism dimension (here: antagonistic narcissism), but in different segments of it. It is thus not necessary to assume qualitative shifts in the narcissism dimension (antagonism) itself, but different (potentially socially mediated) effects of it might manifest in differential relations with other variables, particularly narcissistic vulnerability. These might further be amplified by simultaneous changes in other aspects, most notably the absence of agentic aspects.

It is interesting to note that our findings align well with those from a large-scale study of nonlinear effects of narcissism in the workplace: Grijalava and colleagues (2015) investigated leadership qualities related to narcissism and found narcissism to be positively associated with (supervisor-rated) leadership effectiveness at moderate levels, but negatively related at high levels. As the authors stated, “increasing narcissism in the low range of the trait will lead to more adaptive manifestations of narcissism” whereas “increasing narcissism in the high range of the trait will produce maladaptive manifestations” (p. 26). The effects were not attributable to agentic aspects, but presumably more related to antagonistic aspects (though these were not directly studied), which is in line with the effects observed here.

We thus argue that the adaptiveness or maladaptiveness of inventories such as the NPI or FFNI might not only depend upon their coverage of different construct aspects, but also on the investigated range within the respective dimensions, and potentially interactions with other dimensions. Which form of narcissism might be considered normal or pathological might, from an empirical point of view, well depend upon the level of narcissism, and changes in the nomological network associated with it. We note that the correlation between grandiosity and vulnerability observed here for high levels of FFNI grandiose narcissism is well in line with the intrinsic correlation of grandiose and vulnerable subscales in the PNI—a scale designed to assess maladaptive forms of narcissism, in which the co-occurrence of grandiose and vulnerable aspects is considered vital (Pincus et al., 2009; Wright et al., 2010).

While the idea of qualitative shifts within the same dimension might conflict to some extent with our understanding of desirable psychometric characteristics and necessitate more complex analysis techniques, we believe considering this complexity may better depict the reality of individual differences. Though not very popular in personality psychology, dose–response relationships are common phenomena in science (for instance pharmacology; Tallarida & Jacob, 1979) and also everyday life (considering just the many instances where we say that we “overdid” something). They can be understood as systemic changes within self-organizing systems (e.g., Hayes et al., 2007), which seems a fruitful perspective for the study of personality (Richardson et al., 2013), and specifically personality pathology (Hopwood et al., 2015). Though we used discrete breakpoints here, we do not understand these as isomorphic representations of the empirical relations, but as probabilistic guesses of distribution points around which qualitative shifts are most likely to occur. The results are thus not meant to reflect cutoffs for maladaptive/pathological narcissism, yet, they may provide best guesses for distribution ranges where systemic changes are likely to take place.

4.4 Implications for research and practice

We wish to address three aspects that might be of relevance to narcissism research: first, the difference in slope for the FFNI depended on age to a sizeable degree, as the interaction was stronger for older individuals (though vulnerability was, on average, lower in older individuals). This might be the case because narcissistic vulnerability—even if seeded early in life (Huxley et al., 2021; Kernberg, 1975)—takes time to unfold, or to be unveiled. Someone in their early twenties—on the peak of intellectual and physical capacities, yet in many aspects still protected from the pitfalls of adult life—might, on average, not have experienced a significant amount or intensity of adverse events such as job loss or divorce, or ego-threatening developmental changes such as declines in physical performance or attractiveness. Research has confirmed that such factors do shape our personality (e.g., Specht, 2017), and they might serve as triggers of narcissistic vulnerability particularly after midlife (e.g., Goldstein, 1995). This seems even more important given that grandiose narcissism itself has been found to show longitudinal selection effects in the way that those high in grandiosity have a higher likelihood to experience adversity (Orth & Luciano, 2015). However, cohort effects might also be at play, and future longitudinal studies will be needed to unveil the complex associations. In any case, this result underlines the necessity of studying samples that vary substantially in demographic characteristics such as age, as vulnerable aspects accompanying high grandiosity might otherwise be underestimated.

Second, the results show that considering the absolute level of grandiosity might be important when designing and interpreting studies, particularly those using select populations or extreme groups. Qualitative shifts between lower and higher grandiosity samples could at least partially explain experimentally unveiled signs of vulnerability in highly grandiose individuals, as evident for instance in neuroscience research (Jauk & Kanske, 2021). This can be effectively addressed by, on the one hand, considering the level of narcissistic grandiosity, and, on the other, by complementing designs with measures of narcissistic vulnerability (ibid). For research that aims to test threshold effects, we recommend using the empirically obtained breakpoint estimates as a priori parameters in large and diverse samples.

Third, future studies could assess mediating variables which might explain increases in vulnerability at higher levels of grandiose narcissism. From a clinical perspective, personality functioning, in terms of general self- and other-related emotional competencies, might be a prime candidate, as personality disorders in general (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), and narcissistic pathology specifically (Kernberg, 1975), are conceptualized as constellations where extreme trait expressions meet reduced functioning. Of note, self-regulatory functions (including stabilization of self-esteem) are regarded as central elements of personality functioning (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; OPD Task Force, 2008), and these might be directly relevant for explaining transitions between grandiose and vulnerable states. While personality functioning is not frequently assessed in nonclinical personality research, emotional intelligence might be used as a proxy for it (Jauk & Ehrenthal, 2021). Also, the general factor of psychopathology—closely linked to personality pathology (Oltmanns et al., 2018)—might be studied as a moderator.

For psychological practice, the findings reported here imply that clinicians working with patients who present as highly grandiose should be particularly attentive to signs of narcissistic vulnerability. While the DSM acknowledges that vulnerability can accompany grandiosity (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), the present meta-analysis of large samples from the general population provides quantitative evidence that they are indeed more likely to accompany high grandiosity. Correctly identifying narcissistic vulnerability as such is important as it is associated with a wide range of negative consequences, including suicidal ideation and behavior (e.g., Jaksic et al., 2017). However, since highly grandiose individuals tend to hide or deny vulnerable aspects (cf. Pincus et al., 2014), and, beyond that, also evoke negative reactions in their therapists (Tanzilli et al., 2015), it can be challenging. Seeing vulnerability in those who present as highly grandiose might be even more difficult for those without professional training, as laypeople attribute grandiose behavior to similarly grandiose motives (Koepernik et al., 2021). For an integrated understanding of narcissism, it thus seems important to raise awareness for the interplay of grandiose and vulnerable aspects in highly grandiose individuals, which we hope this study can contribute to.