See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338753754

Replicable factor structure and correlates of an alternate version of the

narcissistic personality inventory

Preprint · January 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 80

2 authors:

Matthew Brown Kasey Stanton

The University of Western Ontario Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
13 PUBLICATIONS   116 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   338 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dissociative Experiences and Self-Destructive Behaviours View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Matthew Brown on 05 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-020-09790-y

Replicable Factor Structure and Correlates of an Alternate Version

of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
Matthew F. D. Brown 1 & Kasey Stanton 1,2 & David Watson 3

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) traditionally has been administered using 40 pairs of items with a forced-choice
response format. However, recent NPI research indicates that it may be advantageous to administer only the item from each pair
that is in the narcissistic, keyed direction (i.e., using a “single-stimulus” format) in conjunction with a Likert style response rating
scale (Ackerman et al. 2016). This same research and other prior studies also suggest that the NPI items assess distinct grandiose
narcissistic traits (e.g., manipulativeness, leadership), such that focusing solely on total scores for analyses may be problematic.
We extend this previous work by examining the NPI’s factor structure and correlates in both clinically-oriented community (N =
700) and undergraduate (N = 527) samples when this measure is administered using a single-stimulus format and a Likert style
rating scale. Our results indicated that five replicable NPI factors (i.e., Manipulativeness, Grandiose Fantasies, Vanity,
Leadership/Authority, Superiority) could be identified across samples. Subscales modeling these factors showed distinctive
patterns of personality and psychopathology relations. For example, some subscales (e.g., Leadership/Authority, Superiority)
showed strong positive relations with agentic aspects of extraversion and robust negative relations with neuroticism, but other
subscales (e.g., Manipulativeness, Grandiose Fantasies) showed comparatively weaker associations with these personality traits.
These results highlight a potentially more useful administration format for the NPI, and also underscore need to consider the
distinctive nature of NPI subscales in future research using this measure.

Keywords Narcissism . Assessment . Factor analysis . Psychopathology

A voluminous literature spanning clinical, social/personality,
and industrial-organizational psychology focuses on the broad
construct of narcissism. Integrating these different perspec-
tives has proven challenging for the field and has resulted in
debate regarding how narcissism should be defined and mea-
sured (Wright and Edershile 2018). Much of the challenge
with conceptualizing narcissism relates to integrating both
maladaptive (e.g., contingent self-esteem) and adaptive nar-
cissistic dimensions (e.g., leadership, authority, motivation for
achievement and success) within a single integrated frame-
work. The recently proposed Narcissism Spectrum Model
* Matthew F. D. Brown
mbrow253@uwo.ca
1
Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, 1151
Richmond Street, London, Ontario N6A 3K7, Canada
2
Psychology Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, 121 Williams Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
3
Department of Psychology, The University of Notre Dame, 390
Corbett Family Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA
(Krizan and Herlache 2018) organizes these distinct personal-
ity dimensions and suggests that narcissistic traits can be
categorized into three domains of entitlement, grandiosity,
and vulnerability. Krizan and Herlache (2018) describe
entitlement/self-importance as core to narcissism, with gran-
diosity and vulnerability being other broad dimensions rele-
vant to narcissism. Other recent articles providing integrative
summaries of the narcissism literature have reached similar
conclusions regarding which narcissistic trait dimensions are
core versus peripheral to this broad construct (Miller et al.
2017; Wright and Edershile 2018).
For decades, various iterations of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin and Hall 1979) have been
used widely in clinical and social/personality research. This
measure has been shown to primarily assess grandiose narcis-
sistic traits (e.g., seeing oneself as a good leader; being
exhibitionistic; Cain et al. 2008; Krizan and Herlache 2018).
The traditional response format of the NPI forces participants
to choose between one of two oppositely keyed items (e.g.,
“am essentially a modest person” or “modesty does not be-
come me”), and a 40-item version of the NPI has become most

widely used in the literature (Raskin and Terry 1988).
However, despite the widespread use of the NPI over multiple
decades, researchers have raised concerns about the concep-
tual underpinnings and psychometric properties of the instru-
ment (Miller et al. 2017; Pincus and Lukowitsky 2010). First,
researchers have had difficulty identifying the NPI’s optimal
factor structure, as evidence exists for two- (Corry et al. 2008),
three- (Ackerman et al. 2011; Wetzel et al. 2016), four-
(Emmons 1984), and five-factor NPI structures (Ackerman
et al. 2016). Notably, the three-factor structure of
Leadership/Authority, Grandiose Exhibitionism, and
Entitlement/Exploitativeness reported by Ackerman et al.
(2011) has become most widely used (Ackerman et al. 2016;
Miller et al. 2017; Stanton et al. 2017). However, this progress
aside, concerns have been raised about the forced-choice re-
sponse format of the NPI; namely, that different response pairs
included within the same item do not necessarily represent
opposite ends of the same targeted dimension (Ackerman
et al. 2016). For example, one NPI item asks participants to
choose between response options related to being able to “talk
my way out of anything” and being willing to “accept the
consequences of my behavior.” As another example, it may
be problematic to force participants to choose between
“insisting upon getting respect” and “usually being able to
get respect.”
Due to concerns with the original forced-choice format of
the NPI, some researchers have favoured adopting (a) a Likert
style rating format when administering the NPI as well as (b)
administering only the 40 statements that are in the keyed
direction (e.g., for an item assessing attention seeking, admin-
istering a statement about “liking attention” but not a matched
statement about preferring to “blend in with the crowd”).
Administering only items in the keyed direction—referred to
as administering the NPI with a “single-stimulus” format—
offers several practical benefits, including briefer, more
straightforward administration (Ackerman et al. 2016).
However, use of a single-stimulus administration format also
has been found to influence the NPI’s factor structure
(Ackerman et al. 2016; Boldero et al. 2015; c.f. Wetzel et al.
2016).
For instance, Ackerman et al. (2016) report data from sev-
eral large samples of adults indicating that the NPI’s factor
structure may be more nuanced when using a single-
stimulus versus forced-choice administration format.
Specifically, these researchers found that although three fac-
tors best represent the NPI’s structure when using forced-
choice administration, five factors best reflect its structure
when using a single-stimulus administration format.
Ackerman et al. (2016) reported that when using a single-
stimulus administration format with either a dichotomous
(true/false) or 5-point Likert (i.e., strongly disagree to strongly
agree) response scale, a subset of 23 of the NPI’s 40 items can
be used to model these five dimensions, which they labeled
J Psychopathol Behav Assess
Leadership, Exhibitionism, Vanity, Manipulativeness, and
Superiority.
Furthermore, and importantly, limited research has exam-
ined relations for NPI subscales when this measure is admin-
istered using a Likert-style response format rather than the
traditional forced-choice format. Miller et al. (2018) examined
this issue directly by evaluating the degree to which patterns
of correlates for NPI subscales based on Ackerman et al.’s
(2011) three-factor structure of Leadership/Authority,
Grandiose Exhibitionism, and Entitlement/Exploitativeness
differed when using a Likert-style versus forced-choice for-
mat. These researchers reported that the forced-choice and
Likert versions of the NPI performed relatively similarly re-
garding their relations with external variables. For example,
they found that all NPI subscale scores—regardless of the
rating scale used—were associated with immodesty, high ex-
traversion, antagonism, and attention-seeking across both rat-
ing types. Examination of Miller et al.’s (2018) results also
point to the importance of examining relations between the
NPI and external variables at the subscale level. To illustrate,
although all NPI subscales were negatively related to agree-
ableness, Entitlement/Exploitativeness subscale scores were
more strongly related to low agreeableness than were scores
on other subscales. Similarly, although the NPI total score was
strongly related to dominance (e.g., rating oneself as domi-
neering, assertive), NPI item content related to leadership/
authority (e.g., “am a natural leader”) appears to show much
stronger ties to dominance than other NPI content. Finally,
Miller et al. (2018) noted that the Likert version of the NPI
may be preferable when using NPI subscales assessing
exhibitionism/entitlement item content in future research, as
this format appears to yield subscales showing higher internal
consistency and improved convergent and discriminant valid-
ity patterns compared to administration with forced-choice.
The Present Study
Primary Study Aims Taken together, prior research indicates
that a single-stimulus rather than forced-choice administration
format may be optimal when administering the NPI
(Ackerman et al. 2016; Miller et al. 2018). However, only
one study has examined the item-level structure of the NPI
when administered using a single-stimulus format (Ackerman
et al. 2016), and to date, limited research has explicated the
personality and psychopathology relations of the NPI when it
is administered using alternate formats.
Thus, in the current study, our primary aim was to examine
the NPI’s factor structure when it is administered using a
single-stimulus format. We also administered the NPI using
a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) here given evidence indicating
that this response scale may be advantageous when examining
J Psychopathol Behav Assess
the NPI’s factor structure and correlates (Ackerman et al.
2016; Miller et al. 2018). Notably, we conducted these analy-
ses in both an undergraduate sample and a clinically-oriented
community sample (i.e., individuals indicating that they were
receiving current psychotherapy and/or taking psychotropic
medication). This provided another significant extension of
previous NPI research, which focused on adult samples but
did not collect treatment-related information from participants
(Ackerman et al. 2016). Thus, we were able to determine the
degree to which our factor analytic findings replicated across
samples in which many individuals were likely (i.e., commu-
nity adults reporting current mental health treatment) versus
relatively unlikely (e.g., undergraduates) to report high levels
of psychopathology. In conducting our factor analyses, our
goal was to identify the largest number of interpretable factors
that replicated across samples, consistent with prior NPI struc-
tural research (Ackerman et al. 2016).
As a second related aim, we created subscales modeling the
emergent factors from our structural analyses and examined
their relations with other personality and psychopathology var-
iables. It is important to note here that researchers have chal-
lenged the degree to which some NPI content—at least when
administered with a force-choice format—is pathological in
nature. For example, it has been argued that select NPI content
(e.g., “am assertive”) represents relatively adaptive content in-
dicative of achievement motivation and normal range extraver-
sion more so than pathological narcissism (e.g., Stanton et al.
2017). However, whether similar arguments can be raised
when the NPI is administered using alternate formats has
remained relatively unexplored (e.g., it may be possible that
using a Likert style response scale influences the degree to
which item content appears more or less adaptive).
Hypotheses Based on the nature of the NPI’s item content and
the results presented by Ackerman et al. (2016), we predicted
that factors related to leadership (e.g., “am assertive”), exhibi-
tionism (e.g., “like to be the center of attention”), and manip-
ulativeness (e.g., “can talk my way out of anything”) likely
would emerge, as might other potential factors. However, we
were unsure of the exact nature of factors and how many rep-
licable factors would emerge in our analyses given the limited
prior item-level research administering the NPI and utilizing
different types of respondents (Ackerman et al. 2016).
Next, we predicted that item content related to manipula-
tiveness would associate robustly with indicators of psychop-
athy and (low) agreeableness, and that such associations
would be stronger than those for other emergent dimensions.
Furthermore, we anticipated that leadership and exhibitionism
item content would associate robustly with agentic aspects of
extraversion such as assertiveness and exciting seeking. As
stated, we were particularly interested in determining the de-
gree to which NPI content assessing leadership and related
traits appeared maladaptive versus adaptive.
Method
Participants
Undergraduates The first sample consisted of undergraduates
from the psychology department research subject pool at a
Midwestern university in the United States. These participants
completed all study measures online and were provided
course credit for participation. Our original sample size
consisted of 556 undergraduates. However, four validity items
(e.g., “Please answer ‘very much like me’”) were included in
our study protocol, and we removed data for 29 participants
who incorrectly answered two or more of these unambiguous
items. Thus, our final sample size used for analyses was 527
undergraduates. Of these 527 participants, the majority iden-
tified as female (71.2%), and the mean age was 19.2 years
(SD = 1.5). The majority of these undergraduates identified
as Caucasian (74.0%), with 9.1%, 8.2%, 3.8%, and 3.6%
identifying as Hispanic/Latinx, Asian/Asian American,
Black/African American, and Multiracial, respectively (the
small remaining percentage identified as other ethnicities or
chose not to provide this information). In total, 7.6% of the
sample endorsed receiving current psychotherapy, and 11.6%
reported receiving current psychotropic medication.
Clinically-Oriented Community Sample Our second sample
consisted of adults recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk
(see Arditte et al. 2016; McCredie and Morey 2019), which
we refer to as the “community sample.” Prior to completing
the full study, participants were screened for current psychiat-
ric treatment status using a brief survey including items
assessing receiving (a) current psychotherapy and (b) medica-
tion to treat mental health issues. Participants had to positively
endorse at least one of these items to be invited to complete the
full study, and our brief screening measure also included other
items (e.g., items assessing religiosity and physical activity
levels) so that it was not obvious that current psychiatric treat-
ment status would be required to be endorsed.
We screened 6271 participants using this brief screening
measure. However, only 1250 (19.9%) of these original 6271
participants who were screened endorsed current psychothera-
py and/or psychotropic medication and were therefore invited
to complete the full study. Some individuals invited to com-
plete the full study elected not to do so, as only 800 participants
proceeded to complete the full study. Furthermore, 100 of these
800 participants who elected to complete the full study provid-
ed incorrect responses to two or more of four unambiguous
validity items (e.g., “Please answer ‘very much like me’”;
n = 28), failed to respond to nearly all study items, or did not
report currently receiving psychotherapy and/or psychotropic
medication when treatment status was reassessed in the full
study; therefore, data for these 100 participants were removed
prior to conducting final analyses.

Thus, we focused on a final sample of 700 participants here
who reported current psychiatric treatment status, completed
the full study, and provided valid data (also see Stanton et al.
(2019) for additional details regarding this sample). We did
not collect information regarding specific psychiatric diagno-
ses in either the screening measure or the full study protocol,
both of which were completed by participants online. At the
time of the study, 62% of the sample reported receiving cur-
rent psychotherapy, and 88% of the sample reported receiving
psychotropic medication. The majority of the sample identi-
fied as female (68.4%), and the average age was 32.8 (SD =
10.1). In total, 84.4% of the sample identified as Caucasian
(4.3%, 3.4%, 3.4%, 3.0% identified as Multiracial, Asian/
Asian American, Black/African-American, and Hispanic/
Latinx, respectively; the small remaining percentage endorsed
other ethnicities or chose not to provide this information).
Measures
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) As discussed, partici-
pants completed the 40-item Narcissistic Personality
Inventory (NPI; Raskin and Terry 1988) with a single-
stimulus administration format. Again, participants rated
themselves on each item using a 5-point response scale rang-
ing from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
120-Item International Personality Item Pool-NEO (IPIP-120)
The IPIP-120 (Maples et al. 2014a) is a five-factor model
personality inventory used to measure the domains of neurot-
icism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscien-
tiousness. This measure also includes six lower order facet
scales within each domain (e.g., facet scales for neuroticism
assessing Anxiety, Anger, Depression, Self-Consciousness,
Immoderation, and Vulnerability). Participants were asked to
rate themselves on each item using a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). In the current
study, we assessed only the four domains of neuroticism, ex-
traversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
Externalizing Spectrum Inventory-Brief Form (ESI-BF)
Participants completed both the Drug Use (six items; e.g.,
“taken an illegal drug that gave me a rush”) and Alcohol
Use (nine items; “like having a drink of alcohol to relax”)
scales from the ESI-BF (Patrick et al. 2013). Participants
responded to these items using a 4-point scale ranging from
0 (false) to 3 (true).
Expanded Version of the Inventory for Depression and
Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS-II) Participants completed the
Euphoria (five items; e.g. “elated for no reason”) and Mania
(five items; “thoughts raced”) scales from the IDAS-II
(Watson et al. 2012), a widely used measure assessing symp-
tom dimensions spanning the depressive, anxiety, bipolar
J Psychopathol Behav Assess
spectrum, and obsessive-compulsive and related disorders.
The Mania and Euphoria scales from the IDAS-II have dem-
onstrated good internal consistency (α’s from .72–.86; Watson
et al. 2012), as well as strong convergent validity with other
indicators of bipolar disorder (Watson et al. 2012).
Participants indicated the extent to which they experienced
each IDAS-II symptom over the past 2 weeks using a 5-
point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely).
Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI) The PNI assesses sev-
en specific narcissism facets defining broad dimensions of
Grandiosity (i.e., Grandiose Fantasy, Exploitativeness, and
Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancement) and Vulnerability (i.e.,
Contingent Self-Esteem, Hiding the Self, Devaluing, and
Entitlement Rage; Pincus et al. 2009; Wright et al. 2010).
Here, we focus on these broad Grandiosity and Vulnerability
dimensions in our analyses, rather than scores for all individual
PNI subscales, due to reporting a large number of relations for
emergent NPI factors. However, we did not include scores from
the PNI Exploitativeness subscale in our analyses when creating
a PNI Grandiosity dimension because this subscale is defined by
items included within the NPI (e.g., both measures include the
same item about being capable of “reading others like a book”).
Participants rated themselves on the PNI items using a 0 (not at
all like me) to 5 (very much like me) rating scale.
Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) The PID-5 (Krueger
et al. 2012) is a comprehensive measure used to assess the trait
domains and facets described in Section III (Emerging Models
and Measures) of the DSM–5. Scores on the PID-5 shows
strong convergence with clinician ratings of personality pa-
thology, and dimensions assessed via this measure also show
incremental predictive validity above and beyond DSM-IV/
DSM-5 conceptualizations of personality disorders (Few
et al. 2013; Krueger et al. 2012; Wright et al. 2012).
Participants completed only the PID-5 Emotional Lability
scale (seven items; e.g., “my emotions are unpredictable”)
for this study, responding to the items using a 4-point scale
ranging from 0 (very false or often false) to 3 (very true or
often true).
Short Dark Triad (SD3) The Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones and
Paulhus 2014) assesses Machiavellianism (e.g., “not wise to
share secrets”), psychopathy (e.g., “like to get revenge”), and
narcissism (e.g., “know that I am special”) using 9-item scales
for each construct. No time frame is specified for these items,
as they are intended to provide general self-reported ratings of
affect, behavior, and cognition. Previous research has found
good internal consistency (α > .78) for all SD3 scales, as well
as good convergent validity for all individual scales (e.g.,
Jones and Paulhus 2014; Maples et al. 2014b). Participants
were asked to rate each item using a 5-point Likert scale rang-
ing from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly).
J Psychopathol Behav Assess
Overview of Study Analyses
Prior to conducting other study analyses, we computed de-
scriptive statistics and internal consistency estimates for per-
sonality and psychopathology measures. We also calculated
independent samples t-tests to determine whether mean scale
and subscale scores differed across samples for various study
measures.
To address our primary study goal, we conducted explor-
atory factor analyses (EFAs) of the NPI items in both study
samples. To help guide us in determining the number of fac-
tors to extract in our datasets, we conducted both parallel
analyses (O’Connor 2000) and Velicer’s (1976) minimum av-
erage partial (MAP) test using principal components analyses
of the 40 NPI items in both datasets. In parallel analysis,
observed eigenvalues from a principal components analysis
in the actual dataset are compared to the eigenvalues from
random datasets with the same sample size and number of
variables. For Velicer’s MAP test, mean squared partial corre-
lations are calculated for a range of factor solutions consisting
of an increasing number of factors, with the optimal solution
producing the lowest mean value.
Both parallel analyses and the MAP test were conducted
with SAS 9.4 software. We used principal components analy-
ses for these procedures because the use of principal factor
analyses tends to overestimate the number of factors to be
extracted (Timmerman and Lorenzo-Seva 2011), even though
we report results from principal factor analyses following the
presentation of these initial analyses. Also note that although
we considered the information provided by both procedures in
selecting the number of factors to extract in each dataset, our
primary goal when conducting these EFAs was to extract the
largest number of interpretable and sufficiently defined (i.e.,
each factor defined by several or more items) factors in each
dataset.
After conducting EFAs in both datasets, we then conducted
analyses of factor similarity in both the community and un-
dergraduate samples (Finn 1986). Comparability coefficients
are derived by (a) generating regression-based scoring weights
for each factor in each solution, and (b) applying these weights
to participants’ actual scores in each dataset (Everett and
Entrekin 1980; Finn 1986; Gorsuch 1983). Comparability co-
efficients ≥ |.90| provide strong evidence that the same factor
emerged across different solutions (Everett 1983).
We then created subscales to model emergent factors from
the EFAs and examined their correlations with one another
and with other personality and psychopathology measures.
All correlations reported are Pearson correlations, and we con-
sider the statistical significance of correlations at a p < .001
level due to examining and reporting many correlations. We
also focus on general patterns of correlations within and across
subscales rather than focusing on the significance of individ-
ual correlations.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Tables 1 and 2 present descriptive statistics and internal con-
sistency estimates for personality and psychopathology mea-
sures, respectively. Undergraduates tended to score signifi-
cantly higher on indices of grandiose narcissism (e.g., SD3
Narcissism and PNI Grandiosity), extraversion, agreeableness
and conscientiousness. Conversely, the community adults
generally had significantly higher mean scores on indicators
of vulnerable narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism,
drug use, and indices of emotional instability (e.g., neuroti-
cism, PID-5 Emotional Lability).
Factor Analyses of the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory
Determining the Number of Factors Parallel analyses con-
ducted in both the community (Ncases = 700, Nvars = 40,
Ndatasets = 1000, percent = 95) and undergraduate datasets
(Ncases = 527, Nvars = 40, Ndatasets = 1000, percent = 95) indi-
cated that across both samples up to six factors could be ex-
tracted. Specifically, the eigenvalues for the sixth principal
component were larger than their random counterparts in both
samples (Community eigenvalues: 1.44 vs. 1.34;
Undergraduate eigenvalues: 1.41 vs. 1.29), but the eigen-
values for the seventh were not (Community eigenvalues:
1.10 vs. 1.27; Undergraduate eigenvalues: 1.307 vs. 1.308).
The MAP test in the community sample indicated that the
mean squared partial correlation was lowest in the seven-
factor solution (.0128). However, the MAP test results in the
undergraduate sample indicated that the lowest mean squared
partial correlation was in the five-factor solution (.0128).
Description of the Factors Given that the parallel analysis and
MAP test results differed in some ways (e.g., parallel analyses
suggested that as many as six factors could be extracted in the
community dataset, but the MAP test suggested a seven-factor
solution was optimal), we considered a range of different fac-
tor solutions in each sample, focusing on identifying the larg-
est number of interpretable dimensions in each sample. Based
on our parallel analyses, the MAP test analyses, and prior
research (Ackerman et al. 2016), we anticipated that we would
be able to identify at most six or seven factors defining the NPI
items in each dataset (e.g., because parallel analysis suggested
that at most, six meaningful factors could be extracted in each
dataset). All EFAs were conducted using principal factor anal-
ysis, rotating factors using an oblique promax rotation (pow-
er = 3). With this approach, we found that a five-factor solu-
tion yielded the largest number of well-defined, meaningful
dimensions in both samples. Solutions with four or fewer
factors also yielded interpretable sets of dimensions.
 J Psychopathol Behav Assess

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and

internal consistency estimates for Measure Undergraduates (N = 527) Community (N = 700)
personality domain and facet
measures α Mean SD α Mean SD

IPIP Neuroticism
Domain .91 67.19 15.25 .92 81.49b 17.63
Anxiety .77 13.27 3.58 .84 15.39b 3.82
Anger .86 10.50 3.66 .90 12.79b 4.28
Depression .86 10.14 3.91 .90 14.00b 4.42
Self-Consciousness .72 11.59 3.22 .75 13.24b 3.74
Immoderation .80 11.46 3.51 .82 13.49b 3.99
Vulnerability .78 10.21 3.24 .81 12.57b 3.89
IPIP Extraversion
Domain .91 83.48a 14.15 .92 64.95 16.81
Friendliness .87 14.32a 3.47 .87 11.05 4.16
Gregariousness .87 11.78a 4.24 .84 8.38 3.93
Assertiveness .82 13.49a 3.12 .87 10.73 3.95
Activity Level .71 15.76a 2.80 .75 11.49 3.62
Excitement Seeking .70 14.50a 3.40 .81 10.75 3.74
Cheerfulness .77 15.24a 2.86 .75 12.55 3.45
IPIP Agreeableness
Domain .86 91.06a 11.15 .86 88.06 13.13
Trust .89 14.50a 3.40 .90 11.95 3.98
Morality .71 15.24 2.86 .76 15.16 3.38
Altruism .73 16.98a 2.17 .71 15.74 2.91
Cooperation .73 16.21a 2.97 .75 15.65 3.53
Modesty .72 12.35 3.13 .78 14.50b 3.64
Sympathy .67 15.79a 2.60 .77 15.06 3.43
IPIP Conscientious
Domain .90 88.89a 12.73 .90 80.57 15.10
Self-Efficacy .76 16.23a 2.09 .81 14.26 3.21
Orderliness .82 13.60a 3.89 .78 12.41 3.91
Dutifulness .69 16.12a 2.31 .72 15.42 2.93
Achievement Striving .66 16.96a 2.17 .74 14.44 3.34
Self-Discipline .87 11.75a 3.90 .88 10.68 4.26
Cautiousness .89 14.24a 3.83 .91 13.35 4.45
a
= indicates that the undergraduate sample mean is significantly greater than the community sample mean at
p < .001, b = indicates that the community sample mean is significantly greater than the undergraduate sample
mean at p < .001. IPIP = International Personality Item Pool

However, solutions with six or more factors yielded one or
more factors that were very narrow (i.e., fewer than three item
markers) and difficult to interpret. For example, when we
extracted six factors in the community and undergraduate
datasets, one factor had only one clear item marker (i.e., factor
loading ≥ .40 and cross-loadings ≤ .30). Therefore, we focused
on the five-factor structure in each sample.
Tables 3 and 4 present the full set of factor loadings for the
five-factor structure in the community and undergraduate
samples, respectively. In both samples a factor (i.e., Factor I
in the community data; Factor IV in the undergraduate data)
defined by items reflecting a superior sense of self emerged,
which we labeled Superiority. Next, a factor consisting of item
content assessing being able to influence and deceive others
emerged in both samples (i.e., Factor II in the community
sample; Factor III in the undergraduate sample) and was there-
fore labelled Manipulativeness. Factor III in the community
sample and Factor V in the undergraduate sample represented
a somewhat narrow dimension that was defined strongly by
items assessing liking one’s own physical appearance; it was
labeled Vanity. Items assessing having an assertive and social-
ly dominant personality style loaded strongly on Factor IV in
the community sample and Factor I in the undergraduate sam-
ple; we labelled this dimension Leadership/Authority. Finally,
J Psychopathol Behav Assess

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and

internal consistency estimates for Measure Undergraduates (N = 527) Community (N = 700)
psychopathology measures
α Mean SD α Mean SD

NPI
Manipulativeness .77 14.09 3.58 .84 13.90 4.55
Grandiose Fantasies .45 7.68 2.13 .59 7.38 3.43
Vanity .83 8.06a 2.85 .87 6.40 3.15
Leadership/Authority .80 22.52a 4.56 .87 18.38 6.37
Superiority .80 14.53a 2.51 .87 12.11 3.81
SD3
Narcissism .65 26.12a 4.58 .77 22.14 5.90
Psychopathy .74 17.62 4.74 .78 19.68b 6.10
Machiavellianism .79 25.58 5.50 .82 27.11b 6.05
PNI
Grandiosity .88 3.12a .83 .87 2.94 .94
Vulnerability .95 2.34 .84 .94 2.56b .88
ESI-BF
Alcohol .93 15.70 8.71 .90 16.26 8.17
Drug Use .77 3.21 4.09 .86 8.16b 6.03
PID-5
Emotional Lability .91 7.08 5.03 .94 10.73b 5.95
IDAS-II
Mania .86 12.21 4.94 .90 11.58 5.65
Euphoria .83 10.93a 4.49 .87 9.50 4.69
a
= indicates that the undergraduate sample mean is significantly greater than the community sample mean at
p < .001, b = indicates that the community sample mean is significantly greater than the undergraduate sample
mean at p < .001. NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory, SD3 = Short Dark Triad, PNI = Pathological
Narcissism Inventory, ESI-BF = Externalizing Spectrum Inventory-Brief Form, PID-5 = Personality Inventory
for DSM-5, IDAS-II = Expanded Version of the Inventory for Depression and Anxiety Symptoms

a factor strongly defined by items assessing grandiose
thoughts and wishes emerged across samples (Factor V in
the community sample; Factor II in the undergraduate data),
which we called Grandiose Fantasies.
Factor Structure Similarity We were able to compute ten factor
scores in each dataset to model our factors (i.e., five scores for
the community sample factors and five for the undergraduate
sample factors) and to conduct two sets of factor similarity tests
(i.e., examining similarity with the undergraduate dataset used
for scoring and a second examination using the community
dataset used for scoring). All factors from the five-factor solu-
tion were highly comparable with their respective factors (e.g.,
the same basic Superiority factor emerged in both datasets)
regardless of which dataset was used for scoring, as all coeffi-
cients were ≥ .90 and eight of 10 coefficients were ≥ .95.
Subscale Creation and Associations
Subscales modeling the dimensions from the five-factor NPI
structure were created by summing scores on items specified
to define each respective factor, and scores on these subscales
were used for our correlational analyses. In determining which
items were good indicators of latent factors, we first identified
those items with (a) loadings on their primary factor ≥ |.40| in
both study samples and (b) cross loadings ≤ |.30| on other factors
across samples. Note that in some cases, we relaxed these selec-
tion criteria slightly (e.g., item 4 in the Grandiose Fantasies
subscale met both selection criteria in the undergraduate sample,
but only met one selection criterion in the community sample).
Returning briefly to Table 2, undergraduates had significantly
higher scores on the NPI Leadership/Authority, Superiority, and
Vanity subscales compared to the community adults (ps < .001
for all comparisons). There were no significant differences be-
tween samples on the NPI Manipulativeness and Grandiose
Fantasies subscales. See Tables 3 and 4 for which items were
used to score each subscale. In Table 5, we report Pearson cor-
relations for subscales modeling the five factors in both the
community and undergraduate samples. Note that correlations
all were positive and most of them were small to moderate in
strength (rs ranged from .31 to .60 in the community sample and
.26 to .46 in the student sample).
 J Psychopathol Behav Assess

Table 3 Five-factor structure promax-rotated item loadings in community participants

Item Content Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV Factor V

34. I am going to be a great person 0.76a −0.10 0.15 0.07 −0.02

8. I will be a success 0.72a −0.12 0.14 0.15 −0.06
9. I think I am a special person 0.72a −0.12 0.16 −0.04 0.23
40. I am an extraordinary person 0.67a −0.01 0.15 0.02 0.25
31. I can live my life in any way I want to 0.50 0.09 −0.02 −0.02 0.09
39. I am more capable than other people 0.48 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.26
21. I always know what I am doing 0.35 0.11 −0.06 −0.02 0.07
14. I insist on getting the respect that is due me 0.30 0.17 −0.04 0.13 0.28
27. I have a strong will to power 0.29 0.15 −0.01 0.29 0.24
22. I rarely depend on anyone else to get things done 0.26 0.17 −0.16 0.03 0.03
18. I want to amount to something 0.25 −0.08 −0.11 0.17 0.25
13. I find it easy to manipulate people −0.08 0.81b 0.04 −0.07 0.16
6. I can usually talk my way out of anything −0.06 0.79b 0.04 0.02 0.04
35. I can make anybody believe anything I want 0.03 0.71b 0.03 −0.12 0.30
1. I have a natural talent for influencing people 0.14 0.59b 0.09 0.23 −0.04
16. I can read people like a book 0.07 0.55b 0.04 0.11 −0.18
32. People always seem to recognize my authority 0.27 0.41 0.01 0.32 0.10
23. Everybody likes to hear my stories 0.21 0.30 0.08 0.18 0.05
19. I like to look at my body 0.13 0.08 0.87c −0.04 −0.10
15. I like to display my body −0.03 0.00 0.82c 0.03 0.08
29. I like to look at myself in the mirror 0.20 0.12 0.82c −0.09 −0.09
20. I am apt to show off if I get the chance −0.07 0.07 0.41 0.23 0.31
28. I like to start new fads and fashions 0.03 0.06 0.33 0.15 0.29
7. I like to be the center of attention −0.25 −0.10 0.27 0.73d 0.26
33. I would prefer to be a leader 0.22 0.06 −0.13 0.66d 0.15
30. I really like to be the center of attention −0.20 −0.07 0.33 0.64 0.31
10. I see myself as a good leader 0.40 0.09 −0.03 0.63d −0.11
11. I am assertive 0.27 0.08 −0.02 0.52d −0.09
12. I like having authority over people 0.09 0.11 −0.17 0.52d 0.34
36. I am born a leader 0.36 0.25 −0.04 0.51d −0.01
17. I like to take responsibility for making decisions 0.28 0.11 0.01 0.46d −0.20
26. I like to be complimented 0.18 −0.25 0.21 0.26 0.23
25. I will never be satisfied until I get all that I deserve 0.25 0.07 −0.05 −0.08 0.64e
37. I wish somebody would write my biography 0.20 −0.10 0.09 0.13 0.52e
38. I get upset when people don’t notice how I look −0.05 −0.04 0.46 −0.08 0.50
5. If I ruled the world it would be a much better place 0.29 0.12 −0.07 −0.02 0.38
4. I know that I am good because people tell me 0.29 0.14 0.19 −0.10 0.35e
2. Modesty doesn’t become me −0.05 0.18 0.16 0.05 0.34
24. I expect a great deal from other people 0.14 0.14 −0.08 0.11 0.34
3. I would do almost anything on a dare −0.17 0.25 0.19 0.08 0.32

N = 700. Some items are paraphrased versions of the original NPI items. Loadings ≥ |.40| are bolded. a = item was used to score the Superiority subscale,
b
= item used to score the Manipulativeness subscale, c = item used to score the Vanity subscale, d = item used to score the Leadership/Authority
subscale, e = item used to score the Grandiose Fantasies subscale

NPI Subscale Associations with Personality Domains
and Facets
Overall, patterns of correlations for the NPI subscales with per-
sonality were similar across the community and undergraduate
samples, as shown in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. Note that we
also examined whether correlations for any specific NPI subscale
with other variables were significantly different in magnitude
than correlations for all other NPI subscales (e.g., examining
whether any NPI subscale associated significantly more strongly
J Psychopathol Behav Assess

Table 4 Five-factor structure

promax-rotated item loadings in Item Content Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV Factor V
undergraduates
10. I see myself as a good leader 0.80a −0.17 −0.06 0.31 −0.06
33. I would prefer to be a leader 0.76a 0.01 0.01 0.16 −0.11
11. I am assertive 0.67a −0.19 0.09 0.03 0.08
36. I am born a leader 0.65a −0.04 0.20 0.16 −0.09
12. I like having authority over people 0.53a 0.27 0.14 −0.05 −0.08
7. I like to be the center of attention 0.53a 0.38 −0.05 −0.24 0.13
32. People always seem to recognize my authority 0.48 −0.04 0.42 0.10 −0.04
17. I like to take responsibility 0.35a −0.20 0.07 0.26 0.17
37. I wish somebody would write my biography −0.03 0.63b 0.11 0.05 −0.18
38. I get upset when people don’t notice me −0.24 0.55 0.24 −0.08 0.11
25. I will never be satisfied −0.15 0.54b 0.13 0.15 0.05
18. I want to amount to something −0.09 0.49 −0.01 0.18 −0.08
30. I really like to be the center of attention 0.46 0.49 −0.07 −0.29 0.12
26. I like to be complimented 0.03 0.49 −0.21 0.11 0.14
20. I am apt to show off if I get the chance 0.05 0.47 0.06 −0.06 0.30
4. I know that I am good because people tell me 0.00 0.41b 0.20 0.15 −0.05
5. If I ruled the world it would be a better place 0.04 0.34 0.23 0.27 −0.19
24. I expect a great deal from other people −0.02 0.33 −0.04 0.10 −0.04
23. Everybody likes to hear my stories 0.07 0.28 0.17 0.15 0.07
35. I can make anybody believe anything I want 0.00 0.18 0.72c 0.04 0.03
13. I find it easy to manipulate people 0.13 0.11 0.67c −0.07 0.04
6. I can usually talk my way out of anything 0.15 0.06 0.59c 0.05 −0.05
1. I have a natural talent for influencing people 0.39 −0.13 0.53c −0.01 0.06
16. I can read people like a book 0.03 0.08 0.45c 0.04 0.07
22. I rarely depend on anyone else −0.14 −0.14 0.36 0.36 −0.03
2. Modesty doesn’t become me 0.00 0.15 0.26 −0.06 0.23
3. I would do almost anything on a dare −0.04 0.23 0.26 −0.21 0.08
34. I am going to be a great person 0.14 0.18 −0.09 0.70d 0.01
8. I will be a success 0.15 0.11 −0.13 0.66d 0.05
9. I think I am a special person 0.21 0.25 −0.20 0.62d 0.08
40. I am an extraordinary person 0.05 0.28 0.07 0.59d 0.14
39. I am more capable than other people −0.14 0.35 0.26 0.39 −0.01
21. I always know what I am doing 0.00 −0.16 0.30 0.35 0.01
31. I can live my life in any way I want to 0.09 −0.02 0.16 0.29 0.12
27. I have a strong will to power 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.08
14. I insist on getting the respect that is due me 0.12 0.19 0.14 0.21 0.09
15. I like to display my body −0.03 −0.05 0.11 −0.02 0.81e
19. I like to look at my body −0.03 −0.11 0.01 0.18 0.90e
29. I like to look at myself in the mirror −0.03 0.08 −0.04 0.17 0.75e
28. I like to start new fads and fashions 0.19 0.18 0.10 −0.12 0.20

N = 527. Some items are paraphrased versions of the original NPI items. Loadings ≥ |.40| are bolded. a = item was
used to score the Leadership/Authority subscale, b = item used to score the Grandiose Fantasies subscale, c = item
used to score the Manipulativeness subscale, d = item used to score the Superiority subscale, e = item used to
score the Vanity subscale

with extraversion domain scores than all other subscales in the
same dataset) for these and all subsequent correlational analyses
presented. These comparisons were conducted using the
Williams modification to the Hotelling test for dependent corre-
lations with a common index (Weaver and Wuensch 2013).
In some ways, the NPI subscales showed similarities in
their personality relations. For example, all NPI subscales
tended to associate positively with extraversion domain and
acet scores across samples; similarly, all NPI subscales showed
robust negative associations with the Modesty facet of

Table 5 Correlations between the
narcissistic personality inventory Manipulativeness
subscales
Manipulativeness – .47
Grandiose Fantasies .37
Vanity .24
Leadership/Authority .44
Superiority .26
N = 700 in the community sample, and N = 527 in the undergraduate sample. All correlations are significant at
p < .001. Correlations for the community sample are presented above diagonal, and correlations for the under-
graduate sample are presented below the diagonal
agreeableness. However, there were also important differences
across the NPI subscales in terms of their correlational patterns.
For example, NPI subscales such as Manipulativeness and
Grandiose Fantasies displayed stronger negative relations with
scores on the agreeableness domain (rs for both subscales ≥
|.35| across samples) compared to NPI Superiority (r < |.25|
across samples). Additionally, compared to other subscales
such as NPI Leadership/Authority and Manipulativeness,
which had many strong personality correlates, NPI Vanity
showed few robust personality associations. This was true in
the undergraduate sample especially, where in fact, NPI Vanity
had only one personality correlate ≥ |.30| in magnitude (i.e., r =
−.43 with the Modesty facet scale from agreeableness).
Other specific correlation comparisons further under-
score these differences. For example, extraversion domain
scores were correlated significantly more strongly with
NPI Leadership/Authority in both the community
(r = .74) and undergraduate sample (r = .62) than with
any other NPI subscale in both samples (rs ranged from
.15 to .59). Additionally, the Assertiveness extraversion
facet was strongly correlated with NPI Leadership/
Authority in both the community (r = .81) and the under-
graduate sample (r = .73); again, this correlation with NPI
Leadership/Authority was significantly stronger than the
correlation for the Assertiveness facet scale with any other
NPI subscale across samples (rs ranged from .17 to .48).
NPI Subscale Psychopathology Associations
We discuss the correlational results for both the community and
undergraduate samples together because results generally were
similar across samples, as shown in Tables 8 and 9, respectively.
Once again, there were some common trends observed for the
five NPI subscales, as they all correlated moderately to strongly
with SD3 Narcissism across samples (all rs > .40).
Once more, however, the NPI subscales displayed distinc-
tive relations from one another in at least some ways. For
example, NPI Manipulativeness tended to display much stron-
ger relations with SD3 Machiavellianism and Psychopathy
scores than did subscales such as NPI Leadership/Authority
J Psychopathol Behav Assess
Grandiose Vanity Leadership/ Superiority
Fantasies Authority
.31 .56 .42
– .43 .52 .55
.26 – .40 .44
.34 .32 – .60
.33 .36 .46 –
and Superiority. Furthermore, NPI Grandiose Fantasies was
moderately associated with PNI Grandiosity and Vulnerability
in both samples, even though all other subscales correlated ≤
|.30| with these PNI measures across samples. Overall, sub-
scales such as NPI Manipulativeness and Grandiose Fantasies
also displayed a larger number of robust correlations with
other psychopathology indicators compared to some other
subscales. Specifically, NPI Manipulativeness and Grandiose
Fantasies had seven and 11 total correlations with other psy-
chopathology ≥ |.30| across samples, respectively; those cor-
relational patterns represent an interesting juxtaposition to
NPI Superiority, which had only three total psychopathology
correlates ≥ |.30| across samples.
Discussion
The primary goals of this study were to (a) examine the item-
level structure of the NPI and (b) determine the degree to
which subscales modeling NPI factors showed divergent pat-
terns of personality and psychopathology relations. These
aims were intended to extend the limited prior work focusing
on the NPI’s psychometric properties when it is administered
with a single-stimulus and Likert style response format. As we
discuss in detail next, our results indicate that a five-factor NPI
structure replicated across our datasets. Furthermore, both our
structural and correlational results highlight significant hetero-
geneity in the NPI’s content. Thus, in discussing the implica-
tions of our key findings, we give special emphasis to the
importance of recognizing this item-level heterogeneity when
using the NPI in future research.
The Structure of an Alternate Version
of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
Our results indicated that five replicable NPI factors (i.e.,
Manipulativeness, Grandiose Fantasies, Vanity, Leadership/
Authority, Superiority) could be identified across samples.
These findings are consistent with other research indicating
that the NPI contains a heterogeneous range of item content
J Psychopathol Behav Assess

Table 6 Correlations for NPI

subscale scores with personality NPI Subscale
domains and facets in the
community sample Manipulativeness Grandiose Vanity Leadership/ Superiority
Fantasies Authority

Neuroticism
Domain −.19 −.09 −.27 −.42 −.43
Self-Consciousness −.34 −.24 −.25 −.60* −.41
Depression −.17 −.14 −.30 −.38 −.49*
Vulnerability −.29 −.11 −.22 −.44 −.41
Immoderation .03 .07 −.19 −.11 −.34*
Anxiety −.22 −.15 −.21 −.39 −.17
Anger .10 .14 −.01 .02 −.10
Extraversion
Domain .47 .45 .45 .74* .59
Assertiveness .45 .34 .27 .81* .48
Excitement Seeking .38 .48 .42 .47 .34
Friendliness .34 .29 .32 .51 .43
Cheerfulness .25 .24 .36 .40 .39
Activity Level .32 .31 .26 .46 .45
Gregariousness .30 .32 .38 .54 .53
Agreeableness
Domain −.41 −.45 −.29 −.31 −.22
Modesty −.45 −.54 −.50 −.63 −.65
Morality −.62* −.47 −.33 −.38 −.28
Cooperation −.37 −.40 −.25 −.32 −.16
Trust .06 .02 −.11* .13 .17
Altruism −.04 −.10 −.02 .14 −.07
Sympathy −.08 −.21 .10 −.09 .20
Conscientiousness
Domain .06 −.06* .08 .23 .29
Dutifulness −.13 −.22 −.09 .04 .48
Cautiousness −.19 −.27 −.09 .44 .43
Self-Efficacy .35 .17 .22 .45 .01*
Achievement .22 .16 .14 .41* .04
Striving
Self-Discipline .09 .00 .09 .23 .22
Orderliness −.03 −.04 .08 .02 .09

N = 700. Correlations ≥ |.30| are bolded. * = Correlation is significantly higher/lower than any other correlation in
the same row at p < .001. IPIP = International Personality Item Pool, NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory

that is not captured using total scores (Ackerman et al. 2016;
Foster et al. 2016; Stanton et al. 2017). Our results partially
replicated and extended previous research by Ackerman et al.
(2016) when administering the NPI using a single-stimulus
response format and Likert style response scale. Specifically,
Table 10 presents a comparison of the composition of NPI
subscales based on the results in our samples with subscales
that could be scored based on findings presented by Ackerman
et al. (2016). As Table 10 shows, both our results and those
presented by Ackerman et al. (2016) indicated that the same
set of NPI items can be used to model Manipulativeness,
Vanity, and Superiority dimensions. Furthermore, six of the
seven items (i.e., items 10, 11, 12, 17, 33, and 36) used to
score the Leadership/Authority dimension that emerged in
our results also were clear indicators of Ackerman et al.’s
(2016) Leadership factor. It is interesting that these results
replicated quite well across samples, especially given that
these samples differed considerably regarding demographic
variables such as treatment status. The largest departure be-
tween our findings and Ackerman et al.’ (2016) was that a
Grandiose Fantasies factor emerged in our datasets, whereas
their analyses found evidence for a distinct Exhibitionism
 J Psychopathol Behav Assess

Table 7 Correlations for NPI

subscale scores with personality NPI Subscale
domains and facets in the
undergraduate samples Manipulativeness Grandiose Vanity Leadership/ Superiority
Fantasies Authority

Neuroticism
Domain −.07 .12* −.15 −.30 −.37
Self-Consciousness −.24 −.04 −.20 −.53* −.36
Depression −.05 .05 −.22 −.27 −.42
Vulnerability −.17 .09* −.10 −.27 −.32
Immoderation .01 .11 −.10 −.09 −.19
Anxiety −.09 .07* −.11 −.18 −.21
Anger .18 .23 .07 .02 −.09
Extraversion
Domain .25 .15 .27 .62* .36
Assertiveness .29 .19 .17 .73* .36
Excitement Seeking .30 .21 .28 .41* .25
Friendliness .19 .08 .25 .47* .30
Cheerfulness .14 .05 .24 .35 .36
Activity Level .04 .03 .00 .29 .20
Gregariousness .15 .11 .23 .43 .13
Agreeableness
Domain −.48 −.38 −.25 −.28 −.16
Modesty −.35 −.37 −.43 −.52 −.58
Morality −.57* −.37 −.26 −.29 −.15
Cooperation −.39 −.32 −.15 −.21 −.03
Trust −.24 −.15 .04 −.01 .13
Altruism −.13 −.13 −.11 .05 .10
Sympathy −.13 −.13 −.08 −.05 −.06
Conscientiousness
Domain −.16 −.18 −.06 .07 .20
Dutifulness −.29 −.25 −.17 −.09 .10*
Cautiousness −.22 −.23 −.16 −.17 −.03
Self-Efficacy .10 −.02 .10 .26 .41*
Achievement −.06 −.01 .00 .18 .27
Striving
Self-Discipline −.07 −.09 .00 .14 .15
Orderliness −.09 −.09 .01 .05 .09

N = 527. Correlations ≥ |.30| are bolded. * = Correlation is significantly higher/lower than any other correlation in
the same row at p < .001. IPIP = International Personality Item Pool, NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory

factor. The Grandiose Fantasises factor in our results and the
Exhibitionism factor identified by Ackerman et al. (2016)
were defined strongly by only three and four items each, re-
spectively, none of which were overlapping (again, see
Table 10).
NPI Subscale Correlates: Further Evidence
for Distinctive NPI Facets
At a broad level, the NPI item content appears to assess a
“disagreeable and extraverted” personality style, which is
consistent with key trait profiles of grandiose narcissism iden-
tified in some prior research (e.g., Paulhus 2001).
Additionally, the various NPI subscales showed robust asso-
ciations with SD3 Narcissism, but comparatively weaker as-
sociations with PNI Grandiosity and Vulnerability, except in
the case of NPI Grandiose Fantasies, which showed moderate
positive relations across samples. This finding makes sense
given that previous research has found the PNI to have diver-
gent patterns of relations compared to the NPI in some cases
(Pincus et al. 2009). Relatedly, early work conceptualizing the
Dark Triad primarily used the NPI as a proxy for narcissistic
J Psychopathol Behav Assess

Table 8 Correlations for NPI

subscales with psychopathology Criterion Measure NPI Subscale
measures in the community
sample Manipulativeness Grandiose Vanity Leadership/ Superiority
Fantasies Authority

Narcissistic Traits
SD3 Narcissism .44 .46 .46 .68 .58
PNI Grandiose .22 .41* .14 .22 .18
PNI Vulnerability .24 .35 .05 .04 −.06
Externalizing Traits
SD3 Machiavellianism .49 .39 .17 .21 .13
SD3 Psychopathy .43 .36 .25 .23 .07*
ESI-BF Alcohol Use .14 .06 .22 .12 .01
ESI-BF Drug Use .15 .02 .13 .04 −.01
Mood Symptoms
IDAS-II Euphoria .29 .26 .27 .34 .28
IDAS-II Mania .23 .23 .11 .20 .17
PID-5 Emotional .06 .20* .01 −.03 −.09
Lability

N = 700. Correlations ≥ |.30| are bolded. ESI-BF = Externalizing Spectrum Inventory-Brief Form, IDAS-II =
Expanded Version of the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms, PID-5 = Personality Inventory for
DSM-5, PNI = Pathological Narcissism Inventory, SD3 = Short Dark Triad

content (Paulhus and Williams 2002), and previous work has
shown SD3 Narcissism to be strongly correlated to the NPI
total score (Jones and Paulhus 2014). These findings also
align with prior research from the Narcissistic Spectrum
Model perspective, wherein the NPI is described as a measure
assessing primarily grandiosity and to a lesser degree entitle-
ment, with limited coverage of vulnerable narcissistic traits
(Krizan and Herlache 2018).
However, coupled with our factor analytic results, our cor-
relational analyses suggest that limiting analyses to total

Table 9 Correlations for NPI

subscales with psychopathology Criterion Measure NPI Subscale
measures in the undergraduate
sample Manipulativeness Grandiose Vanity Leadership/ Superiority
Fantasies Authority

Narcissistic Traits
SD3 Narcissism .58 .65 .48 .77 .65
PNI Grandiosity .26 .44* .17 .29 .27
PNI Vulnerability .18 .37* .11 .09 .03
Other Externalizing Traits
SD3 Machiavellianism .49 .46 .19 .26 .17
SD3 Psychopathy .46 .48 .30 .31 .16
ESI-BF Drug Use .26 .16 .12 .12 .10
ESI-BF Alcohol Use .22 .18 .11 .12 .10
Other Psychopathology
IDAS-II Euphoria .34 .40 .34 .37 .33
IDAS-II Mania .26 .27 .16 .23 .17
PID-5 Emotional .01 .11 .00 −.10 −.12
Lability

N = 527. Correlations ≥ |.30| are bolded. ESI-BF = Externalizing Spectrum Inventory-Brief Form, IDAS-II =
Expanded Version of the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms, PID-5 = Personality Inventory for
DSM-5, PNI = Pathological Narcissism Inventory, SD3 = Short Dark Triad
 J Psychopathol Behav Assess

Table 10 Subscale item

compositions of the current study
compared to those identified in
Ackerman et al. (2016)
Current Study
Manipulativeness
1. I have a natural talent for influencing people
6. I can usually talk my way out of anything
13. I find it easy to manipulate people
16. I can read people like a book
35. I can make anybody believe anything I want
Superiority
8. I will be a success
9. I think I am a special person
34. I am going to be a great person
40. I am an extraordinary person
Vanity
15. I like to display my body
19. I like to look at my body
29. I like to look at myself in the mirror
Leadership/Authority
7. I like to be the center of attention **
10. I see myself as a good leader
11. I am assertive
12. I like having authority over people
17. I like to take responsibility for making
decisions
33. I would prefer to be a leader
36. I am born a leader
Grandiose Fantasies
4. I know that I am good because everyone keeps
telling me so **
25. I will never be satisfied until I get all that I
deserve **
37. I wish somebody would someday write my
biography **
Ackerman et al. (2016)
Manipulativeness
1. I have a natural talent for influencing people
6. I can usually talk my way out of anything
13. I find it easy to manipulate people
16. I can read people like a book
35. I can make anybody believe anything I want
Superiority
8. I will be a success
9. I think I am a special person
34. I am going to be a great person
40. I am an extraordinary person
Vanity
15. I like to display my body
19. I like to look at my body
29. I like to look at myself in the mirror
Leadership
10. I see myself as a good leader
11. I am assertive
12. I like having authority over people
17. I like to take responsibility for making decisions
32. People always seem to recognize my authority
33. I would prefer to be a leader
36. I am born a leader
Exhibitionism
7. I like to be the center of attention
20. I am apt to show off if I get the chance
30. I really like to be the center of attention
38. I get upset when people don’t notice how I look when I
go out in public

** = items that are unique to the current study subscales. Items from Ackerman et al. (2016) were selected based
on structural analyses of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory items when administering this measure using a
single-stimulus response format

scores may be problematic. This is because different NPI sub-
scales modeling factors from our item-level analyses appear to
show distinctive patterns of personality and psychopathology
relations that would be masked when focusing solely on NPI
total scores. Next, we review these patterns of correlates for
each NPI subscale to highlight these differences. Following
that, we discuss the degree to which the NPI subscales appear
to assess content that is maladaptive in nature, which repre-
sents an important consideration given ongoing debate regard-
ing the degree to which various NPI item content (e.g., lead-
ership, assertiveness) captures pathological narcissism.
Leadership/Authority and Superiority We discuss the correla-
tional profiles of NPI Leadership/Authority and Superiority
together given that they showed similarities in their correlates
in many ways. Notably, Leadership/Authority demonstrated
several strong and interesting personality links. Individuals
who endorsed NPI items assessing leadership content (e.g.,
“see myself as a good leader”, “am born a leader”) also de-
scribed themselves as very extraverted and assertive.
Furthermore, NPI Leadership/Authority was correlated with
(low) levels of neuroticism, showing an especially strong cor-
relation with the Self-Consciousness facet of this domain
(e.g., “am easily intimidated”). Additionally, Leadership/
Authority was strongly associated with low levels of modesty.
As was the case for NPI Leadership/Authority, higher
scorers on the NPI Superiority subscale also described them-
selves as having low levels of neuroticism, being immodest,
and being extraverted; however, NPI Superiority did not show
as strong of an affinity with scores on the Assertiveness facet
J Psychopathol Behav Assess
scale from the extraversion domain as did NPI Leadership/
Authority. Another replicable finding was that Superiority
scores were linked weakly to other psychopathology overall,
as this subscale showed only a few noteworthy correlations
with other psychopathology across samples, two of which
were with SD3 Narcissism.
Vanity Next, compared to subscales such as NPI Leadership/
Authority and Superiority, the Vanity subscale showed com-
paratively weaker associations with neuroticism and extraver-
sion and their respective facets. In fact, Vanity showed rela-
tively few robust personality associations across samples (e.g.,
it had only one personality correlate ≥ |.30| in the undergrad-
uate sample). These relatively weak patterns of correlates may
be due, at least in part, to the Vanity subscale consisting of
only three items assessing a narrow range of content focused
on liking one’s appearance (e.g., “like to look at myself in the
mirror”); in contrast, other NPI subscales appear to capture
more general attitudes and patterns of behavior (e.g., seeing
oneself as a success, as influential, etc.).
Manipulativeness and Grandiose Fantasies Manipulativeness
and Grandiose Fantasies also are discussed together. Their
associations were similar to one another in many ways, and
these two subscales appear to have markedly different person-
ality and psychopathology profiles compared to the other NPI
subscales. Specifically, high scorers on these subscales de-
scribed themselves as especially disagreeable, and relatedly,
reported high levels of dark traits as assessed by other exter-
nalizing measures such as the SD3. In particular,
Manipulativeness appears closely tied to being dishonest
much more so than other NPI subscales such as Superiority,
which is not surprising considering the nature of the items
used to construct the NPI Manipulativeness subscale.
Additionally, we should note that although Grandiose
Fantasies and Manipulativeness showed similar relations in
many ways, Grandiose Fantasies was somewhat more strong-
ly tied to PNI Vulnerability than were Manipulativeness and
other NPI subscales.
The NPI: To What Degree is Pathological Narcissism
Captured? Implications for Future Narcissism
Research
As discussed, previous research has questioned the degree to
which leadership-related content included in the NPI reflects
pathological narcissism. This content that has been challenged
primarily is subsumed within the NPI Leadership (e.g., “am a
born leader”) and Superiority (e.g., “will be a success”) sub-
scales. Subscales modeling these factors showed robust neg-
ative associations with indicators of neuroticism across sam-
ples, which suggests that high scores on these subscales ap-
pear adaptive in at least some ways. In addition, the current
study found that undergraduate students had higher mean
scores on these subscales compared to adults from the
clinically-oriented community sample. This is consistent with
some prior work using the NPI administered with a forced-
choice format (Stanton et al. 2017). However, at the same
time, scores on both subscales also converged strongly with
scores on some other measures of grandiose narcissistic traits
(e.g., SD3 Narcissism) and showed robust negative links to
modesty. Thus, given that high scores on these subscales seem
adaptive in some ways, but not others, we anticipate that there
will continue to be debate regarding the degree to which
scores on these subscales are adaptive versus maladaptive.
Of course, many of these issues also are related to broader
discussion in the field regarding the degree to which external-
izing features present without distress are pathological (see
Miller et al. 2017; Stanton and Zimmerman 2018).
Regarding the degree to which other NPI subscales
emerged as adaptive versus maladaptive, scores on the Vanity
subscale appeared similar to those for Leadership/Authority
and Superiority in many ways. Specifically, high scorers on
this subscale described themselves as immodest and extravert-
ed to some degree, although Vanity was linked relatively weak-
ly to other personality traits. Next, Manipulativeness and
Grandiose Fantasies clearly appear to be maladaptive; as stat-
ed, scores on these subscales were linked strongly and nega-
tively to agreeableness indicators in many cases, as well as
robustly and positively to indicators of traits such as
Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Additionally, scores on
the Grandiose Fantasies subscale were moderately positively
associated with vulnerability, and also did not show some other
“adaptive” correlational trends that Leadership/Authority and
Superiority displayed (e.g., moderate to strong correlations
with low levels of neuroticism). Consequently, we anticipate
that researchers will continue to view the content assessed
within Manipulativeness and Grandiose Fantasies subscales
as indicative of pathological narcissism.
We agree with conclusions drawn by Ackerman et al.’
(2016) regarding the future use of the NPI to assess narcissis-
tic traits. Although the use of NPI subscales represent an im-
provement compared to total scores for analyses, using mea-
sures that were created to model specific entitlement, grandi-
ose, and vulnerable traits comprising the broader narcissism
domain may be preferable (e.g., the Five-Factor Narcissism
Inventory [FFNI]; Glover et al. 2012) to using ad hoc sub-
scales modeling NPI factors. There were many parallels be-
tween our factor analytic results and those presented by
Ackerman and colleagues as stated (e.g., Manipulativeness
factors emerging across samples). However, there also were
key differences in our studies and this prior work (e.g., a
Grandiose Fantasies factor emerging in our study only); more-
over, the NPI items provide limited coverage of entitlement
and very little coverage of narcissistic vulnerability (Krizan
and Herlache 2018).

Limitations and Conclusion
The current study has several notable strengths. In particular,
we were able to establish the robustness of many key findings
across both community and student samples. At the same
time, however, the findings of the current research need to
be interpreted considering several limitations. First, our study
focused solely on self-report measures of narcissistic traits, as
well as self-reports of personality traits, other externalizing
traits, and mood symptoms. Future research would benefit
from a multi-method approach, which could include incorpo-
rating interview ratings and/or informant ratings of personality
and psychopathology. We also did not include a forced-choice
version of the NPI to directly compare similarities and differ-
ences between response formats, given that a large body of
research already has explicated the structure and correlates of
the NPI when administered in this manner; nonetheless, it
could have been interesting to examine head-to-head compar-
isons for both NPI administration formats when examining
factor structures and patterns of correlations. We also used
two convenience samples, and we hope that future research
will examine these issues in other sample types (e.g., samples
of individuals with high levels of personality pathology).
Finally, our data were cross-sectional in nature, which pre-
cluded tests of temporal stability regarding both factor struc-
tures and correlational patterns. Thus, future research would
benefit from using longitudinal designs, especially to examine
the degree to which NPI subscales predict scores on measures
such as self-esteem variability that may be implicated in nar-
cissism (Wright and Edershile 2018).
These limitations aside, our findings have important impli-
cations for the most widely used assessment instrument of
narcissism. They provide strong evidence that the NPI is de-
fined by distinct sets of item content showing divergent pat-
terns of personality and psychopathology relations when ad-
ministered using a single-stimulus administration format and a
Likert style response scale, consistent with prior research.
Therefore, if researchers continue to use the NPI in place of
other newer measures created to assess distinct narcissism
dimensions (e.g., the PNI and FFNI), we advise considering
the use of NPI subscales modeling specific narcissistic traits
instead of focusing solely on total scores.
Funding Information This study was partially funded by University of
Notre Dame Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest Matthew F. D. Brown, Kasey Stanton and David
Watson declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in this study.
J Psychopathol Behav Assess
Ethical Standards This research received approval from the University
of Notre Dame Institutional Review Board. All procedures performed in
studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical
standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with
the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable
ethical standards.
References
Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H.,
Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the narcissistic
personality inventory really measure? Assessment, 18, 67–87.
Ackerman, R. A., Donnellan, M. B., Roberts, B. W., & Fraley, R. C.
(2016). The effect of response format on the psychometric properties
of the narcissistic personality inventory: Consequences for item
meaning and factor structure. Assessment, 23, 203–220.
Arditte, K. A., Çek, D., Shaw, A. M., & Timpano, K. R. (2016). The
importance of assessing clinical phenomena in mechanical turk re-
search. Psychological Assessment, 28, 684–691.
Boldero, J. M., Bell, R. C., & Davies, R. C. (2015). The structure of the
narcissistic personality inventory with binary and rating scale items.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 97, 626–637.
Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2008). Narcissism at the
crossroads: Phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across
clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diag-
nosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 638–656.
Corry, N., Merritt, R. D., Mrug, S., & Pamp, B. (2008). The factor struc-
ture of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 90, 593–600.
Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the
narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 48, 291–300.
Everett, J. E. (1983). Factor comparability as a means of determining the
number of factors and their rotation. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 18, 197–218.
Everett, J. E., & Entrekin, L. V. (1980). Factor comparability and the
advantages of multiple group factor analysis. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 2, 165–180.
Few, L. R., Miller, J. D., Rothbaum, A., Meller, S., Maples, J., Terry, D.
P., Collins, B., & MacKillop, J. (2013). Examination of the section
III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality disorders in an outpa-
tient clinical sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 1057–
1069.
Finn, S. E. (1986). Structural stability of the MMPI in adult males.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 703–707.
Foster, J. D., Shiverdecker, L. K., & Turner, I. N. (2016). What does the
narcissistic personality inventory measure across the total score con-
tinuum? Current Psychology, 35, 207–219.
Glover, N., Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A.
(2012). The five-factor narcissism inventory: A five-factor measure
of narcissistic personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment,
94, 500–512.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad
(SD3): A brief measure of the dark personality traits. Assessment,
21, 28–41.
Krizan, Z., & Herlache, A. D. (2018). The narcissism spectrum model: A
synthetic view of narcissistic personality. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 22, 3–31.
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E.
(2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model
and inventory for DSM–5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890.
J Psychopathol Behav Assess
Maples, J. L., Guan, L., Carter, N. T., & Miller, J. D. (2014a). A test of the
international personality item pool representation of the revised
NEO personality inventory and development of a 120-item IPIP-
based measure of the five-factor model. Psychological Assessment,
26, 1070–1084.
Maples, J. L., Lamkin, J., & Miller, J. D. (2014b). A test of two brief
measures of the dark triad: The dirty dozen and short dark triad.
Psychological Assessment, 26, 326–331.
McCredie, M. N., & Morey, L. C. (2019). Who are the turkers? A char-
acterization of mturk workers using the personality assessment in-
ventory. Assessment, 26, 759–766.
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., & Campbell, K. W. (2017).
Controversies in narcissism. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology, 13, 1–25.
Miller, J. D., Gentile, B., Carter, N. T., Crowe, M., Hoffman, B. J., &
Campbell, K. W. (2018). A comparison of the nomological networks
associated with forced-choice and Likert formats of the narcissistic
personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100, 259–
267.
O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the
number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP
test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32,
396–402.
Patrick, C. J., Kramer, M. D., Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2013).
Optimizing efficiency of psychopathology assessment through
quantitative modeling: Development of a brief form of the external-
izing spectrum inventory. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1332–
1348.
Paulhus, D. L. (2001). Normal narcissism: Two minimalist accounts.
Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 228–230.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality:
Narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of
Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563.
Pincus, A. L., & Lukowitsky, M. R. (2010). Pathological narcissism and
narcissistic personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology, 6, 421–446.
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G.
C., & Levy, K. N. (2009). Initial construction and validation of the
pathological narcissism inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21,
365–379.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory.
Psychological Reports, 45, 590.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the
narcissistic personality inventory and further evidence of its
View publication stats
construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 890–902.
Stanton, K., & Zimmerman, M. (2018). Clinician ratings of vulnerable
and grandiose narcissistic features: Implications for an expanded
narcissistic personality disorder diagnosis. Personality Disorders:
Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9, 263–272.
Stanton, K., Daly, E., Stasik-O’Brien, S. M., Ellickson-Larew, S., Clark,
L. A., & Watson, D. (2017). An integrative analysis of the narcis-
sistic personality inventory and hypomanic personality scale:
Implications for construct validity. Assessment, 24, 695–711.
Stanton, K., McArtor, D. B., & Watson, D. (2019). Parsing the hypoman-
ic personality: Explicating the nature of specific dimensions defin-
ing mania risk. Assessment, 26, 492–507.
Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assess-
ment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis.
Psychological Methods, 16, 209–220.
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the
matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321–327.
Watson, D., O’Hara, M. W., Naragon-Gainey, K., Koffel, E.,
Chmielewski, M., Kotov, R., et al. (2012). Development and vali-
dation of new anxiety and bipolar symptom scales for an expanded
version of the IDAS (the IDAS-II). Assessment, 19, 399–420.
Weaver, B., & Wuensch, K. L. (2013). SPSS and SAS programs for
comparing Pearson correlations and OLS regression coefficients.
Behavioral Research Methods, 45, 880–895.
Wetzel, E., Roberts, B. W., Fraley, R. C., & Brown, A. (2016).
Equivalence of narcissistic personality inventory constructs and cor-
relates across scoring approaches and response formats. Journal of
Research in Personality, 61, 87–98.
Wright, A. G. C., & Edershile, E. A. (2018). Issues resolved and unre-
solved and pathological narcissism. Current Opinion in Psychology,
21, 74–79.
Wright, A. G. C., Lukowitsky, M. R., Pincus, A. L., & Conroy, D. E.
(2010). The higher order factor structure and gender invariance of
the pathological narcissism inventory. Assessment, 17, 467–483.
Wright, A. G. C., Thomas, K. M., Hopwood, C. J., Markon, K. E., Pincus,
A. L., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). The hierarchical structure of DSM-5
pathological personality traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
121, 951–957.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.