JSPR

Article

Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships
Modeling the interplay 2019, Vol. 36(7) 2156–2179
ª The Author(s) 2018
between narcissism, Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

relational motives, and DOI: 10.1177/0265407518783096

journals.sagepub.com/home/spr

jealousy-induced responses
to infidelity threat

Gregory K. Tortoriello
William Hart
University of Alabama, USA

Abstract
Threat-based accounts of narcissism postulate enhanced worrying and negative emotion
following threat. The present study examined whether the psychological process by
which people experience and respond to jealousy-inducing threats varies according to
their narcissism subtype. Participants completed measures of grandiose and vulnerable
narcissism, simulated sexual and emotional infidelity scenarios, and reported their
anticipated (a) motives (power/control, relational security, self-esteem compensation,
uncertainty minimization) and (b) jealousy responses (worrying, negative emotions, and
behavioral tactics). Path modeling conditionally supported threat-based accounts for the
vulnerable subtype but not for the grandiose subtype. Grandiose narcissism (marginally)
inversely related to a composite of worrying and negative emotion but (directly) posi-
tively related to power/control motives and, in turn, attacking/restricting tactics. Effects
of vulnerable narcissism on jealousy outcomes depended on infidelity type. Vis-à-vis
emotional infidelity, vulnerable narcissism positively related to worrying and negative
emotion and, in turn, related to heightened pursuit of all motives, some of which
uniquely predicted heightened attacking/restricting tactics, suppressed attacking/
restricting tactics, and heightened enhancing tactics. Vis-à-vis sexual infidelity, effects of
vulnerable narcissism mimicked those of grandiose narcissism. In jealousy contexts,
extant threat-based accounts of narcissism appear inadequate for explaining the
grandiose subtype and evidently bounded for explaining the vulnerable subtype.

Corresponding author:
Gregory K. Tortoriello, Department of Psychology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA.
Email: gktortoriello@crimson.ua.edu
Tortoriello and Hart 2157

Keywords
Infidelity, narcissism, psychology, relational motives, romantic jealousy, romantic
relationships

Accumulating evidence has implicated the personality trait narcissism in relational

dysfunction (e.g., Keller et al., 2014; Lamkin, Campbell, vanDellen, & Miller, 2015;
Peterson & DeHart, 2014; Tortoriello, Hart, Richardson, & Tullett, 2017). For instance,
narcissists1 are both inclined to induce jealousy in partners (Campbell, Foster, & Finkel,
2002; Tortoriello et al., 2017) and to experience jealousy (Barelds, Dijkstra, Groothof, &
Pastoor, 2017; Besser & Priel, 2010; Chin, Atkinson, Raheb, Harris, & Vernon, 2017).
While work has explored the underlying motives of the former (Campbell et al., 2002;
Tortoriello et al., 2017), research has yet to explore the underlying motives of the latter.
Considering the role of relational motives would enable researchers to probe the com-
plex interplay between cognitive-affective, motivational and self-regulatory, and beha-
vioral processes in narcissists’ jealousy experience. Several theoretical perspectives on
narcissism have emphasized the utility of motivational and self-regulatory processes for
explaining narcissistic behavior (e.g., a self-presentation account; Hart, Adams, Burton,
& Tortoriello, 2017; a dynamic self-regulatory processing model; Morf & Rhodewalt,
2001; the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept; Back et al., 2013). Therefore,
the present research contributes to this literature by testing a theorized process by which
relational motives are activated and activate jealousy-induced behavior in narcissistic
romantic partners.

A motivational account of romantic jealousy

Some theorists conceptualize romantic jealousy as a multidimensional construct dis-
tinguishable by cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes (Guerrero & Anderson,
1998; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989; White; 1981). Cognitive jealousy refers to worry and
suspicion in response to a real or perceived threat to the relationship by a rival (Pfeiffer &
Wong, 1989); emotional jealousy refers to a constellation of negative-affective
responses (e.g., anger, fear, and envy; White & Mullen, 1989) to a relationship threat;
and behavioral jealousy refers to tactical and communicative responses elicited by a
relationship threat, which can involve surveillance, partner- and rival-directed aggres-
sion, revenge, and relationship enhancement (Guerrero, Andersen, Jorgensen, Spitzberg,
& Eloy, 1995). These behaviors may further comprise two broader taxonomies of
behavioral jealousy: attacking tactics and enhancing tactics (Rich, 1991).
A motivational account posits that behavioral jealousy emerges from a perceived
threat to relevant, relational motives. Guerrero and Andersen (1998) theorized the
existence of at least six jealousy-related motives (or goals) that might be heightened
following a perceived relationship threat: (1) maintain relationship; (2) preserve self-
esteem; reduce uncertainty vis-à-vis (3) the relationship and (4) the rival; (5) reassess the
relationship; and (6) restore equity via retaliation. Relational motives are instrumental to
understanding the experience of jealousy because although presumed to be chronic and
2158 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36(7)

not always in conscious attention, their strength and salience is magnified under
relationship-threatening conditions.
However, the antecedents that activate relational motives might vary. Guerrero and
Andersen (1998) proposed a model suggesting a “hot” route to motive activation that
strongly implicates a causal role of cognitive-affective processes. An intense state of
worrying and negative affect serves as the impetus by which relational motives are
activated. One alternative is a “cold” route to motive activation, such that relational
motives are activated via cognitive priming. This process is akin to a “bottom-up priming
of goals” (Shah & Kruglanski, 2003), wherein a stimulus presents (1) a cognitive cue to
activate relevant goals and (2) an opportunity to act on these goals. For example, per-
ceiving infidelity may cue a threat to relational power and provide an opportunity to
realize power (e.g., aggress against one’s partner) without necessarily requiring
prompting from cognitive-affective processes (worrying, anger, or distress). Perhaps
more likely to occur in a cold route to motive activation, however, is that hot processes
are merely tempered or not elevated. That is, one still experiences worrying, anger, and
distress, but the emotional intensity is proportionately less relative to the heightened
activation of motives.

Integrating perceiver narcissism into a motivational account of

romantic jealousy
Extant theoretical models of narcissism seem to favor a “hot” conceptualization of
narcissists’ experience of threat. Westen (1990) defined narcissism as “cognitive-
affective preoccupation with the self” (p. 227), and theories have postulated that
underlying this self is a tenuous sense of self-worth susceptible to heightened cognitive
and emotional reactivity to image threats. For example, threatened egotism (Bushman &
Baumeister, 1998) and narcissistic rage (Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1972) posit that nar-
cissists’ antagonistic behavior follows from an inflated sense of self that makes them
sensitive to slights and prone to experience hostile thoughts and negative-emotional
states (anger/hostility; shame). A dynamic self-regulatory processing model of narcis-
sism (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) suggests that this hot reactivity should activate com-
pensatory goals and the enhanced behavioral pursuit of them (e.g., to maintain a
grandiose exterior, the narcissist aggresses against a provocateur; Bushman & Baume-
ister, 1998). Based on these perspectives, narcissists’ jealousy experience should be
driven, in part, by hot, intrapersonal processes and motive-driven, strategic processes.
Critically, social–personality researchers have differentiated between two narcissism
subtypes: grandiose and vulnerable. The importance of differentiating these narcissism
subtypes has been emphasized in nomological network analyses (e.g., Miller et al., 2011)
and theoretical models (e.g., Krizan & Herlache, 2017). In essence, despite a con-
vergence on entitlement, antagonism, manipulation, and power striving in relationships
(Hart, Adams, Burton et al., 2017; Krizan & Herlache, 2017; Tortoriello et al., 2017),
grandiose and vulnerable narcissism meaningfully diverge on their cognitive-affective
profiles, self-concepts, and personality foundations (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Miller
et al., 2011). For example, vulnerable narcissism is associated with cognitive and
emotional hypersensitivity to intrapersonal and interpersonal threats, but recent evidence
Tortoriello and Hart 2159

has failed to reveal enhancements in cognitive and emotional hypersensitivity to these

threats in grandiose narcissism and, instead, often suggests cognitive and emotional
stability (Atlas & Them, 2008; Hart, Adams, & Tortoriello, 2017; Krizan & Johar, 2012,
2015; Tortoriello & Hart, 2018). Following failure, vulnerable narcissism is associated
with destructive (vs. constructive) self-reflection, whereas grandiose narcissism is
associated with constructive (vs. destructive) self-reflection (Tortoriello & Hart, 2018).
Following infidelity threats specifically, only vulnerable narcissism has been linked to
heightened negative affect (Besser & Priel, 2010; Hart, Tortoriello, Richardson, &
Adams, 2018). In contrast to its vulnerable counterpart, grandiose narcissism does not
seem characterized by envy (Krizan & Johar, 2012), a construct that shares features of
cognitive and emotional jealousy (see Parrott & Smith, 1993). Finally, vulnerable nar-
cissism is associated with avoidance, interpersonal sensitivity and insecurity, high
neuroticism, low self-esteem, and accentuated compensatory self-esteem motives,
whereas grandiose narcissism is associated with assertiveness, hubris, low neuroticism,
high self-esteem, and subdued compensatory self-esteem motives (Dickinson & Pincus,
2003; Krizan & Herlache, 2017; Miller et al., 2011; Tortoriello et al., 2017).
The aforementioned evidence suggests that narcissism subtypes are typified by dis-
tinct psychological constitutions, which has implications for how jealousy-inducing
threats are experienced in narcissists. Despite allusions to jealousy during early
theorizing on narcissism (Freudian references to “narcissistic injury”; e.g., narcissistic
rage, Kohut, 1972), to our knowledge, the psychological process by which narcissism
subtypes experience jealousy has been neither explicitly theorized nor empirically tested.
Hence, the present research tested whether “hot” conceptualizations of narcissism might
better approximate the jealousy experience manifested in the vulnerable subtype,
whereas the jealousy experience manifested in grandiose narcissism occurs via a rela-
tively “cooler” route. Specifically, we tested models proposing the following hypoth-
eses: The grandiose subtype (Figure 1) should demonstrate non-elevated or potentially
reduced cognitive and emotional jealousy and reduced motivation for self-esteem
compensation, yet still engage in heightened attacking and enhancing tactics
explained by heightened power/control motives. The vulnerable subtype (Figure 2)
should demonstrate heightened cognitive and emotional jealousy that predict an eclectic
pursuit of motives (for support, see Tortoriello et al., 2017), which are consistent with
their mixed expressions of vulnerability (security seeking, self-esteem compensation,
uncertainty minimization) and grandiosity (power/control; Wink, 1991), and, in turn,
predict heightened attacking and enhancing tactics. These hypotheses are broadly con-
sistent with recent evidence suggesting that the two subtypes converge on power motives
when confronting interpersonal threat and propensities toward violence and aggression
(Hart et al., 2017, 2018; Krizan & Johar, 2015), despite diverging on worrying, emo-
tional turmoil, and eclectic (vulnerable narcissism) versus focused (grandiose narcis-
sism) pursuit of social goals (Hart et al., 2017; Tortoriello et al., 2017).

The present study

To test each model, participants completed measures of grandiose and vulnerable nar-
cissism. Next, they read four vignettes, each depicting different scenarios involving an
2160 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36(7)

Figure 1. A theorized path model of grandiose narcissism and romantic jealousy. Solid arrows denote
positive hypothesized relations; dotted arrows denote negative hypothesized relations; the absence
of arrows predicting directly from narcissism subtype denotes null hypothesized relations. Assumed
residuals for endogenous variables and covariances between relational motives are not depicted.

Figure 2. A theorized path model of vulnerable narcissism and romantic jealousy. Solid arrows
denote positive hypothesized relations; the absence of arrows predicting directly from narcissism
subtype denotes null hypothesized relations. Assumed residuals for endogenous variables and
covariances between relational motives are not depicted.
Tortoriello and Hart 2161

infidelity threat committed by a romantic partner. Using vignettes to study jealousy

responses to infidelity threat bestows at least two advantages. First, compared to indu-
cing infidelity threat in the laboratory, vignette-based approaches expose participants to
minimal harm while maintaining verisimilitude. Second, vignettes help control for
contextual features of infidelity, which might naturally vary across levels of narcissism
and obfuscate interpretation of data. Following each infidelity, participants indicated
relational motives adapted from Guerrero and Andersen (1998) and Mattingly, Whitson,
and Mattingly (2012): (1) power/control over the relationship, (2) relational security
(encompassing security seeking and relationship preservation), (3) self-esteem com-
pensation, and (4) uncertainty reduction vis-à-vis the relationship and rival. For jealousy
responses, participants indicated the likelihood each infidelity would activate cognitive
and emotional jealousy and would provoke behavioral-jealousy tactics. As proposed by
Rich (1991), we differentiated between attacking and enhancing tactics, because both
taxonomies of tactics seem relevant to narcissism and responses to infidelity (Hart et al.,
2018).
We also differentiated between sexual infidelity (two vignettes) and emotional infi-
delity (two vignettes). Sexual infidelity involves sexual activity with someone outside of
the romantic relationship, whereas emotional infidelity involves extending love and
attention to someone outside of the romantic relationship (Shackelford, LeBlanc, &
Drass, 2000). Indeed, differentiating between infidelity types can yield important the-
oretical implications (e.g., sex differences; Sagarin et al., 2012). Because a sexual
infidelity might induce a more tangible threat to grandiose narcissists’ public image
about which they are chronically concerned (Hart, Adams, Burton et al., 2017; Krizan &
Herlache, 2017), a sexual (vs. emotional) threat might pose a more potent threat (greater
worrying and negative emotion). The opposite might be present for vulnerable narcis-
sists, given their attachment insecurity (e.g., fears of abandonment) and interpersonal
dependency (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003). Also, the characteristic of vulnerable narcis-
sists’ hypersensitivity, their worrying, and negative emotion might be amplified under
lower intensity (vs. higher intensity) threats. Indeed, emotional infidelity is rated as less
disturbing (threatening) than sexual infidelity (Shackelford et al., 2000). In theory, then,
effects of vulnerable narcissism on cognitive and emotional jealousy might be more
pronounced following emotional (vs. sexual) infidelity.
As auxiliary analyses, we tested for sex differences on emotional responses to sexual
versus emotional infidelity. A theory of evolved sex differences in jealousy (Buss,
Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992) posits that males and females endure distinct
reproductive costs from unfaithful mates. According to Buss, Larsen, Westen, and
Semmelroth (1992), males have adapted a sensitivity to paternal uncertainty, which
decreases the probability of cuckoldry (i.e., nurturing another male’s offspring), and
females have adapted a sensitivity to paternal investment, which decreases the prob-
ability of insufficient resources for nurturing offspring. Although alternative theoretical
explanations exist (e.g., a belief perspective or the double-shot hypothesis, DeSteno &
Salovey, 1996), females, relative to males, are generally presumed to be more emo-
tionally distressed over emotional (vs. sexual) infidelity, and males, relative to females,
are generally presumed to be more emotionally distressed over sexual (vs. emotional)
2162 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36(7)

infidelity (for a meta-analysis, see Sagarin et al., 2012; for a theoretical review, see
Edlund & Sagarin, 2017).

Method
Participants and design
We recruited 276 undergraduates from a southeastern university in the U.S. for an online
study in exchange for course credit. Participants were required to complete the study in a
single session. We excluded seven participants who failed to complete the study (i.e., at
least one measure used in data analysis), thereby retaining 269 participants2 (Mage ¼
19.43, SDage ¼ 2.09) for data analysis. The final sample was predominantly Caucasian
(84.4%), with African-Americans (10.0%) and Hispanics (3.7%), representing the
largest minority groups. Participant sex was equally represented (135 females and 134
males), and virtually all participants were native English speakers (99.3%). The study
used a two-group (infidelity type: sexual vs. emotional) repeated-measures design.
Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism were included as predictors alone and in con-
junction with infidelity type.

Procedure and materials

Participants consented to participate in two, purportedly unrelated studies examining
personality and romantic relationships. Unbeknownst to participants, these studies were,
in fact, two, related parts within one study, which we disguised with the intention of
mitigating potential response bias due to thinking that the personality and relationship
components are related. In Part 1, participants completed—in a randomized order—the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988) to index grandiose
narcissism and the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS; Hendin & Cheek, 1997) to
index vulnerable narcissism.3 The NPI (a ¼ .86) had participants read 40 statement
pairings (one non-narcissistic and one narcissistic) and select with which statement they
most agreed (e.g., I am much like everybody else vs. I am an extraordinary person). The
HSNS (a ¼ .73) had participants rate (dis)agreement (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼
strongly agree) with 10 statements (e.g., I often interpret the remarks of others in a
personal way).
In Part 2, participants simulated experiences in which their serious romantic partner
(past, present, or hypothetical) perpetrated an alleged infidelity. To simulate each infi-
delity, we composed vignettes designed to capture either a sexual infidelity (two vign-
ettes) or an emotional infidelity (two vignettes) per definitions by Shackelford, LeBlanc,
and Drass (2000). We averaged all responses assessed in Part 2 across the two vignettes
for each respective infidelity condition. We presented all participants with each of the
four vignettes in a randomized order (for vignettes, see Online Supplementary Material) .
After imagining each infidelity, participants first rated their (dis)agreement (1 ¼ strongly
disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree) with pursuing four relational motives activated upon
perceiving the infidelity: (1) power/control (4 items; e.g., I would want to be able to
control my partner/relationship), (2) relational security (7 items; e.g., I would want to
Tortoriello and Hart 2163

feel secure about the relationship), (3) self-esteem compensation (2 items; e.g., I would
want to feel less inadequate), and (4) uncertainty reduction (6 items) vis-à-vis the
relationship (3 items; e.g., I would want to know where I stand with my partner) and rival
(3 items; e.g., I would want to know how I compare with the rival). Principal components
analyses (PCAs) with oblique rotation (direct oblimin method) most often recommended
a four-component4 structure of relational motives for each infidelity vignette, consistent
with our conceptualization. Accordingly, we collapsed items into their four respective
motives for each infidelity condition (power/control: average asexual ¼ .80, Msexual ¼
3.07, SDsexual ¼ 1.42; average aemotional ¼ .87, Memotional ¼ 2.92, SDemotional ¼ 1.46;
relational security: average asexual ¼ .94, Msexual ¼ 3.69, SDsexual ¼ 1.51; average aemotional
¼ .93, Memotional ¼ 4.51, SDemotional ¼ 1.30; self-esteem compensation: Spearman–Brown
rsexual ¼ .81, Msexual ¼ 4.00, SDsexual ¼ 1.65; Spearman–Brown remotional ¼ .84,
Memotional ¼ 4.38, SDemotional ¼ 1.63; uncertainty reduction: average asexual ¼ .92, Msexual
¼ 5.15, SDsexual ¼ 1.50; average aemotional ¼ .94, Memotional ¼ 5.59, SDemotional ¼ 1.28).
Next, participants indicated their cognitive, emotional, and behavioral jealousy
responses to each infidelity. To index cognitive jealousy (average asexual ¼ .91, Msexual ¼
5.21, SDsexual ¼ 1.23; average aemotional ¼ .93, Memotional ¼ 5.29, SDemotional ¼ 1.23), we
adapted the 10-item Relationship-Specific Rumination Scale (Carson & Cupach, 2000),
wherein participants rated the likelihood (1 ¼ not at all likely; 7 ¼ extremely likely) that
they would experience heightened worrying and suspicion over the relationship fol-
lowing the alleged infidelity (e.g., I would spend time thinking about whether or not my
partner loves me). This is consistent with conceptual definitions of cognitive jealousy
(Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). To index emotional jealousy (average asexual ¼ .88, Msexual ¼
5.06, SDsexual ¼ 1.29; aemotional ¼ .90, Memotional ¼ 4.99, SDemotional ¼ 1.33), participants
rated the likelihood (1 ¼ not at all likely; 7 ¼ extremely likely) that they would feel eight
emotional jealousy responses following the alleged infidelity: envious, fearful, anxious,
uncomfortable, insecure, upset, angry, and jealous. We selected items based upon the
conceptualization of jealousy affect by White and Mullen (1989), which has been
adopted in research (e.g., Guerrero et al., 1995; Study 2). To index behavioral jealousy,
participants rated the likelihood (1 ¼ not at all likely; 7 ¼ extremely likely) that they
would engage in tactical behaviors representing attacking/restricting (5 items; surveil-
lance, revenge, rival aggression, and partner aggression (physical and verbal)) or
enhancing (4 items; partner/relationship-enhancing and self-enhancing) responses fol-
lowing the alleged infidelity. We selected attacking/restricting (e.g., partner verbal
aggression: I would yell, curse, and/or make hurtful comments) and enhancing (e.g., self-
enhancing: I would try to be more attractive or appealing) items from measures by
Guerrero, Andersen, Jorgensen, Spitzberg, and Eloy (1995).
For statistical guidance on the two-factor conceptualization of tactical behavioral-
jealousy responses (Rich, 1991), we submitted items to PCAs with oblique rotation
(direct oblimin method). For each infidelity scenario, the factor structure was consistent
with this two-component structure of behavioral-jealousy tactics. Accordingly, we
collapsed items into their two respective typologies for each infidelity condition
(attacking/restricting tactics: average asexual ¼ .76, Msexual ¼ 2.88, SDsexual ¼ 1.28;
aemotional ¼ .77, Memotional ¼ 2.57, SDemotional ¼ 1.23; enhancing tactics: average asexual
¼ .90, Msexual ¼ 3.60, SDsexual ¼ 1.58; average aemotional ¼ .90, Memotional ¼ 4.35,
2164 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36(7)

SDemotional ¼ 1.51). To further support our conceptualization of these behavioral-

jealousy responses as “tactics,” we assessed the perceived utility of the behavioral-
jealousy responses by measuring the extent to which (1 ¼ not at all effective; 7 ¼
extremely effective) each behavioral response would be effective (attacking/restricting
tactics: average asexual ¼ .78, Msexual ¼ 2.42, SDsexual ¼ 1.19; average aemotional ¼ .78,
Memotional ¼ 2.20, SDemotional ¼ 1.14; enhancing tactics: average asexual ¼ .91, Msexual ¼
3.47, SDsexual ¼ 1.58; average aemotional ¼ .90, Memotional ¼ 4.12, SDemotional ¼ 1.50).
Insofar as engaging in jealousy-induced behaviors reflect tactical attempts to restore
chronic relational goals, perceiving utility in such actions should highly correlate with
behavioral-jealousy tactics.
Additional items assessed include the likelihood (1 ¼ not at all likely; 7 ¼ extremely
likely) that participants would end the relationship (mate expulsion; Msexual ¼ 5.18,
SDsexual ¼ 1.36; Memotional ¼ 4.33, SDemotional ¼ 1.46) and a manipulation check (infi-
delity perceptions) for each infidelity condition. For the manipulation check, participants
were presented with conceptual definitions (per Shackelford et al., 2000) of each infi-
delity type (sexual and emotional) and rated the extent to which the previously read
scenario represented each form (1 ¼ this is definitely not an instance of [infidelity type];
10 ¼ this is definitely an instance of [infidelity type]). Finally, participants completed
demographics and were debriefed.

Results
Data reduction
Cognitive jealousy and emotional jealousy strongly correlated across conditions (r ¼
.70); given the high empirical and presumed conceptual overlap, we collapsed these
indices into cognitive-affective jealousy. Behavioral-jealousy tactics and perceived
utility of behavioral-jealousy tactics strongly correlated across conditions (attacking/
restricting tactics: r ¼ .85; enhancing tactics: r ¼ .90); given this overlap, we collapsed
these indices into behavioral-jealousy tactics for attacking/restricting and enhancing
tactics, respectively. Table 1 contains all study variables collapsed across conditions.

Manipulation check
To test the effectiveness of the infidelity manipulation, we collapsed subjective ratings of
sexual and emotional infidelity across the two vignettes for each infidelity condition and
submitted them to two-paired-samples t tests with infidelity type as the grouping factor.
Results confirmed that the manipulation of infidelity type was effective. Participants
rated each infidelity in the sexual infidelity condition as more representative of a sexual
infidelity (M ¼ 6.79, SD ¼ 2.14) compared to in the emotional infidelity condition (M ¼
4.31, SD ¼ 2.40), t(268) ¼ 15.90, p < .001, revealing a large effect size (d ¼ .97).
Similarly, participants rated each infidelity in the emotional infidelity condition as more
representative of an emotional infidelity (M ¼ 7.71, SD ¼ 2.06) compared to in the
sexual infidelity condition (M ¼ 7.21, SD ¼ 2.09), t(268) ¼ 3.81, p ¼ .001, but the effect
size was small (d ¼ .23). Given that infidelities involving sexual versus emotional
 Table 1. Bivariate correlations across infidelity conditions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. NPI —
2. HSNS .01 —
3. RSES .33** .27** —
4. COG-AFF .12 .14* .14* —
5. POWER .21** .23** .13* .31** —
6. SECURE .07 .04 .09 .50** .31** —
7. CSE .20** .16** .29** .65** .28** .61** —
8. UNCERTAIN .08 .05 .01 .74** .18** .64** .60** —
9. ATTACKING .20** .19** .13* .25** .64** .17** .17** .07 —
10. ENHANCING .01 .04 .06 .51** .27** .75** .50** .60** .23** —
11. Mate expulsion .02 .06 .13* .04 .03 .52** .22** .15* .05 .34** —
12. Perception: sexual .07 .02 .04 .03 .06 .31** .16** .16** .14* .18** .57** —
13. Perception: emotional .08 .01 .05 .34** .03 .10 .06 .24** .02 .04 .55** .46** —
Note. Variables represent means across infidelity conditions. NPI ¼ Narcissistic Personality Inventory; HSNS ¼ Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale; RSES ¼ Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale; COG-AFF ¼ cognitive-affective jealousy; POWER ¼ power/control; SECURE ¼ relational security; CSE ¼ compensatory self-esteem; UNCERTAIN ¼
uncertainty minimization; ATTACKING ¼ attacking/restricting tactics; ENHANCING ¼ enhancing tactics.
*p < .05 (two-tailed); ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

2165
2166 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36(7)

content are seldom mutually exclusive (e.g., observing one’s partner sexually caressing a
rival could also imply an emotional connection), this small effect size is not entirely
surprising (for a similar argument, see Buss et al., 1992).

Preliminary analyses
Our predictions implied the possibility that grandiose and vulnerable narcissists’
cognitive-affective experience of jealousy is qualified by infidelity type. Specifically,
grandiose narcissism might relate more strongly to cognitive-affective jealousy in the
sexual (vs. emotional) infidelity condition, whereas vulnerable narcissism might relate
more strongly to cognitive-affective jealousy in the emotional (vs. sexual) infidelity
condition. To test whether modeling should account for these potential interactive
effects, we correlated narcissism (NPI or HSNS) with a cognitive-affective jealousy
difference score between infidelity conditions (i.e., a within-participant interaction).
A significant positive correlation denotes that as narcissism increases, cognitive-
affective jealousy is significantly higher in the sexual (vs. emotional) infidelity condi-
tion. The relation between grandiose narcissism and cognitive-affective jealousy was
not moderated by infidelity type (r ¼ .03, p ¼ .68); the relation between vulnerable
narcissism and cognitive-affective jealousy was moderated by infidelity type (r ¼ .12,
p ¼ .047), such that this relation was stronger in the emotional infidelity condition
(r ¼ .17, p ¼ .005) relative to the sexual infidelity condition (r ¼ .10, p ¼ .11).
Accordingly, we collapsed all variables across conditions for modeling grandiose nar-
cissism, but we modeled each condition separately for vulnerable narcissism.

Main analyses: Testing each theorized model

For each narcissism subtype, we ran separate path models in Mplus (version 7.4,
Muthén & Muthén, 2012) using structural equation modeling. Consistent with Wink
(1991), we conceptualize grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism to be
orthogonal constructs. NPI and HSNS were unrelated in our data (r ¼ .01; p ¼ .93),
which statistically corroborated their orthogonality. Hence, allowing each subtype to
covary as exogenous variables within the same model was unnecessary on statistical
grounds and inconsistent with our conceptualization. Using maximum likelihood
estimation, we evaluated model fit using the comparative fit index (CFI), root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR). Hu and Bentler (1999) prescribed good fit as CFI being near or
exceeding .95, RMSEA being near or less than .06, and SRMR being near or less than
.08. Although we also evaluated the overall model fit using w2 statistics (nonsignificant
values indicating good fit), this method alone can sometimes yield misleading results
(e.g., when the sample size is large, the probability of nonsignificance decreases). To
estimate indirect effects in each model, we ran 10,000 bootstrapped samples using
bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals. All path model coefficients and indirect
effect estimates were standardized.
Tortoriello and Hart 2167

Figure 3. A final path model of grandiose narcissism and romantic jealousy. Dotted arrows
denote paths (constrained to zero) from intervening variables which failed to predict any endo-
genous outcomes. Residuals for endogenous variables are not depicted. NPI ¼ Narcissistic Per-
sonality Inventory; COG-AFF ¼ cognitive-affective jealousy; POWER ¼ power/control; SECURE
¼ relational security; CSE ¼ compensatory self-esteem; UNCERTAIN ¼ uncertainty minimiza-
tion; ATTACKING ¼ attacking/restricting tactics; ENHANCING ¼ enhancing tactics. yp < 10;
*p < 05; **p < 01.

Grandiose narcissism. First, we modified our theorized model (Figure 1) to reflect post hoc
data reduction procedures (collapsing cognitive and emotional jealousy; collapsing
behavioral-jealousy tactics and perceived utility of behavioral-jealousy tactics) and
subsequently tested this modified theorized model. Path modeling revealed excellent
model fit, w2 (3) ¼ 5.70, p ¼ .13, (CFI ¼ .997; SRMR ¼ .01; RMSEA ¼ .06). For
parsimony, we constrained the following nonsignificant paths: (1) the direct path
between compensatory self-esteem motives and enhancing tactics, (2) the direct path
between compensatory self-esteem motives and attacking/restricting tactics, (3) the
direct path between relational security motives and attacking/restricting tactics, (4) the
direct path between power/control motives and enhancing tactics, and (5) the covariance
between power/control and compensatory self-esteem motives. We also relaxed the
covariance between attacking/restricting and enhancing tactics, which we initially pre-
sumed to be orthogonal (Rich, 1991). This revised model on which we report (Figure 3)
also revealed excellent fit using fewer parameters, w2 (7) ¼ 2.27, p ¼ .94, (CFI ¼ 1.00;
SRMR ¼ .01; RMSEA ¼ 0.00).
As anticipated, grandiose narcissism nonsignificantly related (marginally negative at
p ¼ .054) to cognitive-affective jealousy. Direct effects of grandiose narcissism emerged
on enhanced power/control motives and reduced compensatory self-esteem motives.
A direct effect of grandiose narcissism also emerged on greater likelihood of using
2168 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36(7)

Table 2. Specific indirect effects in the path model of grandiose narcissism and romantic jealousy.

Indirect path Estimate SE 95% CI

NPI ! COG-AFF ! POWER .039 .029 [.106, .009]
NPI ! COG-AFF ! SECURE .057 .040 [.142, .015]
NPI ! COG-AFF ! CSE .074 .050 [.172, .022]
NPI ! COG-AFF ! UNCERTAIN .086 .058 [.202, .024]
NPI ! POWER ! ATTACKING .151a .033 [.090, .219]
NPI ! COG-AFF ! POWER ! ATTACKING .023 .017 [.064, .005]
NPI ! COG-AFF ! UNCERTAIN ! ATTACKING .017 .014 [.002, .054]
NPI ! COG-AFF ! SECURE ! ENHANCING .035 .025 [.091, .009]
NPI ! COG-AFF ! UNCERTAIN ! ENHANCING .011 .010 [.041, .001]

Note. NPI ¼ Narcissistic Personality Inventory; COG-AFF ¼ cognitive-affective jealousy; POWER ¼ power/
control; SECURE ¼ relational security; CSE ¼ compensatory self-esteem; UNCERTAIN ¼ uncertainty mini-
mization; ATTACKING ¼ attacking/restricting tactics; ENHANCING ¼ enhancing tactics; CI ¼ confidence
interval; SE ¼ standard error.
a
Indirect effect is statistically significant, such that its 95% CI fails to include zero.

enhancing tactics but did not emerge on greater likelihood of using attacking/restricting
tactics (marginal; p ¼ .08). Cognitive-affective jealousy did not explain any indirect
effects of grandiose narcissism on either relational motives (Table 2; rows 1–4) or on
behavioral-jealousy tactics via paths predicting relational motives (Table 2; rows 6–9).
Only power/control motives alone mediated the indirect effect of grandiose narcissism
on attacking/restricting tactics (Table 2; row 5). Plainly stated, as participants’ grandiose
narcissism increased, they were more likely to employ attacking/restricting tactics after
perceiving infidelity, which was only explained by their desire to restore power/control
in the relationship (not explained by heightened cognitive-affective jealousy).

Vulnerable narcissism. Vulnerable narcissism more strongly related to cognitive-affective

jealousy following emotional (vs. sexual) infidelity. To account for this moderation in
path modeling, we tested our theorized model (Figure 2; modified in accordance with
data reduction procedures) separately for each infidelity condition (i.e., simple effects).
Path modeling revealed fair to mediocre fit in the sexual infidelity condition, w2 (1) ¼
6.89, p ¼ .01, (CFI ¼ .99; SRMR ¼ .01; RMSEA ¼ .15) and in the emotional infidelity
condition, w2 (1) ¼ 6.77, p ¼ .01, (CFI ¼ .99; SRMR ¼ .01; RMSEA ¼ .15). To improve
model fit, we constrained the following nonsignificant paths present in both sexual
infidelity and emotional infidelity models: (1) each direct path between vulnerable
narcissism and (a) relational security motives, (b) uncertainty minimization motives, (c)
attacking/restricting tactics, and (d) enhancing tactics; (2) each direct path between
attacking/restricting tactics and (a) relational security motives and (b) compensatory
self-esteem motives; (3) each direct path between enhancing tactics and (a) power/
control motives and (b) compensatory self-esteem motives; and (4) the covariance
between power/control and uncertainty minimization motives. Attacking/restricting
tactics and enhancing tactics covaried, so we relaxed this covariance. This revised model
(Figure 4) revealed excellent model fit using fewer parameters for each sexual infidelity
condition, w2 (9) ¼ 3.97, p ¼ .913, (CFI ¼ 1.00; SRMR ¼ .01; RMSEA ¼ 0.00) and
Tortoriello and Hart 2169

Figure 4. A final path model of vulnerable narcissism and romantic jealousy. This model is
represented in the context of sexual infidelity (top) and emotional infidelity (bottom). Bolded
coefficients denote a moderated effect of vulnerable narcissism (HSNS). HSNS ¼ Hypersensitive
Narcissism Scale; RSES ¼ Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; COG-AFF ¼ cognitive-affective jealousy;
POWER ¼ power/control; SECURE ¼ relational security; CSE ¼ compensatory self-esteem;
UNCERTAIN ¼ uncertainty minimization; ATTACKING ¼ attacking/restricting tactics;
ENHANCING ¼ enhancing tactics. *p < 05; **p < 01.

emotional infidelity condition, w2 (9) ¼ 7.46, p ¼ .59, (CFI ¼ 1.00; SRMR ¼ .02;
RMSEA ¼ 0.00).
Here, we discuss direct and indirect effects of vulnerable narcissism within each
infidelity-type condition. In the sexual infidelity condition, vulnerable narcissism did
not relate to cognitive-affective jealousy. The direct effects of vulnerable narcissism
2170 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36(7)

Table 3. Specific indirect effects in the path model of vulnerable narcissism and romantic jealousy.

Indirect path Estimate SE 95% CI

Sexual infidelity condition
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! POWER .028 .017 [.005, .077]
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! SECURE .043 .027 [.010, .099]
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! CSE .059 .037 [.016, .132]
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! UNCERTAIN .067 .042 [.018, .147]
HSNS ! POWER ! ATTACKING .132a .036 [.064, .204]
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! POWER ! ATTACKING .017 .010 [.002, .039]
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! UNCERTAIN ! ATTACKING .009 .008 [.033, .001]
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! SECURE ! ENHANCING .029 .018 [.006, .067]
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! UNCERTAIN ! ENHANCING .010 .008 [.001, .032]
Emotional infidelity condition
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! POWER .046a .023 [.012, .105]
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! SECURE .100a .040 [.029, .186]
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! CSE .119a .046 [.034, .217]
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! UNCERTAIN .156a .059 [.041, .271]
HSNS ! POWER ! ATTACKING .085 .053 [.014, .193]
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! POWER ! ATTACKING .027a .014 [.007, .065]
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! UNCERTAIN ! ATTACKING .036a .019 [.089, .010]
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! SECURE ! ENHANCING .056a .024 [.016, .110]
HSNS ! COG-AFF ! UNCERTAIN ! ENHANCING .005 .014 [.021, .038]
Note. HSNS ¼ Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale; COG-AFF ¼ cognitive-affective jealousy; POWER ¼ power/
control; SECURE ¼ relational security; CSE ¼ compensatory self-esteem; UNCERTAIN ¼ uncertainty mini-
mization; ATTACKING ¼ attacking/restricting tactics; ENHANCING ¼ enhancing tactics; CI ¼ confidence
interval; SE ¼ standard error.
a
Indirect effect is statistically significant, such that its 95% CI fails to include zero.

emerged on enhanced power/control motives and enhanced compensatory self-esteem

motives. Indirect effects of vulnerable narcissism resembled those reported for grandiose
narcissism (see Table 3; top portion). Plainly stated, as participants’ vulnerable narcis-
sism increased, they were more likely to employ attacking/restricting tactics after per-
ceiving sexual infidelity, which was only explained by their desire to restore power/
control in the relationship.
In the emotional infidelity condition, vulnerable narcissism positively related to
cognitive-affective jealousy. The direct effect of vulnerable narcissism on enhanced
power/control motives was significant. Indirect effects of vulnerable narcissism (Table
3; bottom portion) on each relational motive were significant via cognitive-affective
jealousy. That is, as participants’ vulnerable narcissism increased, they were more likely
to experience heightened activation of power/control, security, compensatory self-
esteem, and uncertainty minimization motives following emotional infidelity, which is
explained by heightened cognitive-affective jealousy. Evidence of inconsistent media-
tion (i.e., indirect effects with opposing signs) emerged, such that as participants’ vul-
nerable narcissism increased, their heightened cognitive-affective jealousy following
emotional infidelity predicted enhanced power/control motives which subsequently
predicted a greater likelihood of using attacking/restricting tactics, but this heightened
Tortoriello and Hart 2171

cognitive-affective jealousy also predicted enhanced uncertainty minimization motives

which subsequently predicted a lesser likelihood attacking/restricting tactics. Finally, as
participants’ vulnerable narcissism increased, their heightened cognitive-affective jea-
lousy following emotional infidelity predicted enhanced security motives which sub-
sequently predicted a greater likelihood of using enhancing tactics.

Auxiliary analyses
Moderating effects of participant sex and infidelity type on emotional responses. To properly
examine a sex-differences-in-jealousy hypothesis, Sagarin et al. (2012) prescribed
testing a Sex  Infidelity Type interaction on emotional responses to infidelity. Sagarin
et al. (2012) also evidenced that these interactive effects appear strongest on distress/
upset and jealousy, so we decomposed our emotional jealousy composite into its con-
stituent emotions. First, we submitted upset and jealousy to separate repeated-measures
analyses of variance with infidelity type as the within-participant factor and gender as the
between-participant factor. A significant Sex  Infidelity Type interaction emerged on
upset, F(1, 267) ¼ 6.41, p ¼ .01, η2p ¼ .02. The relative difference on feeling upset in
response to sexual versus emotional infidelity was greater for males (Mdifference ¼ .66)
compared to females (Mdifference ¼ .33), t(267) ¼ 2.53, p ¼.01. A significant Sex 
Infidelity Type interaction did not emerge, however, on jealousy following the infidelity,
F(1, 267) ¼ 0.04, p ¼ .85, η2p ¼ .0001. Thus, the sex differences hypothesis was only
supported on upset. Next, we explored the Sex  Infidelity Type interaction on each of
the other six emotional responses to infidelity (envious, fearful, anxious, uncomfortable,
insecure, and angry). A significant Sex  Infidelity Type interaction emerged only on
angry, F(1, 267) ¼ 4.78, p ¼ .03, η2p ¼ .02, (all other ps > .20). The relative difference on
feeling angry in response to sexual versus emotional infidelity was greater for males
(Mdifference ¼ 1.01) compared to females (Mdifference ¼ .65), t(267) ¼ 2.19, p ¼.03.

Narcissism  Participant Sex  Infidelity Type interactions on jealousy-related outcomes. We

tested whether participant sex moderated interactive effects between narcissism
(grandiose or vulnerable) and infidelity type on each of the 10 jealousy-related out-
comes. Given the exploratory nature and number of analyses being tested, we applied a
Bonferroni correction to our alpha (aadjusted ¼ .0025) to account for potential Type I
error. Twenty multiple regression analyses failed to reveal any significant three-way
interactive effects of either grandiose narcissism (paverage ¼ .60) or vulnerable nar-
cissism (paverage ¼ .51).

Discussion
The present study attempted to model grandiose and vulnerable narcissists’ jealousy
experience. We postulated that grandiose and vulnerable narcissists differentially expe-
rience jealousy vis-à-vis cognitive-affective processes; whereas grandiose narcissists’
behavioral-jealousy tactics are motive-driven without heightened cognitive-affective jea-
lousy, vulnerable narcissists’ behavioral-jealousy tactics are motive-driven accompanied
by heightened-affective jealousy. Consistent with predictions, grandiose narcissism was
2172 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36(7)

(marginally) associated with suppressed cognitive-affective jealousy. Despite grandiose

narcissists’ anticipated diminished drive for self-esteem compensation, only power/control
motives explained their propensity for engaging in attacking/restricting tactics. Vulnerable
narcissism was associated with heightened cognitive-affective jealousy but only
following emotional infidelity. Following sexual infidelity, similar to grandiose narcissists,
only power/control motives explained vulnerable narcissists’ propensity for engaging in
attacking/restricting tactics. Following emotional infidelity, vulnerable narcissists’
heightened cognitive-affective jealousy predicted an eclectic range of motives on power/
control, relational security, self-esteem compensation, and uncertainty minimization. Via
these paths, power/control and uncertainty minimization had competing influences on
attacking/restricting tactics, such that power/control motives amplified while uncertainty
minimization motives suppressed attacking/restricting tactics. Also via these paths, rela-
tional security motives amplified enhancing tactics. Broadly, our models suggest that “hot”
conceptualizations of narcissism better embody the experience of jealousy for the vul-
nerable subtype but only in response to emotional infidelity. “Hot” conceptualizations
poorly explained the experience of jealousy for the grandiose subtype. Rather, grandiose
narcissists’ jealousy experience seems relatively dispassionate whereby power/control
motives and attacking/restricting tactics are heightened despite a less intense experience of
worrying and negative emotion.

Theoretical contributions
Broadly, the present work supports the notion that grandiose narcissists are relatively
immune to cognitive-affective expressions of interpersonal threat, whereas vulnerable
narcissists are relatively susceptible to cognitive-affective expressions of interpersonal
threat. Critically, extant threat-based models of narcissism (e.g., Bushman & Bau-
meister, 1998; Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1972; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) postulate that
such processes underlie narcissists’ antagonistic goals and behaviors. Our findings
challenge the viability of this assumption within jealousy contexts and, instead, offer
stronger support for nuanced models that differentiate narcissism subtypes (Atlas &
Them, 2008; Hart et al., 2017; Krizan & Johar, 2012, 2015; Tortoriello & Hart, 2018).
Such nuanced models posit the presence of aversive cognitive-affective processing
following interpersonal threat for vulnerable, but not grandiose, narcissists. For
grandiose narcissism, our findings suggest that an infidelity threat might operate as a
mere reminder to assert power and dominance (a desirable narcissistic image), con-
sistent with conclusions by Krizan and Johar (2015) and Hart, Adams, and Tortoriello
(2017). For vulnerable narcissism, nuanced models offered only partial support. Fol-
lowing sexual infidelity, nuanced models were incongruous with our vulnerable nar-
cissism model, revealing a condition under which vulnerable narcissists appear akin to
grandiose narcissists. Following emotional infidelity, nuanced models were indeed
congruous with our vulnerable narcissism model, supporting the presence of heighted
cognitive-affective processing. Therefore, our models highlighted the general
applicability of nuanced models to jealousy contexts, but support for vulnerable nar-
cissism was qualified by the specific jealousy context.
Tortoriello and Hart 2173

Theoretical perspectives may intimate why vulnerable narcissism differentially

relates to cognitive-affective jealousy following sexual versus emotional infidelity. For
example, vulnerable narcissists’ fear of intimacy (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003), perhaps
indicative of concerns surrounding abandonment and rejection in their relationships
(Kernberg, 1975), might amplify cognitive-emotional jealousy under conditions,
wherein the romantic partner displaces their love, affection, and attention to a rival (i.e.,
emotional infidelity). Sexual infidelity may connote a different form of threat for vul-
nerable narcissists, one that precipitates pursuit of power/control without arousing
commensurate worrying and negative emotions. An alternative (but nonmutually
exclusive) explanation is that because of their hypersensitivity to threat, vulnerable
narcissists’ enhanced cognitive and emotional responses are bounded to lower intensity
threats (Hart et al., 2018). In our study, emotional infidelity was perceived as less
threatening than sexual infidelity (indexed by reduced cognitive-affective jealousy), so
the effect of vulnerable narcissism on cognitive-affective jealousy should reasonably be
more pronounced in the emotional-infidelity (vs. sexual-infidelity) condition (supporting
this notion, see Hart et al., 2017).
Despite a divergence on cognitive-affective jealousy and compensatory self-esteem
motives, we observed a convergence on power/control motives and attacking/
restricting tactics. On a more basic level, such patterns are consistent with the dis-
crepant and shared personality foundations presumed to underlie grandiose and vul-
nerable subtypes. For example, the aforementioned divergences might be explained by
associations of vulnerable narcissism with high neuroticism and grandiose narcissism
with low neuroticism (Miller et al., 2011). The aforementioned convergences might be
explained by shared associations between narcissism subtypes and low agreeableness
(Miller et al., 2011). Thus, exploring these personality foundations in future work
could be fruitful.
Given grandiose narcissists’ marginally suppressed cognitive-affective jealousy
and vulnerable narcissists’ conditionally heightened cognitive-affective jealousy, it
seems tempting to characterize the former as normal jealousy expression and the
latter as pathological jealousy expression. Pfeiffer and Wong (1989) defined normal
jealousy as a response that “follows the appraisal of a real threat” and “involves some
degree or emotional upset, as well as protective behaviours” (p. 185). Conversely,
pathological jealousy “might involve imagined threat, paranoid suspicions, a high
degree of emotional upset and/or detective behaviours” (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989,
p. 185). However, disambiguating normal versus pathological jealousy in our study is
difficult. All jealousy responses followed appraisals of “real threats,” so one could
argue that vulnerable narcissists’ heightened cognitive-affective jealousy is actually
adaptive insofar as it protects the relationship. Furthermore, our index of attacking/
restricting tactics included surveillance behaviors that have been deemed “detective”
(Pfeiffer and Wong, 1989), so one could also argue that grandiose narcissists’
greater likelihood of using detective behaviors is actually maladaptive. Therefore, we
are reluctant to draw distinctions between normal and pathological instantiations
but suspect that both grandiose and vulnerable narcissists likely express a mixture
of both.
2174 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36(7)

Addressing inconsistencies
Some inconsistencies between our study and previous research emerged that ought to be
reconciled. For grandiose narcissism, we not only failed to observe heightened levels of
cognitive and emotional jealousy observed by Chin, Atkinson, Raheb, Harris, and
Vernon (2017), but our data suggested the opposite (i.e., suppressed levels). We suspect
that discrepancies might reflect psychometric differences in the assessment of jealousy.
Chin et al. (2017) assessed jealousy via the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS;
Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). In the MJS, the cognitive jealousy subscale assessed the dis-
positional frequency of suspecting a rival threat (which might be organically high in
grandiose narcissists; e.g., Lamkin et al., 2015), whereas cognitive jealousy in our study
assessed the likelihood of engaging in situational-specific, ruminative responses to
perceiving a rival threat. This approach made our study better equipped to control the
aspects of the situation likely to be inherently confounded with narcissists’ relationships
(e.g., volatility and homophily in narcissists’ relationships; Lamkin et al., 2015).
Although MJS emotional jealousy subscale presents respondents with hypothetical
scenarios, it confines its responses to a “very pleased/very upset” continuum. Consistent
with a conceptualization of jealousy affect being a constellation of negative emotions
(White & Mullen, 1989), we assessed a greater breadth of jealousy-related emotions.
Nonetheless, research on grandiose narcissism and jealousy is still nascent, so future
work should continue exploring this link.
Inconsistent with hypotheses, grandiose narcissism did not positively relate to
enhancing tactics. Indeed, of the four relational motives, grandiose narcissism only
positively related to power/control motives, which was the weakest predictor of
enhancing tactics. Hence, the influence of power/control motives in modeling was
attenuated upon controlling for shared variance with the other motives, and controlling
for this shared variance did yield a positive direct effect of grandiose narcissism on
enhancing tactics. For vulnerable narcissism, enhancing tactics operated indirectly via
cognitive-affective jealousy and security motives but only in the emotional infidelity
condition. In sum, the means by which each narcissism subtype linked to enhancing
tactics were largely unanticipated.

Sex differences in romantic jealousy

Evidence of sex differences in jealousy was partially supported in our data. Although a
Sex  Infidelity Type interaction emerged on upset (distressed) and anger, the antici-
pated interaction on “jealousy” per se did not emerge. We expound on several plausible
explanations. First, notwithstanding a meta-analysis corroborating sex differences in
jealousy (Sagarin et al., 2012), Edlund and Sagarin (2017) acknowledged that individual
studies can sometimes fail to bear out such effects. For example, because sex differences
were not of central interest, we failed to account for potentially robust moderators (e.g.,
sexual orientation; Harris, 2003). Furthermore, the effect of infidelity type on percep-
tions of emotional infidelity was small in our study, suggesting that participants did not
easily discriminate what constitutes an emotional infidelity scenario. Indeed, perceptions
of each infidelity type were moderately related in our data (r ¼ .46). Nevertheless, the
Tortoriello and Hart 2175

inherent confoundedness between sexual and emotional infidelity seems logical and was
anticipated (see Buss et al., 1992). Second, jealousy is a multidimensional construct and
encompasses an array of emotional responses (White & Mullen, 1989). Perhaps con-
comitant feelings of jealousy (e.g., insecurity) can sometimes weaken detection of sex
differences. Third, DeSteno (2010) asserted that sex differences in jealousy might be a
consequence of a force-choice response format (or perhaps more robust under this
methodological approach; Edlund & Sagarin, 2017) which was not utilized in our study
(c.f., Sagarin et al., 2012).

Limitations and future directions

We acknowledge the presence of limitations in our study. First, although our models
were predicated on theory, alternative models with different sequences of variables
can be proposed. To this point, our models are unable to ascertain the existence of
causal processes due to our study’s cross-sectional design. Second, we relied on a
college sample which limits the generalizability of findings in terms of population and
perhaps relationship type (i.e., primarily non-marital relationships). Third, our data
were derived from hypothetical infidelity scenarios, which might not perfectly
approximate actual reactions to infidelity (for more, Edlund & Sagarin, 2017). Fourth,
we did not collect data on narcissists’ romantic partners, so the contributing role of
narcissists’ partners remains uncharted. To address limitations, future research might
consider the relationship between narcissism and romantic jealousy using dyadic data
(e.g., Keller et al., 2014), recall of past relationship experiences (e.g., Keller et al.,
2014), statistical techniques necessary for nested, longitudinal data (e.g., Lavner,
Lamkin, Miller, Campbell, & Karney, 2016), and samples including marital rela-
tionships (Lavner et al., 2016).

Conclusion
Our models supported distinct processes of romantic jealousy as a function of narcissism
subtype. For the vulnerable subtype, the experience of jealousy is likely “hot” and
reactive in response to only emotional infidelity, understood by cognitive-affective
turbulence concerning the relationship and the self and, in turn, the indiscriminate
pursuit of relational motives. For the grandiose subtype, the experience of jealousy is not
contingent on the type of infidelity threat and is likely less “hot,” which can possibly be
interpreted as a lower cognitive-affective threshold to activate a singular focus on power/
control motives. Despite these divergent processes, both narcissism subtypes unite on
attacking and restricting behaviors toward the partner. To better elucidate the com-
plexities of narcissism in romantic relationships, researchers should continue to explore
this cognitive, affective, motivational, and behavioral interplay.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
2176 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36(7)

ORCID iD
Gregory K. Tortoriello https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5960-0367

Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes
1. Throughout the article, the term “narcissists” refers to individuals who score high (þ1 SD) on a
continuum indexing trait narcissism. We use this term for brevity and do not intend to suggest
the presence of a clinical diagnosis.
2. Our original sample constituted 191 participants (70.7% female). Reviewers requested that we
continue data collection on only males to obtain a roughly equal male-to-female ratio. We
accommodated this request by posting 80 time slots and ceasing data collection once all time
slots were filled. Results were highly similar after adding the new male sample and, hence, all
conclusions were unchanged.
3. Participants also completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) to index trait
self-esteem. This measure was not used in main analyses, but for the interested reader, we
reported on its correlations with other variables in Table 1.
4. Only one vignette’s item yielded a three-factor solution, amalgamating relational security items
and self-esteem compensation items. Given that these constructs were identified as distinct in
the context of the other three vignettes and that we anticipated differentiation on these motives
in each narcissism model, we concluded that our proposed four-factor conceptualization had
garnered the strongest statistical and conceptual support.

References
Atlas, G. D., & Them, M. A. (2008). Narcissism and sensitivity to criticism: A preliminary
investigation. Current Psychology, 27, 62–76.
Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. A.
(2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcis-
sism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1013–1037. doi: 10.1037/a0034431
Barelds, D. P. H., Dijkstra, P., Groothof, H. A. K., & Pastoor, C. D. (2017). The Dark Triad and
three types of jealousy: Its’ relations among heterosexuals and homosexuals involved in a
romantic relationship. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 6–10. doi: 10.1016/j.
paid.2017.04.017
Besser, A., & Priel, B. (2010). Grandiose narcissism versus vulnerable narcissism in threatening
situations: Emotional reactions to achievement failure and interpersonal rejection. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 29, 874–902. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2010.29.8.874
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and
direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219–229. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy:
Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255.
Tortoriello and Hart 2177

Campbell, W. K., Foster, C. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2002). Does self-love lead to love for others? A
story of narcissistic game playing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 340–354.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.340
Carson, C. L., & Cupach, W. R. (2000). Fueling the flames of the green-eyed monster: The role of
ruminative thought in reaction to romantic jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 64,
308–329.
Chin, K., Atkinson, B. E., Raheb, H., Harris, E., & Vernon, P. A. (2017). The dark side of romantic
jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 23–29. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.003
DeSteno, D. (2010). Mismeasuring jealousy: A cautionary comment on Levy and Kelly (2010).
Psychological Science, 21, 1355–1356.
DeSteno, D., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy: Question-
ing the “fitness” of the model. Psychological Science, 7, 367–372. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.
1996.tb00391.x
Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable
narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 188–207. doi: 10.1521/pedi.17.3.188.22146
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2017). Sex differences in jealousy: A 25 year retrospective.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 259–302.
Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (1998). Jealousy experience and expression in romantic relation-
ships. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion:
Theory, research, applications, and contexts (pp. 155–188). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., Jorgensen, P. F., Spitzberg, B. H., & Eloy, S. V. (1995). Coping
with the green-eyed monster: Conceptualizing and measuring communicative responses to
jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 270–304.
Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report data,
psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 7, 102–128.
Hart, W., Adams, J., Burton, K. A., & Tortoriello, G. K. (2017). Narcissism and self-presentation:
Profiling grandiose and vulnerable narcissists’ self-presentation tactic use. Personality and
Individual Differences, 104, 48–57. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.062
Hart, W., Adams, J. M., & Tortoriello, G. (2017). Narcissistic responses to provocation: An
examination of the rage and threatened-egotism accounts. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 106, 152–156. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.049
Hart, W., Tortoriello, G. K., Richardson, K., & Adams, J. (2018). “S/he’s taken:” Effects of
grandiose and vulnerable narcissism on responses to relationship threats from rivals. Journal
of Individual Differences, 39, 212–219.
Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reexamination of
Murray’s narcissism scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588–599. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.
1997.2204
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Keller, P. S., Blincoe, S., Gilbert, L. R., DeWall, C. N., Haak, E. A., & Widiger, T. (2014).
Narcissism in romantic relationships: A dyadic perspective. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 33, 25–50.
Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York, NY: Jason
Aronson.
2178 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36(7)

Kohut, H. (1972). Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage. In R. S. Eissler, A. Freud, M. Kris,
& A. J. Solnit (Eds.), The psychoanalytic study of the child (Vol. 27, pp. 360–400). New York,
NY: Quadrangle Books.
Krizan, Z., & Herlache, A. D. (2017). The narcissism spectrum model: A synthetic view of
narcissistic personality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 1–29. doi: 10.1177/
10888683166850
Krizan, Z., & Johar, O. (2012). Envy divides the two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality,
80, 1415–1451.
Krizan, Z., & Johar, O. (2015). Narcissistic rage revisited. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 108, 784–801. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000013
Lamkin, J., Campbell, W. K., vanDellen, M. R., & Miller, J. D. (2015). An exploration of the
correlates of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism in romantic relationships: Homophily, part-
ner characteristics, and dyadic adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 79,
166–171. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.029
Lavner, J. A., Lamkin, J., Miller, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Karney, B. R. (2016). Narcissism and
newlywed marriage: Partner characteristics and marital trajectories. Personality Disorders:
Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7, 169–179. doi: 10.1037/per0000137
Mattingly, B. A., Whitson, D., & Mattingly, M. B. (2012). Development of the romantic
jealousy-induction scale and the motives for inducing romantic jealousy scale. Current Psy-
chology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues. 31, 263–281.
doi: 10.1007/s12144-012-9144-3
Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., & Campbell, W. (2011).
Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality,
79, 1013–1042. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic
self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196.
Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén &
Muthén.
Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 906–920.
Peterson, J. L., & DeHart, T. (2014). In defense of self-love: An observational study on narcissists’
negative behavior during romantic relationship conflict. Self and Identity, 13, 477–490. doi: 10.
1080/15298868.2013.868368
Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 6, 181–196. doi: 10.1177/026540758900600203
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality
inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 890–902. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890
Rich, J. (1991). A two-factor model of jealous responses. Psychological Reports, 68,
999–1007.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Sagarin, B. J., Martin, A. L., Coutinho, S. A., Edlund, J. E., Patel, L., Skowronski, J. J., & Zengel,
B. (2012). Sex differences in jealousy: A meta-analytic examination. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 33, 595–614.
Tortoriello and Hart 2179

Shackelford, T.K., LeBlanc, G.J., & Drass, E. (2000). Emotional reactions to infidelity. Cognition
and Emotion, 14, 643–659.
Shah, J. Y., & Kruglanski, A. (2003). When opportunity knocks: Bottom-up priming of goals by
means and its effects on self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
1109–1122.
Tortoriello, G. K., & Hart, W. (2018). A tale of two audiences: Narcissism, failure reactivity, and
perceived criticism from the self and others as internalized audiences. Self and Identity, 2,
236–254. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2017.1382385
Tortoriello, G. K., Hart, W., Richardson, K., & Tullett, A. M. (2017). Do narcissists try to make
romantic partners jealous on purpose? An examination of motives for deliberate
jealousy-induction among subtypes of narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences,
114, 10–15. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.052
Westen, D. (1990). The relations among narcissism, egocentrism, self-concept, and self-esteem:
Experimental, clinical, and theoretical considerations. Psychoanalysis and Contemporary
Thought, 13, 183–239.
White, G. L. (1981). A model of romantic jealousy. Motivation and Emotion, 5, 295–310.
White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
590–597. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.590