Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment © 2016 American Psychological Association

2016, Vol. 7, No. 4, 363–371 1949-2715/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000181

Fluctuation Between Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissism

Whitney L. Gore and Thomas A. Widiger
University of Kentucky

Current literature on narcissistic personality disorder has emphasized a distinction between grandiose and
vulnerable narcissism. Some researchers have further suggested that narcissistic persons fluctuate
between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. However, this perception has been confined largely to
clinical experience with no systematic research testing the hypothesis. Clinicians and clinical psychology
professors in the current study identified 143 persons who fit a description of either a grandiose or a
vulnerable narcissist and indicated the extent to which these persons ever demonstrated traits of the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

complementary variant. The results supported the fluctuation hypothesis, particularly for episodes of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

vulnerable narcissism in persons identified as a grandiose narcissist. Correlations of the grandiose and
vulnerable narcissism traits with a brief five-factor model measure corroborated past trait descriptions of
the 2 respective variants of narcissism. The results of the current study are compared with existing
cross-sectional and longitudinal research, and suggestions for future research are provided.

Keywords: narcissism, vulnerable, grandiose, five-factor model, narcissistic personality disorder

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is one of the more
controversial and debated personality syndromes (Miller, Widiger,
& Campbell, 2010; Skodol, Morey, Bender, & Oldham, 2013).
One issue that is the focus of significant debate is an hypothesized
distinction between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism (Cain,
Pincus, & Ansell, 2008; Caligor, Levy, & Yeomans, 2015; Miller,
Dir et al., 2010, Miller et al., 2011; Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010;
Ronningstam, 2005; Wink, 1991). A longstanding criticism of the
American Psychiatric Association’s diagnosis of NPD (retained in
the official section II of the fifth edition of the diagnostic manual;
American Psychiatric Association, 2013) is that its diagnostic
criterion set is too heavily slanted toward, if not largely confined
to, a grandiose narcissism, characterized by such attributes as
arrogance, entitlement, exploitation, lack of empathy, and grandi-
osity, whereas a more vulnerable narcissism has been said to
concern an “inhibited, shame-ridden, and hypersensitive shy type,
(with a) low tolerance for attention from others and hypervigilant
readiness for criticism or failure” (Ronningstam, 2009, p. 113).
Vulnerable narcissism is said to be characterized by “self-reported
feelings of inferiority, general dissatisfaction with the self, shame-
proneness, and high levels of reactivity to evaluative events”
(Bosson et al., 2008, p. 1427). Pincus et al. (2009) described the
vulnerable narcissist’s “psychic pain” related to a “special status
that they are resistant to give up,” as well as being characterized by
Editor’s Note. Dr. Carl W. Lejuez, University of Maryland, served as a
guest editor for this article.—TW
This article was published Online First March 17, 2016.
Whitney L. Gore and Thomas A. Widiger, Department of Psychology,
University of Kentucky.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Whitney
L. Gore, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, 115 Kastle
Hall, Lexington, KY 40506-0044. E-mail: whitneylgore@gmail.com
363
the “experience of helplessness, emptiness, low self-esteem, and
shame” (p. 367).
One of the more commonly used measures of NPD (or narcis-
sism) is the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin &
Terry, 1988), which was based largely on the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, third edition (DSM–III)
criteria for NPD (American Psychiatric Association, 1980). The
NPI though has in turn received considerable criticism for its
potential failure to recognize a vulnerable narcissism, at times even
correlating with indicators of social adjustment and success (e.g.,
Cain et al., 2008). In order to identify aspects of narcissistic
vulnerability, Hendin and Cheek (1997) developed the Hypersen-
sitive Narcissism Scale (NCS), which has been shown to be, at
best, weakly correlated with the NPI. More recently developed
measures of vulnerable narcissism include the Pathological Nar-
cissism Inventory (PNI; Pincus et al., 2009) and the Five Factor
Narcissistic Inventory (FFNI; Glover, Miller, Lynam, Crego, &
Widiger, 2012), which include subscales for the assessment of
both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism.
Research has consistently demonstrated a distinct set of corre-
lates for grandiose and vulnerable narcissism (Miller, Dir et al.,
2010; Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010), including research with the
PNI and FFNI. For example, grandiose narcissism has been pos-
itively associated with the five-factor model (FFM) domains of
extraversion, antagonism, and (to a lesser extent) low neuroticism,
whereas vulnerable narcissism has been strongly associated with
high neuroticism as well as antagonism, albeit the latter more
weakly than for grandiose narcissism (Miller & Campbell, 2008;
Miller et al., 2011; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). In fact, the nomo-
logical net and personality correlates of grandiose and vulnerable
narcissism appear to be so distinct that it can be questioned
whether they should “be viewed as alternative phenotypic repre-
sentations of the same underlying core of narcissism” (Miller et al.,
2011, p. 1037). The grandiose and vulnerable scales from the
respective PNI, FFNI, NPI, and NCS are indeed weakly correlated
with one another, inconsistent with the view that the respective
 364 GORE AND WIDIGER
scales are identifying the same persons (Miller, Widiger, & Camp-
bell, 2014).
However, it has apparently been the experience of clinicians
treating persons with NPD that a vacillation between grandiosity
and vulnerability occurs during the course of treatment. “Our
clinical experience with narcissistic patients indicates they virtu-
ally always exhibit both covert and overt grandiosity and covert
and overt vulnerability” (Pincus, Cain, & Wright, 2014, p. 440).
Ronningstam (2009), based on her clinical experience, has simi-
larly suggested that NPD is a “pervasive pattern of fluctuating
self-esteem ranging from grandiosity and assertiveness to inferi-
ority and insecurity” (p. 118).
There has not yet, however, been a direct test of this hypoth-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
esis. Indirect evidence comes from studies that indicate that
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
persons with a fragile, contingent, and/or unstable self-esteem
will at times respond with excessive anger, hostility, and/or
retaliation to threats to their self-esteem (Bosson et al., 2008;
Kernis, 2005). However, it is unclear whether these persons
would in fact meet DSM–IV diagnostic criteria for NPD or
would be accurately characterized as being grandiose or even
vulnerable narcissists (Bosson et al., 2008).
There have been longitudinal, prospective studies specific to
narcissism and/or NPD. However, these studies were not designed
to actually address the question of whether grandiose narcissists
are vulnerable for significant periods of time or, in a similar
fashion, whether vulnerable narcissists are at times grandiose. For
example, Ronningstam, Gunderson, and Lyons (1995) provided
what is generally considered to be the first systematic longitudinal
study of NPD, following over a 3-year period, 20 persons diag-
nosed with NPD. Their primary finding was a clear decrease in
levels of narcissism across the 3 years. There was no indication
that participants experienced deteriorations in functioning. Nine
participants were said to have improved secondary to successful
life achievements (that resulted in an acceptance of more realistic
expectations) and four secondary to developing more meaningful,
durable relationships. In fact, even the three who experienced
significant setbacks in life also improved. There was one instance
in which a “too-harsh disillusioning experience” resulted in a
“worsening narcissistic psychopathology” (p. 255), but no further
details were provided. In sum, no evident occurrence of a
grandiose-vulnerable fluctuation was noted.
Block (1971) reported that between the ages of 18 and 30,
women identified as “dominant narcissists” increased in socializa-
tion and continued to be domineering and exploitative. There was
no suggestion that they ever evidenced significant feelings of
vulnerability. Wink (1992) reported the results of a longitudinal
study of 81 narcissistic women, assessed in their senior year at
college (age 20 –22) with the California Q-Set (CQS; Block,
1978), and reassessed again approximately 5 years later, and then
once again at approximately age 43. The women were classified as
either willful (“characterized by overt grandeur, power orientation,
exhibitionism, poor impulse control, and a pleasure seeking ori-
entation,” p. 9); hypersensitive (“overt inhibition, introversion, and
lack of self-confidence mask [of] an underlying covert grandiose
sense of self-importance, entitlement, and exhibitionism,” p. 9); or
autonomous (healthy narcissism). There was no indication that the
willful narcissists became vulnerable, or the hypersensitive be-
came grandiose. At the first follow-up, the hypersensitive had
become “more vulnerable and alienated” (p. 24), and by 43 “were
more rebellious, buffeted by impulse, cynical, and less able to put
their lives together” (p. 24). They had basically demonstrated a
“steady decline” (p. 24). The willful narcissists “showed little
difference from the college days” (p. 25). If anything, they had
“increased in social poise, confidence, and level of effective func-
tioning” (p. 25).
In sum, although quite informative with respect to their intended
purpose, none of the longitudinal studies have identified instances
of fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. As we
indicated, none of these studies though were designed specifically
to do so. They were instead concerned with more broader ques-
tions of whether narcissistic persons generally improved or de-
clined in functioning, not whether they fluctuated or vacillated in
their traits of grandiose or vulnerable narcissism. A more direct
test of the fluctuation hypothesis would be to assess whether
persons diagnosed or identified as grandiose or vulnerable narcis-
sists, have evidenced for any significant period of time, features of
the complementary personality syndrome. However, to date, no
such study has been attempted.
To address the fluctuation hypothesis, the current study relied on
informant reports by two different populations of persons who
would likely understand the constructs and perhaps have known
someone considered to be either a grandiose or a vulnerable
narcissist: clinical psychologists treating patients and clinical psy-
chology professors. Informant reports can be particularly useful in
the study of NPD and/or narcissism given the questionable self-
insight and self-disclosure via self-reports from narcissistic per-
sons (Cooper, Balsis, & Oltmanns, 2012). Participants were first
provided with a description of one of the two respective constructs,
and then asked if they had ever personally known any such person.
If so, they were asked to complete a checklist of features for that
respective personality syndrome. They were then asked if the
person had ever evidenced for any period of time (from never to a
significant period of time) the features of the complementary
syndrome. As a result, the current study obtained information
relevant to the question how often persons identified as grandiose
narcissists ever displayed features of vulnerable narcissism, and
how often persons identified as vulnerable narcissists ever dis-
played features of grandiose narcissism.
Method
Participants
Professors in clinical psychology and clinicians from American
Psychiatric Association Division 42, for psychologists in indepen-
dent practice, were invited by mail to participate in the present
study. Addresses for participants were obtained via publicly avail-
able websites. Participants were offered the option of participating
in a lottery to win $250. Participants indicated their interest in
participating in the lottery by identifying themselves on a business
reply envelope. Two professors and two clinicians were each
awarded $250 by check at the end of two waves of data collection.
Exactly 82 professors and 61 clinicians participated (an addi-
tional 108 persons returned questionnaires but indicated that they
had never known any such respective person). Of the professors,
approximately half (52%) were female, 85% Caucasian/White,
with a mean age of 47.3. Most of the professors (83%) were also
licensed psychologists. Of the clinicians, approximately half
 GRANDIOSE AND VULNERABLE NARCISSISM
(52%) were male, 92% were Caucasian/White, and mean age was
62.3. They reported that they had been clinicians on average for 31
years. Commonly reported theoretical orientations included
cognitive– behavioral (48%), eclectic/integrative (11%), and psy-
chodynamic (15%). Some clinicians (11%) indicated multiple the-
oretical orientations.
The results for three professors and one clinician were deleted
because they were each missing a significant portion of data. For
the remaining participants, only a few scattered items were missing
(less than 5% of items). Missing data were imputed using the
expectation maximization procedure, which has been shown to
produce accurate estimates of population parameters (Enders,
2006).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Procedure
Participants were randomly selected to be in either the grandiose
or vulnerable condition. In the grandiose condition, participants
were asked to identify a client or person they knew as fitting the
description of a grandiose narcissist. Then, they rated this person
with respect to 14 traits of grandiose narcissism and subsequently
rated the same person with respect to 14 traits of vulnerable
narcissism. The converse occurred in the vulnerable condition. If
participants were not aware of a person meeting the description
provided, they could return the questionnaires without completing
any narcissism ratings and still be included in the lottery (108
persons did so). In each condition, after rating the persons on traits
of narcissism, the participants then described the target with re-
spect to the FFM.
The descriptions of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism were
created on the basis of descriptors provided in Pincus and col-
leagues (2009). Presented below are the descriptions provided to
the participants:
Grandiose: “This person has an inflated self-image without
the requisite accomplishments and skills (i.e., arrogance or
conceit). He or she may engage in fantasies of unlimited
power, superiority, perfection, or adulation. This person may
also lack empathy, have a sense of entitlement, and may even
exploit others for his or her own benefit. This person believes
that others are envious of him/her and can also at times be
aggressive or exhibitionistic.”
Vulnerable: “This person has low self-esteem, often feels
helpless, empty, and shameful. He or she does not respond
well to criticism or rebuke. He or she may also feel that
his/her long-standing distress allows for a special status that
he or she is resistant to give up. When this special status is
threatened, he or she may react with anger or shame. This
person withdraws from others when he or she feels that his or
her special needs or demands are not being met.”
Materials
Grandiose and vulnerable traits. The list of grandiose traits
(e.g., has an inflated self-image, lacks empathy, believes that
others are envious, and exploits others for own gain) and vulner-
able traits (e.g., reacts with anger or shame when special status is
threatened, feels empty and shameful, does not respond well to
365
criticism or rebuke, and craves admiration from others), were
obtained from the published literature, including the American
Psychiatric Association (2013), Glover et al. (2012), Pincus et al.
(2009), and Pincus and Lukowitsky (2010) for grandiose narcis-
sism, and Bosson et al. (2008), Glover et al. (2012), Pincus et al.
(2009), Pincus and Lukowitsky (2010), and Ronningstam (2009)
for vulnerable narcissism. Participants were asked to indicate how
often the identified person had displayed the respective trait on a
0 –2 point scale, where 0 ⫽ No, never demonstrated this trait, 1 ⫽
Yes, but only some of the time, or 2 ⫽ Yes, a significant period of
time. They could also respond with “DK ⫽ Don’t know, cannot
report on this trait.” Cronbach’s alpha for the list of grandiose traits
was .86 for the professors, and .86 for the clinicians; for the list of
vulnerable traits, Cronbach’s alpha was .74 for the professors, and
.70 for the clinicians.
Five Factor Model Rating Form. Participants also com-
pleted the Five Factor Model Rating Form (FFMRF; Mullins-
Sweatt, Jamerson, Samuel, Olson, & Widiger, 2006), an abbrevi-
ated assessment of the five-factor model of general personality.
The FFMRF assesses the broad domains of neuroticism, extraver-
sion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, as well as
the six facets within each domain as specified by McCrae and
Costa (2003). The measure is a one-page form consisting of 30
items, with one item for each facet. Professors and clinicians
described the individuals where 5 ⫽ extremely high, 4 ⫽ high, 3 ⫽
neither high nor low, 2 ⫽ low, and 1 ⫽ extremely low. Previous
research has supported the convergent and discriminant validity of
the FFMRF (Mullins-Sweatt et al., 2006; Samuel, Mullins-Sweatt,
& Widiger, 2013). Cronbach’s alpha for the FFMRF domain scales
(collapsed across samples and conditions) were .70 (neuroticism),
.76 (extraversion), .77 (openness), .83 (agreeableness), and .88
(conscientiousness).
Results
The professors and clinicians identified 143 persons who fit the
description of either a vulnerable or a grandiose narcissist. The
professors identified persons they had known for (on average) 13
years as colleagues (33%), relatives (23%), friends (11%), patients
(16%), or partners (4%) or through another, unspecified circum-
stance (15%). Approximately half (51%) of these individuals were
female. The majority (79.27%) were Caucasian/White. The pro-
fessors also reported that, to their knowledge, 52% of these indi-
viduals had been in psychological treatment. The clinicians were
specifically asked to identify a current or past client fitting the
description of grandiose or vulnerable narcissism. More than half
(56%) of the persons they identified were female, most (91%) were
White/Caucasian, and their mean estimated age was 44.0 years.
The length of time the clinicians reported knowing their client
ranged from 2 months to 20 years (M ⫽ 5.7 years).
Table 1 displays the mean trait scores for the grandiose traits in
the grandiose condition. The following traits were considered by
both the professors and the clinicians to be present a significant
period of time (i.e., traits identified as bold within the table): has
an inflated self-image, attention seeking, and feels entitled to
certain benefits. The professors also considered being driven to
succeed, believing that others are envious of them, and feels
special and can only be understood by those with high-status, to be
present a significant period of time, whereas the clinicians consid-
 366 GORE AND WIDIGER

Table 1
Mean Grandiose Trait Scores in Grandiose Condition

Means
Item Professor Clinician T

1. . . . has an inflated self-image. 1.89a 1.75 1.56

2. . . . exploits others for his or her own gain. 1.43 1.34 .58
3. . . . engages in fantasies of unlimited power, superiority, perfection, or adulation. 1.26 1.38 ⫺.81
4. . . . lacks empathy. 1.48 1.50 ⫺.16
5. . . . is aggressive. 1.11 1.19 ⫺.45
6. . . . is attention seeking. 1.59 1.72 ⫺.99
7. . . . feels that he or she is entitled to certain benefits. 1.77 1.78 ⫺.09
8. . . . is indifferent to the criticism of others. 1.30 1.03 1.38
9. . . . is a natural leader. .86 .56 1.74
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

10. . . . engages in dangerous activities just for the thrill of it. .48 .69 ⫺1.38
⫺.96
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

11. . . . manipulates others for his or her own gain. 1.45 1.59
12. . . . is driven to succeed. 1.61 .78 5.46ⴱⴱ
13. . . . believes that others are envious of him or her. 1.50 1.25 1.45
14. . . . feels that he or she is special and can only be understood by those who are also special or high-status. 1.55 1.28 1.60
Mean score averaged across items 1.37 1.27
Note. Professor n ⫽ 44; clinician n ⫽ 32.
a
Trait scores above 1.50 are bolded to indicate high scores.
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01.

ered lacks empathy and manipulates others to be present a signif-
icant period of time.
The professor and clinician ratings were very convergent in how
they described their grandiose narcissists, r ⫽ .74, p ⬍ .01. There
was a statistically significant difference between the professors
and clinicians with respect to the magnitude of their ratings,
F(14, 61) ⫽ 2.94, p ⬍ .01; Wilk’s ⌳ ⫽ .597, partial ␩2 ⫽ .40, but
when individual traits were examined, only one significant differ-
ence was found, with the professors reporting significantly higher
scores than the clinicians for being driven to succeed.
Table 2 displays the mean scores for the vulnerable traits in the
vulnerable condition. Both the professors and the clinicians con-
sidered the following traits to be present a significant period of
time: feels helpless, low self-esteem, does not respond well to
criticism or rebuke, and feels extremely upset when treated un-
justly. The professors also considered the vulnerable narcissist, for
a significant period of time, to be reluctant to give up status, to
react with anger or shame when status is threatened, and to
withdraw from people when special needs or demands are not met.
The clinicians considered the vulnerable narcissist to also feel
empty and shameful, and to feel incredibly embarrassed if others
knew of failures. There was though convergence of the two sets of
ratings, r ⫽ .61, p ⬍ .01, with no statistically significant overall
difference in vulnerable narcissism trait scores across the 14 traits,
F(14, 48) ⫽ 1.58, p ⬎ .05; Wilk’s ⌳ ⫽ .684, partial ␩2 ⫽ .32.
Table 3 displays the mean grandiose trait scores within the
vulnerable condition. It is evident that neither the professors nor
the clinicians considered any one of the grandiose traits to have

Table 2
Mean Vulnerable Trait Scores in Vulnerable Condition

Mean
Item Professor Clinician
a
1. . . . feels helpless. 1.51 1.54
2. . . . has low self-esteem. 1.54 1.75
3. . . . feels empty and shameful. 1.31 1.57
4. . . . does not respond well to criticism or rebuke. 1.74 1.71
5. . . . is reluctant to give up the special status that his or her long-standing distress allows him or her. 1.60 1.36
6. . . . reacts with anger or shame when his or her special status is threatened. 1.63 1.46
7. . . . withdraws from other people when his or her special needs or demands are not met. 1.51 1.21
8. . . . avoids others when he or she feels he or she will not be admired. 1.06 1.14
9. . . . can become very angry when he or she does not get what he or she deserves. 1.46 1.29
10. . . . would be incredibly embarrassed if others knew about his or her failures. 1.20 1.50
11. . . . feels extremely upset when treated unjustly. 1.74 1.71
12. . . . craves admiration from others. 1.29 1.36
13. . . . does not trust others readily. 1.14 1.39
14. . . . feels envious of others. 1.09 1.18
Mean score averaged across items 1.42 1.44
Note. professor n ⫽ 35; clinician n ⫽ 28.
a
Trait scores above 1.50 are bolded to indicate high scores.
 GRANDIOSE AND VULNERABLE NARCISSISM 367

Table 3
Mean Grandiose Trait Scores in Vulnerable Condition

Mean
Item Professor Clinician

1. . . . has an inflated self-image. .74a .89a

2. . . . exploits others for his or her own gain. .57a .54a
3. . . . engages in fantasies of unlimited power, superiority, perfection, or adulation. .51a .54a
4. . . . lacks empathy. .60a .96a
5. . . . is aggressive. .71b .54a
6. . . . is attention seeking. 1.40 1.14a
7. . . . feels that he or she is entitled to certain benefits. 1.49 1.32b
8. . . . is indifferent to the criticism of others. .37a .11a
9. . . . is a natural leader. .43b .32
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

10. . . . engages in dangerous activities just for the thrill of it. .40 .39
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

11. . . . manipulates others for his or her own gain. .80a .75a
12. . . . is driven to succeed. .83a .89
13. . . . believes that others are envious of him or her. .34a .43a
14. . . . feels that he or she is special and can only be understood by those who are also special or high-status. .80a .79b
Mean score averaged across items .71 .68
Note. professor n ⫽ 35; clinician n ⫽ 28.
a
Significantly lower compared with grandiose condition at p ⬍ .01. b
Significantly lower compared with grandiose condition at p ⬍ .05.

ever been evident to a significant degree for persons they consid-
ered to be vulnerable narcissists. A number of the grandiose traits
were considered never to be present, including indifference to the
criticism of others, being a natural leader, engaging in dangerous
activities, and believing that others are envious of them. However,
the professors and clinicians did feel that some of the grandiose
traits were evident some of the time, including even an inflated
self-image, attention-seeking, feeling entitled, manipulating oth-
ers, driven to succeed, and feeling special. The professor and
clinician ratings were strongly convergent, r ⫽ .88, p ⬍ .01, with
no significant mean differences across the 14 ratings, F(14, 48) ⫽
1.56, p ⬎ .05; Wilk’s ⌳ ⫽ .687, partial ␩2 ⫽ .31.
Statistical comparisons were made for the grandiose traits across
the two conditions. All but two of the 14 grandiose traits were
higher in the grandiose condition as compared with the vulnerable
condition for the professors (see Table 3); all but three for the
clinicians. The grandiose trait profiles correlated .55 across the two
conditions for the professors (p ⬍ .05); .68 for the clinicians (p ⬍
.01).
Table 4 presents the vulnerable mean trait scores within the
grandiose condition. It is evident that both the professors and
clinicians considered a number of the vulnerable traits to be
present a significant period of time within grandiose narcissists,
including not responding well to criticism or rebuke, craving

Table 4
Mean Vulnerable Trait Scores in Grandiose Condition

Mean
Item Professor Clinician T

1. . . . feels helpless. .41a .81a ⫺2.38ⴱ

2. . . . has low self-esteem. .36a 1.00a ⫺3.81ⴱⴱ
3. . . . feels empty and shameful. .59a .75a ⫺.88
4. . . . does not respond well to criticism or rebuke. 1.70† 1.81 ⫺1.00
5. . . . is reluctant to give up the special status that his or her long-standing distress allows him or her. 1.28b 1.47 ⫺1.07
6. . . . reacts with anger or shame when his or her special status is threatened. 1.52 1.69 ⫺1.31
7. . . . withdraws from other people when his or her special needs or demands are not met. 1.09b 1.50 ⫺2.54ⴱ
8. . . . avoids others when he or she feels he or she will not be admired. 1.00 1.19 ⫺1.14
9. . . . can become very angry when he or she does not get what he or she deserves. 1.45 1.66c ⫺1.46
10. . . . would be incredibly embarrassed if others knew about his or her failures. 1.30 1.22 .41
11. . . . feels extremely upset when treated unjustly. 1.50 1.84 ⫺2.53ⴱ
12. . . . craves admiration from others. 1.68c 1.59 .68
13. . . . does not trust others readily. 1.34 1.56 ⫺1.62
14. . . . feels envious of others. 1.05 1.34 ⫺1.72
Mean score averaged across items 1.16 1.39
Note. professor n ⫽ 44; clinician n ⫽ 32.
†
Trait scores above 1.50 are bolded to indicate high scores.
a
Significantly lower compared with vulnerable condition at p ⬍ .01. b
Significantly lower compared with vulnerable condition at p ⬍ .05. c
Signifi-
cantly higher compared with vulnerable condition at p ⬍ .05.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 368 GORE AND WIDIGER
admiration from others, feeling extremely upset when treated
unjustly, and reacting with anger or shame when special status is
threatened. While there was considerable convergence of the pro-
fessors and clinicians in the ratings they gave for one trait relative
to another, r ⫽ .91, p ⬍ .01, there was a statistically significant
difference between them with respect to the extent to which they
considered the grandiose narcissists to express vulnerable traits,
F(14, 61) ⫽ 3.36, p ⬍ .01; Wilk’s ⌳ ⫽ .565, partial ␩2 ⫽ .44.
Clinicians observed more vulnerability than the professors, with
significant differences for feels helpless, low self-esteem, with-
draws from other people, and feels extremely upset when treated
unjustly. It is also evident that the clinicians considered more of
the vulnerable traits to be present a significant period of time,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
including withdrawing from people when special demands or
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
needs are not met, becoming angry when he or she does not get
what he or she deserves, and not trusting others. The clinicians
even felt that feeling helpless, having low self-esteem, and feeling
empty or shameful were evident at least some of the time (whereas
the professors felt that feeling helpless and having low self-esteem
were never evident at all).
Statistical comparisons were made for the vulnerable traits
across the two conditions. Consistent with the high scores for
vulnerable traits within the grandiose condition, only 5 of the 14
vulnerable traits received a higher score in the vulnerable condi-
tion for the professors (see Table 4); only three of the vulnerable
traits for the clinicians. In fact, for the professors, a significantly
higher score was provided for a vulnerable trait within the gran-
diose condition (i.e., craves admiration from others) and likewise
for the clinicians for the vulnerable trait of becoming angry when
not getting what one deserved. The vulnerable trait profiles cor-
related only .17 across the two conditions for the professors;
only ⫺.06 for the clinicians (p ⬎ .05 in both cases), indicating that
different vulnerable traits were elevated across the two conditions.
Table 5 presents the correlations of the narcissism traits with the
FFMRF trait ratings (collapsed across conditions). It is evident
from Table 5 that the ratings were quite similar across the two
participant samples. Whereas the vulnerable traits correlated pos-
itively with neuroticism (and only with neuroticism), the grandiose
traits correlated negatively with neuroticism, as well as negatively
with agreeableness and positively with extraversion. However, it is
perhaps also noteworthy that the negative correlation of grandiose
narcissism with neuroticism was only marginally significant for
the clinicians. In addition, the mean neuroticism scores were
significantly higher for the clinicians, t(137) ⫽ 2.71, p ⬍ .01.
Table 5
Correlations Between Narcissism Traits and FFMRF Traits
Vulnerable Grandiose
Professor Clinician Professor Clinician
Neuroticism .57ⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱ ⫺.58ⴱⴱ ⫺.28ⴱ
Extraversion ⫺.07 ⫺.12 .42ⴱⴱ .49ⴱⴱ
Openness .07 .15 ⫺.02 ⫺.10
Agreeableness .11 ⫺.16 ⫺.75ⴱⴱ ⫺.66ⴱⴱ
Conscientiousness ⫺.11 .06 .24ⴱ ⫺.22
Note. professor n ⫽ 79; clinician n ⫽ 60; FFMRF ⫽ Five Factor Model
Rating Form (Mullins-Sweatt et al., 2012).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
Discussion
A primary finding of the current study is that clinical psychol-
ogists, and even clinical psychology professors describing (for the
most part) colleagues, relatives, or friends, did consider persons
they identified as being grandiose narcissists (i.e., persons with an
inflated self-image; engaging in fantasies of unlimited power or
superiority, perfection, or adulation; having a sense of entitlement;
and lacking in empathy), to have displayed for significant periods
of time, traits of vulnerable narcissism. It should be acknowledged
that many of the vulnerable traits did not appear to be evident
within the grandiose narcissists for a significant period of time by
both the professors and the clinicians. However, the four traits that
were evident to both the professors and the clinicians (i.e., reacting
with anger or shame when they felt their status was threatened,
feeling extremely upset when they felt they were treated unjustly,
not responding well to criticism or rebuke, and craving admiration
from others) do appear to be suggestive of a clinically significant
vulnerability. In fact, two vulnerable traits even received higher
ratings within the grandiose condition than within the vulnerable
condition (i.e., craves admiration from others for the professors
and becomes angry when not getting what one deserves for the
clinicians). Further, additional vulnerable traits were evident to the
clinicians within the grandiose narcissists they had seen in clinical
treatment (discussed further below). Plus, both the professors and
the clinicians felt that the grandiose narcissists evidenced a number
of additional traits of vulnerable narcissism for at least some of the
time (e.g., withdraws from people when needs or demands are not
met, would feel embarrassed if others knew of failures, and feels
envious of others). Only two traits were considered by the profes-
sors to never occur. These traits (i.e., feels helpless and low
self-esteem) would appear to be those that are most inconsistent
with a strong, invulnerable grandiose narcissism. However, even
these traits were observed by the therapists for at least some of the
time.
There was considerable agreement between the professors and
clinicians as to the grandiose traits of the grandiose narcissists and
with respect to many of the vulnerable traits for the grandiose
narcissists. However, the clinicians did consistently rate their
grandiose narcissists higher on the vulnerable traits than did the
professors and identified more of these traits as being present a
significant period of time. This would be consistent with the fact
that the grandiose narcissists were being seen by the clinicians
within psychological treatment. Approximately half of the persons
identified by the professors were known by the professor to have
been in some form of clinical treatment, but it is likely that
whatever vulnerability would be expressed by a grandiose narcis-
sist would be more evident to his or her clinician than to a
professional colleague.
There was clearly less support for the presence of grandiose
traits to be evident in persons identified as vulnerable narcissists.
None of the grandiose traits were seen for a significant period of
time within the vulnerable narcissists by either the professors or
the clinicians. Neither the professors nor the clinicians observed
their vulnerable narcissists ever being indifferent to the criticism of
others, being a leader, engaging in dangerous activities, or believ-
ing that others are envious of them. Quite a few grandiose traits
though were seen by both populations to be evident for at least
some of the time, including attention-seeking, having an inflated
 GRANDIOSE AND VULNERABLE NARCISSISM
self-image, being aggressive, being driven to succeed, and manip-
ulating others for own gain. Nevertheless, whereas the grandiose
narcissists evidence vulnerable traits a significant period of time,
the vulnerable narcissists evidenced considerably less grandiosity.
These results might be understood as being inconsistent with the
existing cross-sectional research on grandiose and vulnerable nar-
cissism obtaining relatively low to nonexistent correlations be-
tween the respective scales (Glover et al., 2012; Miller, Dir et al.,
2010; Pincus et al., 2009; Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010). However,
in many respects, the results of the current study are perhaps in fact
congruent with this research. The FFM profile for the grandiose
and vulnerable narcissists obtained in the current study was quite
consistent with the correlations generally obtained with the self-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
report measures, with grandiose narcissism being characterized by
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
antagonism, extraversion, and low neuroticism, and vulnerable
narcissism confined largely to high neuroticism (Miller & Camp-
bell, 2008; Miller et al., 2011; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). These
findings are helpful in suggesting that the grandiose and vulnerable
narcissism assessed in the current study is consistent with the
assessments provided by such measures as the FFNI and PNI.
However, it should also be noted that the negative correlation of
grandiose narcissism with neuroticism within the clinician group
was appreciably lower than was obtained for the professors. This
would again appear to reflect that the clinicians identified rela-
tively more vulnerability (i.e., more neuroticism) within the gran-
diose narcissistic patients than was identified by the professors
within their grandiose colleagues, relatives, and friends.
In addition, the current study replicated as well a lack of
correlation of the traits of grandiose narcissism with vulnerable
narcissism, which in the current study correlated only .21 (p ⬎ .05)
for the clinicians and ⫺.13 (p ⬎ .05) for the professors. In sum, the
current study replicated the FFM profile for grandiose and vulner-
able narcissism and their weak correlation yet, inconsistent with
the self-report findings previously reported, the current study sug-
gested that persons elevated on grandiose narcissism will display
traits of vulnerable narcissism for a significant period of time, and
persons elevated on vulnerable narcissism will display many of the
traits of grandiose narcissism at least some of the time.
One potential explanation for the apparent inconsistency is that
the self-report studies are cross-sectional, essentially a snapshot of
grandiose and vulnerable narcissism at one point in time or, at best,
aggregated across a period of time. Longitudinal research would
have the potential to indicate changes across time, but even the
longitudinal studies to date could be said to provide little more
than cross-sectional pictures at different points in time (e.g., Block,
1971; Grilo, Becker, Edell, & McGlashan, 2001; Ronningstam et
al., 1995; Wink, 1992). It would not be surprising to discover that
grandiose narcissists are predominantly grandiose aggregated over
time and evidence little vulnerability when assessed at particular
points in time. Perhaps more pertinent to the question of whether
grandiose narcissists evidence vulnerability at least some of the
time or significant periods of time are studies that assess for large
amounts of momentary periods within a person’s life, as is the case
in ecological momentary assessment (Trull & Ebner-Priemer,
2009).
Ecological momentary assessment (EMA; Santangelo, Ebner-
Priemer, & Trull, 2013) focuses on individuals’ current or very
recent states or behaviors, with multiple assessments over time.
These assessments can be conducted with paper diaries, electronic
369
diaries, smartphones, and other comparable media for brief, im-
mediate assessments. EMA research might be particularly well
suited for addressing the question whether there is a significant
fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism (Wright,
2014). “EMA studies are designed to capture momentary ratings of
experiences, and this makes them especially important for the
assessment of moods, thoughts, symptoms, or behaviors believed
to change over time” (Santangelo et al., 2013, p. 189). One could
assess, for instance, whether persons who meet criteria for NPD
experience significant episodes of low self-esteem or emptiness,
and are particularly prone to perceiving criticism and rebuke and,
most importantly, their immediate response to such experiences,
perhaps including shame or embarrassment rather than a presumed
grandiose rejection or indifference. Quite a few EMA studies have
been done with personality disorders, although this research has
been confined largely to the borderline (Santangelo, Bohus, &
Ebner-Priemer, 2014) and schizotypal (Barrantes-Vidal & Kwapil,
2014) personality disorders.
A difficulty for this EMA research, however, will be determin-
ing the optimal time frame for any such fluctuations. “The precise
timing, duration, context, and nature of these oscillations are not
known” (Wright, 2016). Similarly, in the current study, the precise
frequency or amount of time that would represent a “significant”
period of time or just “some” of the time was not precisely defined
for each trait, as this would likely vary across traits and would be
difficult to specify precisely for many of them.
Another potential implication of the current study is the possible
revision of existing self-report measures of narcissism to assess for
a narcissistic fluctuation. Predominant measures of the five-factor
model of general personality were justifiably criticized for failing
to include an assessment of emotional instability (Bradley et al.,
2011; Kamen, Pryor, Gaughan, & Miller, 2010; Westen & Shedler,
2007). Existing measures of the FFM, such as the NEO Personality
Inventory—Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992), assess for anxious-
ness, depressiveness, and/or angry hostility, but as traits with
stable, consistent levels in their expression of this negative affec-
tivity. The affective instability of borderline personality disorder is
characterized instead by a fluctuation in the level and nature of
negative emotionality (American Psychiatric Association, 2013;
Westen & Shedler, 2007). Subsequently developed measures of
the FFM and its maladaptive variants have since addressed this
failing, as in the volatility subscale of the Big Five Aspects Scale
of DeYoung, Quilty, and Peterson (2007) and the affective dys-
reglation scale of the Five Factor Borderline Inventory (Mullins-
Sweatt et al., 2012).
Existing measures of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism might
be similarly insensitive to a potential, if not apparent, fluctuation in
respective traits of narcissism. Although both the PNI (Pincus et
al., 2009) and the FFNI (Glover et al., 2012) include scales to
assess for both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, neither in-
ventory specifically assesses for a potential fluctuation between
grandiose and vulnerable states. The PNI and FFNI includes such
grandiose scales as grandiose fantasies, arrogance, and indiffer-
ence, and vulnerability scales such as entitlement rage, contingent
self-esteem, shame, and need for admiration, but in each instance,
the respective items presume or at least assess for a stable, con-
sistent expression of each respective trait. If grandiose narcissists
do indeed experience episodes of significant shame, emptiness,
and/or embarrassment, it might be useful to include within mea-
 370 GORE AND WIDIGER
sures of narcissism scales constructed specifically to assess for
occasional, intermittent, and/or fluctuating episodes of vulnerabi-
lity.
Limitations
The current study obtained ratings on traits of grandiose and
vulnerable narcissism from professors and clinicians concerning
persons identified as either a grandiose or vulnerable narcissist.
However, there was no control group of persons with no person-
ality disorder (or another personality disorder), nor were ratings
obtained for normal traits (or traits of another personality disor-
der). In the absence of a comparison group, it is not certain that the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
high ratings for the respective narcissistic traits are in fact descrip-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tive of or specific to the respective personality syndromes. The
results of the current study would be understood quite differently
if an average person would be said to have an inflated self-image,
to be attention-seeking, or to feel helpless for a significant period
of time. It would be rather surprising to obtain such a finding.
Nevertheless, it would have been useful to have included compar-
ison groups and additional traits for the sake of discriminant
validity.
The current study was confined to informant ratings. There are
evident advantages of using informants, particularly for the assess-
ment of narcissism (Cooper et al., 2012). However, it is possible
that the professors were not sufficiently well trained or skilled to
identify a grandiose or a vulnerable narcissism. Perhaps only
practicing clinicians would have sufficient expertise. However, the
professors were clinical psychologists. They had doctoral degrees
in clinical psychology and would likely have a credible under-
standing of what is meant by a grandiose and/or a vulnerable
narcissist. Otherwise, it is unlikely that they would have partici-
pated or would have known someone they considered to be a
grandiose or a vulnerable narcissist. In addition, the professors
were provided a reasonably clear definition of what was meant by
a grandiose and a vulnerable narcissist. In support of the validity
of their ratings, they closely paralleled the FFM description of a
grandiose and a vulnerable narcissist obtained within other studies.
The description of the vulnerable narcissist that was provided
might not have been the optimal description. However, there does
not exist an official or consensus set of diagnostic criteria for the
diagnosis of a vulnerable narcissist. There is overlap among alter-
native descriptions, but there are many such alternatives (Bosson et
al., 2008; Cain et al., 2008; Caligor et al., 2015; Miller, Dir et al.,
2010, 2011; Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010; Wink, 1991). There is
not, as yet, a consensus or official set of diagnostic criteria that
could have been used.
The trait ratings were also confined to overt features of grandi-
ose and vulnerable narcissism. It might have also been useful to
ask the participants to rate the participants with respect to covert
features (e.g., fantasies, or a shyness that conceals an underlying
grandiosity). However, it would perhaps be likely that the profes-
sor sample would have had even less access to or awareness of
these features. On the other hand, the clinicians might have been
aware of covert features. The results of the current study did
indicate that the clinicians were more aware of the overt traits of
vulnerable narcissism within their overtly grandiose patients. The
results of the current study might be extended in future research
through the consideration of covert features.
Conclusions
Recent research has emphasized a distinction between grandiose
and vulnerable narcissism. It has been hypothesized that narcissis-
tic persons may in fact fluctuate between a grandiose and vulner-
able narcissism. The results of the current study support this
hypothesis, particularly for the occurrence of episodes of vulner-
able narcissism within persons identified as grandiose narcissists.
It is suggested that future research replicate and extend these
findings with longitudinal studies that are sensitive to momentary
episodes of grandiose and vulnerable states.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Barrantes-Vidal, N., & Kwapil, T. R. (2014). The application of experience
sampling methodology for the study of individual differences in real life.
Personality and Individual Differences, 60, S6.
Block, J. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley, CA: Bancroft Books.
Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psy-
chiatric research. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bosson, J. K., Lakey, C. E., Campbell, W. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Jordan,
C. H., & Kernis, M. H. (2008). Untangling the links between narcissism
and self-esteem: A theoretical and empirical review. Social and Person-
ality Psychology Compass, 2, 1415–1439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1751-9004.2008.00089.x
Bradley, B., DeFife, J. A., Guarnaccia, C., Phifer, J., Fani, N., Ressler,
K. J., & Westen, D. (2011). Emotion dysregulation and negative affect:
Association with psychiatric symptoms. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry,
72, 685– 691. http://dx.doi.org/10.4088/JCP.10m06409blu
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 diagnosis.
Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 638 – 656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.cpr.2007.09.006
Caligor, E., Levy, K. N., & Yeomans, F. E. (2015). Narcissistic personality
disorder: Diagnostic and clinical challenges. The American Journal of
Psychiatry, 172, 415– 422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014
.14060723
Cooper, L. D., Balsis, S., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2012). Self- and informant-
reported perspectives on symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder.
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 140 –154.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026576
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets
and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 93, 880 – 896. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.93.5.880
Enders, C. K. (2006). A primer on the use of modern missing-data methods
in psychosomatic medicine research. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68, 427–
436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000221275.75056.d8
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.670680
Grilo, C. M., Becker, D. F., Edell, W. S., & McGlashan, T. H. (2001).
Stability and change of DSM–III–R personality disorder dimensions in
adolescents followed up 2 years after psychiatric hospitalization. Com-
 GRANDIOSE AND VULNERABLE NARCISSISM
prehensive Psychiatry, 42, 364 –368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/comp
.2001.26274
Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcis-
sism: A reexamination of Murray’s Narcissism Scale. Journal of Re-
search in Personality, 31, 588 –599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997
.2204
Kamen, C., Pryor, L. R., Gaughan, E. T., & Miller, J. D. (2010). Affective
lability: Separable from neuroticism and the other big four? Psychiatry
Research, 176, 202–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2008.08
.002
Kernis, M. H. (2005). Measuring self-esteem in context: The importance of
stability of self-esteem in psychological functioning. Journal of Person-
ality, 73, 1569 –1605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005
.00359.x
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood. A five-
factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203428412
Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing clinical and social-
personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76,
449 – 476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00492.x
Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., & Campbell,
W. K. (2010). Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: Comparing Factor
2 psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disor-
der. Journal of Personality, 78, 1529 –1564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-6494.2010.00660.x
Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., &
Keith Campbell, W. (2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A
nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality, 79, 1013–1042.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x
Miller, J. D., Widiger, T. A., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Narcissistic
personality disorder and the DSM-V. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
119, 640 – 649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019529
Miller, J. D., Widiger, T. A., & Campbell, W. K. (2014). Vulnerable
narcissism: Commentary for the special series “Narcissistic personality
disorder-new perspectives on diagnosis and treatment.” Personality Dis-
orders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 450 – 451. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/per0000083
Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Edmundson, M., Sauer-Zavala, S., Lynam, D. R.,
Miller, J. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). Five-factor measure of borderline
personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 475– 487.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.672504
Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Jamerson, J. E., Samuel, D. B., Olson, D. R., &
Widiger, T. A. (2006). Psychometric properties of an abbreviated in-
strument of the five-factor model. Assessment, 13, 119 –137. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/1073191106286748
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality:
Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in
Personality, 36, 556 –563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)
00505-6
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G.,
& Levy, K. N. (2009). Initial construction and validation of the Patho-
logical Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21, 365–379.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016530
Pincus, A. L., Cain, N. M., & Wright, A. G. C. (2014). Narcissistic
grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability in psychotherapy. Personality
Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 439 – 443. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/per0000031
371
Pincus, A. L., & Lukowitsky, M. R. (2010). Pathological narcissism and
narcissistic personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,
6, 421– 446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131215
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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890
Ronningstam, E. (2005). Narcissistic personality disorder: A review. In M.
Maj, H. S. Akiskal, J. E. Mezzich, & A. Okasha (Eds.), Personality
disorders (pp. 277–327). New York, NY: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/0470090383.ch4
Ronningstam, E. (2009). Narcissistic personality disorder: Facing DSM-V.
Psychiatric Annals, 39, 111–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/00485713-
20090301-09
Ronningstam, E., Gunderson, J., & Lyons, M. (1995). Changes in patho-
logical narcissism. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 253–257.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/ajp.152.2.253
Samuel, D. B., Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., & Widiger, T. A. (2013). An
investigation of the factor structure and convergent and discriminant
validity of the five-factor model rating form. Assessment, 20, 24 –35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191112455455
Santangelo, P., Bohus, M., & Ebner-Priemer, U. W. (2014). Ecological
momentary assessment in borderline personality disorder: A review of
recent findings and methodological challenges. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 28, 555–576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2012_26_067
Santangelo, P. S., Ebner-Priemer, U. W., & Trull, T. J. (2013). Experience
sampling methods in clinical psychology. In J. Comer & P. Kendall
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of research strategies for clinical psychol-
ogy (pp. 188 –210). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Skodol, A. E., Morey, L. C., Bender, D. S., & Oldham, J. M. (2013). The
ironic fate of the personality disorders in DSM–5. Personality Disorders:
Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 342–349. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/per0000029
Trull, T. J., & Ebner-Priemer, U. W. (2009). Using experience sampling
methods/ecological momentary assessment (ESM/EMA) in clinical as-
sessment and clinical research: Introduction to the special section. Psy-
chological Assessment, 21, 457– 462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0017653
Westen, D., & Shedler, J. (2007). Personality diagnosis with the Shedler-
Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP): Integrating clinical and statis-
tical measurement and prediction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
116, 810 – 822. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.4.810
Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 61, 590 –597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.61.4.590
Wink, P. (1992). Three types of narcissism in women from college to
mid-life. Journal of Personality, 60, 7–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-6494.1992.tb00263.x
Wright, A. G. C. (2014). Integrating trait and process based conceptual-
izations of pathological narcissism in the DSM–5 era. In A. Besser (Ed.),
Handbook of psychology of narcissism: Diverse perspectives (pp. 153–
174). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Wright, A. G. C. (2016). On the measure and mismeasure of narcissism: A
response to “Measures of narcissism and their relations to DSM-5
pathological traits: A critical re-appraisal.” Assessment, 23, 10–17.