Accepted Manuscript

Agentic to the core? Facets of narcissism and positive implicit self-views in the
agentic domain

Ramzi Fatfouta, Michela Schröder-Abé

PII: S0092-6566(18)30018-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.02.006
Reference: YJRPE 3700

To appear in: Journal of Research in Personality

Received Date: 11 November 2017

Revised Date: 2 February 2018
Accepted Date: 9 February 2018

Please cite this article as: Fatfouta, R., Schröder-Abé, M., Agentic to the core? Facets of narcissism and positive
implicit self-views in the agentic domain, Journal of Research in Personality (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jrp.2018.02.006

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 1

Agentic to the core? Facets of narcissism and positive implicit self-views in the agentic

domain

Agentic to the core? Facets of narcissism and positive implicit self-views in the agentic

domain

Ramzi Fatfouta

University of Potsdam

Michela Schröder-Abé

University of Potsdam

Author Note

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Ramzi Fatfouta,

Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht Str. 24/25, 14476 OT

NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 2

Golm, Potsdam, Germany; E-Mail: r.fatfouta@gmail.com; Phone: 0331/ 977-2749334; Fax:

0331/ 977-2792.

Conceived and designed the study: RF. Collected and prepared the data: RF. Analyzed the

data: RF MSA. Wrote the paper: RF MSA. The study was not preregistered.

Abstract

Researchers are still divided over whether narcissists possess positive or negative implicit

self-views. Seemingly resolving this issue, Campbell, Bosson, Goheen, Lakey, and Kernis

(2007) have demonstrated that narcissism is in fact related to higher implicit self-esteem as

long as the implicit measure reflects agency. The present study used a large (N = 730)

sample, carefully controlled stimuli, improved statistical analyses, and examined narcissism

at the facet-level, but results did not replicate those of Campbell et al. In fact, the latent
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 3

correlation between narcissism and implicit agency was close to zero, whereas the positive

correlation between narcissism and explicit agency was replicated. We conclude that

narcissists’ implicit self-views may be more neutral than positive or may depend on other

contextual factors.

Keywords: Narcissism, agency, communion, implicit self-esteem, IAT

Agentic to the core? Facets of narcissism and implicit self-views in the agentic domain

Originally introduced by (Freud, 1914), the concept of narcissism1 is nowadays one of

the most puzzling constructs in social/personality psychology. Narcissism or, more

specifically, narcissistic tendencies, can be characterized by a grandiose sense of self-

importance, feelings of entitlement, and fantasies of unlimited power, success, or brilliance

1
In the present paper, the term narcissism is used to describe individuals scoring high (vs. low) on narcissism
measures. Let us also mention that the form of narcissism being assessed and discussed in this manuscript refers
to grandiose narcissism, which is marked by feelings of grandiosity and entitlement, and not vulnerable
narcissism, which is marked by feelings of vulnerability and inferiority (Miller et al., 2011). Hence, whenever
we speak of narcissism, we mean grandiose narcissism.
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 4

(Rhodewalt & Peterson, 2009). So far, little is known about the origins of narcissistic

tendencies. According to psychodynamic theories, however, these tendencies are believed to

originate from a deep-seated insecure and fragile sense of self-worth of which individuals are

not necessarily aware (Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1966). Hence, as reflected in the ‘mask’

model of narcissism, narcissists’ apparent grandiosity is assumed to mask an underlying low

self-esteem (Bosson et al., 2008).

Self-esteem refers to the positivity of a person’s self-evaluation (Baumeister, 1998)

and comes in two forms, one of which is implicit and the other explicit (Bosson, Brown,

Zeigler-Hill, & Swann, 2003; Bosson, Swann, & Pennebaker, 2000). Whereas explicit self-

esteem is defined as the deliberately processed evaluation of the self, implicit self-esteem is

defined as the automatically processed evaluation of the self (Greenwald & Farnham, 2000).

Explicit self-esteem is assumed to tap into the cognitive/rational system, which operates

according to slow, logical, and deliberative principles. In contrast, implicit self-esteem is

assumed to tap into the experiential system, which operates according to fast, heuristic, and

intuitive principles (Kernis et al., 2005). Typically, explicit self-esteem is measured using

self-reports such as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965), whereas

implicit self-esteem is measured using indirect measures such as the Implicit Association

Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Empirically, explicit and implicit self-

esteem are not or only weakly correlated (Klavina, Schröder-Abé, & Schütz, 2012; Krizan &

Suls, 2008).

A few seminal studies have provided evidence in favor of the ‘mask’ model,

suggesting that individuals high in narcissism (as assessed with the Narcissistic Personality

Inventory [NPI]; Raskin & Terry, 1988) possess discrepant self-esteem, that is, a combination

of high explicit and low implicit self-esteem (Jordan, Spencer, Zanna, Hoshino-Browne, &

Correll, 2003; Zeigler-Hill, 2006). Although intriguing, subsequent studies did not replicate
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 5

these results (Marissen, Brouwer, Hiemstra, Deen, & Franken, 2016; Vater et al., 2013).

Further complicating this issue, results concerning the simple (vs. interactive) association

between narcissism and implicit self-esteem show diametrically opposed results, with some

studies reporting that narcissists possess low implicit self-esteem (Gregg & Sedikides, 2010),

whereas others showing that they actually possess high implicit self-esteem (Campbell,

Bosson, Goheen, Lakey, & Kernis, 2007; Study 2). Finally, meta-analytic evidence across

published and unpublished evidence revealed no consistent relationship between narcissism

and implicit self-esteem (Bosson et al., 2008)(Bosson et al., 2008)(Bosson et al.,

2008)(Bosson et al., 2008). This enigmatic picture led researchers to claim that “narcissists

do not hide behind a mask of any kind” (A. A. Brown & Brunell, 2017, p. 166), leading to

contradictory conclusions in the literature (R. P. Brown, Budzek, & Tamborski, 2009).

One acknowledged reason for the inconsistency among studies on implicit self-esteem

in narcissism may lie in the fact that narcissists do not possess globally positive self-views

(Bosson et al., 2008). According to the agency model of narcissism (Campbell, Brunell, &

Finkel, 2006), narcissists place an overarching emphasis on agentic (“getting ahead”) versus

communal (“getting along”) goals. Consistent with this, previous studies have demonstrated

that narcissism is positively associated with agentic characteristics, but not (or negatively)

associated with communal ones (for a meta-analysis, see Grijalva & Zhang, 2016). Following

this line of reasoning, Campbell et al. (2007) argued that the lack of correlation between

narcissism and implicit self-esteem may thus simply be due to the fact that previous studies

unintentionally captured more communal than agentic aspects of implicit self-esteem. To test

their assertion, the authors designed two different IATs, one of which measured implicit self-

esteem in the agentic domain (e.g., active vs. submissive) and the other in the communal

domain (e.g., cooperative vs. mean). Indeed, they successfully demonstrated that narcissism
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 6

was positively related to explicit and implicit agency, but not with explicit or implicit

communion.

Campbell et al.’s (2007) study represents an excellent example of theory-driven

hypothesis testing regarding the domain specificity of narcissists’ self-worth (also see

Zeigler-Hill, Clark, & Pickard, 2008). Given its relevance for the broader role of explicit and

implicit self-esteem in narcissism (Miller, Lynam, Hyatt, & Campbell, 2017), Campbell and

colleagues’ impactful demonstration yielded broad implications for social/personality and

clinical psychology. To date, their influential paper has been cited more than 200 times

(Google scholar search; November 4, 2017) as compelling support for narcissists’

unmitigated desire for agency (Campbell & Foster, 2007; DeWall, Buffardi, Bonser, &

Campbell, 2011). However, to the best of our knowledge, there has as yet been no systematic

attempt to re-assess Campbell et al.’s (2007) findings. In an effort to answer the call for

replication in social/personality psychology (Asendorpf et al., 2013; Funder et al., 2014) and,

furthermore, to clarify the equivocality regarding narcissists’ implicit self-esteem (Zeigler-

Hill & Jordan, 2011), the primary aim of the present research was to address this gap in the

literature.

We deem a replication of Campbell and colleagues’ (2007) study necessary for at

least two reasons. First, although the original sample size (N = 114) can be considered

reasonable at the time the study was conducted ten years ago, nowadays sample sizes in the

domain of social/personality psychology are usually much larger. Indeed, according to

Schönbrodt and Perugini (2013), sample sizes should approximate 250 to obtain stable

estimates. To be rather conservative, in the current study, we used a sample that was more

than five times larger than Campbell and colleagues’ (2007) original study. Second,

Campbell and colleagues’ study (2007) focused on the NPI total score as a measure of

narcissism. Although frequently conceptualized as a unitary construct, narcissism is currently

NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 7

best viewed as multidimensional (Ackerman et al., 2011). As such, researchers have

advocated the examination of subscales, because the NPI total score conflates various facets

of the construct (Ackerman, Donnellan, & Robins, 2012) To provide an important extension,

in the present study, we therefore strived for a facet-level examination of the relationship

between narcissism (as assessed with the NPI) and implicit and explicit agentic aspects of the

self.

Method

Data collection was part of a larger project on narcissism (Fatfouta, Zeigler-Hill, &

Schröder-Abé, 2017; for a detailed documentation, see https://osf.io/6yhmp/). We report how

we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all

measures in the study (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2012). Data and code used for the

analyses reported below are available from the Open Science Framework (OSF; Fatfouta &

Schröder-Abé, 2017).

Participants and procedure

A total of 730 individuals, recruited via social networking sites, participated. For the

present study, we included all participants who provided data on the agency IAT, explicit

trait ratings of the IAT stimuli, self-esteem, or the NPI, resulting in a final sample of 658

individuals. Of these, 650 individuals provided basic demographic information (132 male;

Mage = 23.96, SD = 5.24). Taking the original correlation between the NPI and implicit

agency reported by Campbell et al. (2007; r = .29), our study yields a statistical power near

unity to detect this effect (with a Type 1 error rate of .05). As an incentive, participants

obtained feedback about their personality traits (provided upon study completion). All

measures were administered in German.

Measures
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 8

Narcissism. Narcissism was measured using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory

(NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988). The NPI consists of 40 items that are presented in a forced-

choice format. For each pair of items, participants are requested to choose between a

‘narcissistic option’ (e.g., “I think I am a special person”) and a ‘non-narcissistic option’

(e.g., “I am no better or worse than most people”). A sum score was computed for this

instrument (α = 0.81), with higher scores indicating higher narcissism. Along with the full

NPI score, subscales were created according to the most recently proposed three-factor

solution (Ackerman et al., 2011): Leadership/Authority (LA, 11 items; α = .73), Grandiose

Exhibitionism (GE, 10 items; .70), and Entitlement/Exploitativeness (EE, 4 items; α = .44)2.

Implicit self-esteem. Implicit self-esteem in the agentic domain (“implicit agency”)

was measured using an adapted version of the self-esteem IAT (Greenwald & Farnham,

2000; Greenwald et al., 1998). The IAT is a speeded categorization task, in which

participants are requested to classify stimuli (i.e., words) into four different categories: Two

target categories (‘me’ vs. ‘not-me’; 6 stimuli each) and two attribute categories (‘positive’

vs. ‘negative’; 6 items). The improved scoring algorithm (D4; Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji,

2003(Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003)(Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003)(Greenwald,

Nosek, & Banaji, 2003)(Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003)(Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji,

2003)(Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003)(Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003)(Greenwald,

Nosek, & Banaji, 2003)(Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003)(Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji,

2003)) was used to calculate IAT scores (Spearman-Brown corrected split half-reliability =

.70), with higher scores reflecting higher implicit agency.

2
Although modest by conventional standards, the reliability for the EE subscale resembles Ackerman et al.’s
results (2011; αs: 0.44–0.47).
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 9

Stimuli for the IAT were selected through a two-step procedure3. First, words

referring to high (e.g., active) versus low (e.g., submissive) agency were selected through a

literature review (Abele, Uchronski, Suitner, & Wojciszke, 2008; Gebauer, Paulhus, &

Neberich, 2013). On that base, six adjectives that were most prototypical of high versus low

agency, respectively, were chosen for the IAT attribute categories. Second, to validate our

selection, the trait words were rated4 by an independent group of 75 participants (for a similar

strategy, see Campbell et al., 2007). Confirming our selection and, consistent with Campbell

et al. (2007), ratings revealed that these words were more agentic than communal (Magency

[SD] = 2.22 [.54] vs. Mcommunion [SD] = .17 [.68], t[74] = 21.23, p < .001, d = 3.35).

Moreover, confirming the suitability of the items to measure agentic aspects of implicit self-

esteem, ratings revealed that the high-agency words differed significantly from the low-

agency words in terms of valence (Mhigh agency [SD] = 1.6 [.57] vs. Mlow agency [SD] = -1.57

[.76], t[74] = 29.84, p < .001, d = 4.71). Finally, further analyses revealed that the words

belonging to either category did not differ in terms of word frequency (t[10] = -1.11, p =

.315, d = -0.70) or word length (t[10] = .528, p = .609, d = 0.33). Table 1 details the final

stimuli.

Explicit agency. Explicit agency was measured by asking participants for explicit

ratings of the twelve attribute stimuli used in the above-described IAT measure. Participants

rated how much each attribute was descriptive of them (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly

agree; α = .86). Negatively worded attribute stimuli were reverse-coded and a mean score

was computed, with higher scores indicating higher explicit agency.

3
We deliberately did not simply translate Campbell et al.’s (2007) original IAT stimuli, because some English
trait words (e.g., outspoken [geradeheraus]) are rather infrequent in the German language to describe a person.
However, we tried to retain as much of the stimuli characteristics of the original publication as possible.
4
Ratings used 7-point bipolar scales and referred to perceived valence (-3 = negative; +3 = positive), agency (-3
= lack of agency; +3 = presence of agency), and communion (-3 = lack of communion; +3 = presence of
communion).
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 10

Explicit self-esteem. Explicit self-esteem was measured using the Rosenberg Self-

Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965). The RSES consists of 10 items that capture

individual differences in favorable self-evaluations (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied with

myself”; 1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree; α = .91). A mean score was computed for this

instrument, with higher scores indicating higher explicit self-esteem.

Analytic plan

Consistent with Campbell et al. (2007), we focused on the simple association between

narcissism and implicit agency. 5 To account for measurement error and, hence, provide a

more stringent test of the original finding that narcissists possess positive implicit self-views

in the agentic domain, we additionally used structural equation modeling (SEM) with

maximum likelihood estimation in Mplus Version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). Full

information maximum likelihood (FIML) was used to estimate models in which some of the

variables have missing values. Confidence intervals were estimated using bootstrapping with

5000 bootstrap samples. As recommended by (Kline, 2011), items were parceled into three

manifest indicators. For the self-report measures (i.e., NPI, explicit agency, explicit self-

esteem), parcels were created using the item-to-construct balance approach (Little,

Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). For the IAT, parcels were created using three IAT

effects based on mutually exclusive subsets of the critical trials. Model fit was evaluated

using the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA). Acceptable model fit is indicated by CFI ≥ 0.95 and RMSEA ≤ 0.08

(Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003).

Results

5
In a preliminary analysis, we also examined the original ‘mask’ hypothesis, but did not replicate it. That is, the
interaction between implicit and explicit agency in predicting narcissism (i.e., NPI total score or any of the NPI
subscales) yielded no significant effects. Similarly, no significant effects were obtained when repeating the
analyses with explicit self-esteem instead of explicit agency.
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 11

Table 2 details descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for all measures.

Consistent with Campbell et al. (2007), narcissism (as assessed with the NPI total score) was

significantly positively associated with explicit agency and explicit self-esteem, respectively.

As in previous research (Ackerman et al., 2011), the positive association between narcissism

and explicit agency seems to be primarily driven by the LA and GE facet of the NPI, but not

by the EE facet. Importantly, the correlation between narcissism and implicit agency was not

significantly different from zero and the effect size was miniscule. For the NPI facets (i.e.,

LA, GE, and EE), the same pattern of non-significant correlations emerged.

Using SEM, we next examined the latent association between narcissism (as assessed

with the NPI total score) and implicit agency (as assessed with the IAT). The model

demonstrated excellent fit (χ2 [8] = 3.42, p = .905, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00). Paralleling the

results from the manifest correlation analyses, the latent relationship between narcissism and

implicit agency was not significantly different from zero (ρ = .020, p = .704; 95% CI [-.084;

.124]).

In order to control for explicit agency when investigating the link between narcissism

and implicit agency, we fitted a model in which narcissism was predicted by both agency

measures (i.e., explicit and implicit agency). The two agency measures were allowed to

correlate with each other (ρ = .135, p = .005; 95% CI [.040; .231]). This model demonstrated

a decent fit (χ2 [24] = 66.20, p < .001, CFI = .982, RMSEA = .052). Again, paralleling the

correlational results, narcissism was significantly positively associated with explicit agency

(β = .527, p < .001, 95% CI [.458; .596]). In contrast, the latent association between

narcissism and implicit agency was again not significantly different from zero (β = -.053, p =

.254; 95% CI [-.145; .038]). Importantly, the same pattern of non-significant results was

obtained when explicit self-esteem was examined instead of explicit agency in a separate

model (model fit: χ2 [24] = 31.754, p = .133, CFI = .997, RMSEA = .022). That is, narcissism
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 12

was significantly positively associated with explicit self-esteem (β = .365, p < .001, 95% CI

[.285; .445]), but not with implicit agency (β = -.014, p = .775, 95% CI [-.112; .084]). The

latent correlation between implicit agency and explicit self-esteem was ρ = .091, p = .071;

95% CI [-.008; .189].6

Thus, while we replicated the well-established finding that narcissists hold positive

explicit self-views in the agentic domain (Grijalva & Zhang, 2016), we did not find parallel

evidence to support the same for implicit self-views. Our results therefore do not support the

suggestion that narcissists’ possess favorable agentic self-views at both implicit and explicit

levels (Campbell et al., 2007).

Discussion

In their original study, Campbell et al. (2007, p. 228) revealed that narcissists do not

seem to dislike themselves “deep down inside”. Instead, narcissists were assumed to possess

high implicit (and explicit) positive self-views in the agentic domain. In the present study,

our primary aim was to re-assess this finding using a high-powered sample, carefully selected

IAT stimuli, and improved statistical analyses.

Consistent with the initial study, we successfully replicated the correlation between

the NPI full score and explicit agency (.41, 95% CI [.344; .471]), which is quite similar to the

correlation of .52 reported by Campbell et al. (2007). To note, the correlation coefficients are

not significantly different from each other (Z = -1.37, p = .171, q = .14). Extending these

findings, we parsed the NPI into its facets and found that narcissism is not uniformly

6
As suggested by a reviewer, we tested whether there was an indirect effect of narcissism via explicit agency on
implicit agency. We thus fitted a latent model with narcissism as predictor, explicit agency as mediator, and
implicit agency as criterion variable (χ 2 [24] = 66.20, p < .001, CFI = .982, RMSEA = .052). Paralleling the
findings above, the association between narcissism and explicit agency was positive and significant (β = .520, p
< .001, 95% CI [.446; .586]) as was the association between explicit agency and implicit agency (β = .173, p =
.004; 95% CI [.057; .291]). The direct effect of the NPI on implicit agency was not significant (β = -.072, p =
.254; 95% CI [-.195; .053]), but the indirect effect was (β = .090, p = .005; 95% CI [.030; .156]). The total effect
of the NPI on implicit agency was essentially zero (β = .018, p = .730; 95% CI [-.164; .238]). Thus, if there is an
association between narcissism and implicit agency, it is an indirect one that is fully explained by the positive
association between explicit agency with both narcissism and implicit agency.
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 13

associated with agency. Importantly and, in line with prior research (Ackerman et al., 2011),

the positive association between narcissism and explicit agency (and explicit self-esteem)

seems to be primarily attributable to the more adaptive NPI facets (i.e., LA and GE). In

contrast, the less adaptive NPI facet (i.e., EE) was unrelated to explicit agency. These results

corroborate the necessity of distinguishing between distinct facets of narcissism to obtain a

more differentiated understanding of its relationships with relevant criterion variables

(Ackerman et al., 2012).

Yet, our findings provide no support for the claim that narcissists possess positive

implicit self-views in the agentic domain. The association between narcissism and implicit

agency was close to zero (.02, 95% CI [-.054; .099]). Note that the confidence interval

included zero but not the result found by Campbell et al. (2007; .29). The correlation

coefficients were significantly different from each other (Z = -2.71, p = .007, q = .28). Thus

the results of our replication study support the null hypothesis and suggest that narcissists

actually possess neutral rather than positive implicit self-views in the agentic domain.

Together with the null effects obtained in the meta-analysis by Bosson et al. (2008), our

results imply that narcissism is unrelated to implicit self-esteem in the agentic domain.

Another possible explanation would be that ‘agency’ is less central to narcissists’ implicit

(but not explicit) self-concept of personality. Indeed, implicit self-associations are believed to

result from individual learning experiences that are encoded in an associative network

(Schnabel & Asendorpf, 2010). In any case and, agreeing with Campbell et al. (2007), our

results do not provide any support of the idea that narcissists do not like themselves “deep

down inside” (i.e., implicitly).

While we did not find evidence for positive implicit self-views in the agentic domain

in individuals high in narcissism, we would like to stress that this does not mean that there is

no such effect. Importantly, we are aware of the fact that no study, no matter how carefully
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 14

conducted, can provide a definite answer regarding a hypothesized result. In light of the

importance of reproducible research, however, we deem it important to add further

knowledge to the literature base in the field. Crucially, our study had a much larger sample

and, thus, higher statistical power than many previous studies examining the association

between narcissism and implicit self-esteem (Ns from 57-206; Campbell et al., 2007; Gregg

& Sedikides, 2010; Jordan et al., 2003; Marissen et al., 2016; Zeigler-Hill, 2006). In addition,

SEM allowed us to take measurement error into account. Hence, our study had a higher

chance to realistically detect an effect, but did not do so.

Despite the many strengths of the current study, its results should be interpreted with

some degree of caution. Importantly, because we relied on a German (vs. United States)

sample and, hence, could not employ exactly the same stimulus material, our study cannot be

considered a direct replication of Campbell et al. (2007). It is therefore possible that the

original effect simply does not generalize to other cultural or linguistic contexts rather than

being non-replicable. However, we deem it rather unlikely that language properties may be a

driving factor here, since we successfully replicated the explicit agency-narcissism link.

Moreover, the German and US-American culture can be considered as individualistic cultures

that both value the so-called agency imperative (Hofstede, 2001; Sedikides, Gaertner, &

Toguchi, 2003).

To conclude, the present study aimed to re-assess the hypothesis that narcissists

possess implicit positive self-views in the agentic domain. Our findings were not in line with

the findings reported by Campbell et al. (2007), although the present study was highly

powered to detect an effect. It is important to acknowledge that contextual differences may

have potentially affected the nature of the effect. In future research, it might still be

worthwhile to continue focusing on narcissism’s relation to implicit (and explicit) self-views

while systematically scrutinizing potential moderators.

NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 15

References
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 16

Abele, Andrea E., Uchronski, Mirjam, Suitner, Caterina, & Wojciszke, Bogdan. (2008).

Towards an operationalization of the fundamental dimensions of agency and

communion: Trait content ratings in five countries considering valence and frequency

of word occurrence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(7), 1202-1217. doi:

10.1002/ejsp.575

Ackerman, Robert A. , Donnellan, M. Brent , & Robins, Richard W. (2012). An Item

Response Theory Analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 94(2), 141-155. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2011.645934

Ackerman, Robert A. , Witt, Edward A., Donnellan, M. Brent, Trzesniewski, Kali H.,

Robins, Richard W., & Kashy, Deborah A. (2011). What does the Narcissistic

Personality Inventory really measure? Assessment, 18(1), 67-87.

Asendorpf, Jens B., Conner, Mark, De Fruyt, Filip, De Houwer, Jan, Denissen, Jaap J. A.,

Fiedler, Klaus, . . . Wicherts, Jelte M. (2013). Recommendations for Increasing

Replicability in Psychology Recommendations for Increasing Replicability in

Psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 108-119. doi: 10.1002/per.1919

Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The

Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 680-740). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bosson, Jennifer K., Brown, Ryan P., Zeigler-Hill, Virgil, & Swann, William B., Jr. (2003).

Self-enhancement tendencies among people with high explicit self-esteem: The

moderating role of implicit self-esteem. Self and Identity, 2(3), 169-187. doi:

10.1080/15298860309029

Bosson, Jennifer K., Lakey, Chad E., Campbell, W. Keith, Zeigler‐Hill, Virgil, Jordan,

Christian H., & Kernis, Michael H. (2008). Untangling the links between narcissism

and self‐esteem: A theoretical and empirical review. Social and Personality

Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1415-1439. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00089.x

NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 17

Bosson, Jennifer K., Swann, William B., & Pennebaker, James W. (2000). Stalking the

perfect measure of implicit self-esteem: The blind men and the elephant revisited?

Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 79(4), 631-643. doi: 10.1037//0022-

3514.79.4.631

Brown, Ashley A., & Brunell, Amy B. (2017). The 'modest mask'? An investigation of

vulnerable narcissists' implicit self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences,

119, 160-167. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.020

Brown, Ryan P., Budzek, Karolyn, & Tamborski, Michael. (2009). On the meaning and

measure of narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(7), 951-964.

doi: 10.1177/0146167209335461

Campbell, W. Keith, Bosson, Jennifer K., Goheen, Thomas W., Lakey, Chad E., & Kernis,

Michael H. (2007). Do narcissists dislike themselves “deep down inside”?

Psychological Science, 18(3), 227-229. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01880.x

Campbell, W. Keith, Brunell, Amy B., & Finkel, Eli J. (2006). Narcissism, Interpersonal

Self-Regulation, and Romantic Relationships: An Agency Model Approach. In K. D.

Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and

interpersonal processes. (pp. 57-83). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Campbell, W. Keith, & Foster, Joshua D. (2007). The narcissistic self: Background, an

extended agency model, and ongoing controversies. In C. Sedikides & S. J. Spencer

(Eds.), The self (pp. 115-138). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.

DeWall, C. Nathan, Buffardi, Laura E., Bonser, Ian, & Campbell, W. Keith. (2011).

Narcissism and implicit attention seeking: Evidence from linguistic analyses of social

networking and online presentation. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(1),

57-62. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.011

NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 18

Fatfouta, Ramzi, & Schröder-Abé, M. . (2017). Agentic to the core? Facets of narcissism and

positive implicit self-views in the agentic domain. Retrieved from: Retrieved from

osf.io/uyvg6

Fatfouta, Ramzi, Zeigler-Hill, Virgil, & Schröder-Abé, Michela. (2017). I’m merciful, am I

not? Facets of narcissism and forgiveness revisited. Journal of Research in

Personality, 70, 166-173. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.07.007

Freud, S. (1914). On narcissism: An Introduction. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition

of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 67-104).

Funder, David C., Levine, John M., Mackie, Diane M., Morf, Carolyn C., Sansone, Carol,

Vazire, Simine, & West, Stephen G. (2014). Improving the dependability of research

in personality and social psychology: recommendations for research and educational

practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 3-12. doi:

10.1177/1088868313507536

Gebauer, Jochen E., Paulhus, Delroy L., & Neberich, Wiebke. (2013). Big two personality

and religiosity across cultures: Communals as religious conformists and agentics as

religious contrarians. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(1), 21-30.

Greenwald, Anthony G., & Farnham, Shelly D. (2000). Using the Implicit Association Test

to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 79(6), 1022-1038. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.1022

Greenwald, Anthony G., McGhee, Debbie E., & Schwartz, Jordan L. K. (1998). Measuring

individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464-1480. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.74.6.1464
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 19

Greenwald, Anthony G., Nosek, Brian A., & Banaji, Mahzarin R. (2003). Understanding and

using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197-216. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197

Gregg, Aiden P., & Sedikides, Constantine. (2010). Narcissistic Fragility: Rethinking Its

Links to Explicit and Implicit Self-esteem. Self & Identity, 9(2), 142-161. doi:

10.1080/15298860902815451

Grijalva, Emily, & Zhang, Luyao. (2016). Narcissism and self-insight: A review and meta-

analysis of narcissists’ self-enhancement tendencies. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 42(1), 3-24. doi: 10.1177/0146167215611636

Hofstede, Geert. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions

and organisations across nations. CA: Sage Thousand Oaks

Jordan, Christian H., Spencer, Steven J., Zanna, Mark P., Hoshino-Browne, Etsuko, &

Correll, Joshua. (2003). Secure and Defensive High Self-Esteem. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 969-978. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.969

Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York: Jason

Aronson.

Kernis, Michael H., Abend, Teresa A., Goldman, Brian M., Shrira, Ilan, Paradise, Andrew

N., & Hampton, Christian. (2005). Self-serving responses arising from discrepancies

between explicit and implicit self-esteem. Self & Identity, 4(4), 311-330. doi:

10.1080/15298860500146028

Klavina, Elena, Schröder-Abé, Michela, & Schütz, Astrid. (2012). Facets of self-esteem at an

implicit level? Investigation of implicit-explicit correlations and development of four

IATs. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(5), 693-698. doi:

10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.028
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 20

Kline, Rex B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New

York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Kohut, H. (1966). Forms and transformations of narcissism. Journal of the American

Psychoanalytic Association, 14(2), 243-272. doi: 10.1177/000306516601400201

Krizan, Zlatan, & Suls, Jerry. (2008). Are implicit and explicit measures of self-esteem

related? A meta-analysis for the Name-Letter Test. Personality & Individual

Differences, 44(2), 521-531. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.017

Little, Todd D., Cunningham, William A., Shahar, Golan, & Widaman, Keith F. (2002). To

parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural

Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151-173. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1

Marissen, Marlies A. E., Brouwer, Marlies E., Hiemstra, Annemarie M. F., Deen, Mathijs L.,

& Franken, Ingmar H. A. (2016). A masked negative self-esteem? Implicit and

explicit self-esteem in patients with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Psychiatry

Research, 242, 28-33. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2016.04.070

Miller, J. D., Hoffman, Brian J., Gaughan, Eric T., Gentile, Brittany, Maples, Jessica, &

Campbell, W. Keith. (2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological

network analysis. Journal of Personality, 79(5), 1013-1042. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

6494.2010.00711.x

Miller, J. D., Lynam, Donald R., Hyatt, Courtland S., & Campbell, W. Keith. (2017).

Controversies in Narcissism. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 291-315. doi:

10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045244

Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén

& Muthén.
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 21

Raskin, R., & Terry, Howard. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic

Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890-902. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890

Rhodewalt, Frederick, & Peterson, Benjamin. (2009). Narcissism. In M. R. Leary & R. H.

Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 547-560).

New York, NY US: Guilford Press.

Rosenberg, Morris. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Schermelleh-Engel, Karin, Moosbrugger, Helfried, & Müller, Hans. (2003). Evaluating the fit

of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit

measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.

Schnabel, Konrad, & Asendorpf, Jens B. (2010). The self-concept: New insights from

implicit measurement procedures. In B. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook

of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 408-425).

New York, NY US: Guilford Press.

Schönbrodt, Felix D., & Perugini, Marco. (2013). At what sample size do correlations

stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609-612. doi:

10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009

Sedikides, Constantine, Gaertner, Lowell, & Toguchi, Yoshiyasu. (2003). Pancultural self-

enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 60-79. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.60

Simmons, Joseph P, Nelson, Leif D, & Simonsohn, Uri. (2012). A 21 word solution.

Available at SSRN 2160588.

Vater, Aline, Ritter, Kathrin, Schröder-Abé, Michela, Schütz, Astrid, Lammers, Claas-

Hinrich, Bosson, Jennifer K., & Roepke, Stefan. (2013). When grandiosity and
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 22

vulnerability collide: Implicit and explicit self-esteem in patients with narcissistic

personality disorder. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry,

44(1), 37-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.07.001

Zeigler-Hill, Virgil. (2006). Discrepancies between implicit and explicit self-esteem:

Implications for narcissism and self-esteem instability. Journal of Personality, 74(1),

119-144. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00371.x

Zeigler-Hill, Virgil, Clark, C. Brendan, & Pickard, Jessica D. (2008). Narcissistic Subtypes

and Contingent Self-Esteem: Do All Narcissists Base Their Self-Esteem on the Same

Domains? Journal of Personality, 76(4), 753-774. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

6494.2008.00503.x

Zeigler-Hill, Virgil, & Jordan, Christian H. (2011). Behind the mask: Narcissism and implicit

self-esteem. In W. K. Campbell, J. D. Miller, W. K. Campbell & J. D. Miller (Eds.),

The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical

approaches, empirical findings, and treatments. (pp. 101-115). Hoboken, NJ, US:

John Wiley & Sons Inc.

NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 23

Highlights

 Conceptual replication of Campbell et al. (2007)

 Used a larger sample, carefully constructed stimuli, and improved statistical analyses

 Investigated whether the original findings were consistent across narcissism facets

 The latent correlation between narcissism and implicit agency was close to zero

 Narcissists do not seem to dislike (or like) themselves deep down inside
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 24

Table 1

Stimuli used in the agency IAT

German English (translation)

Positiv Negativ Positive Negative
aktiv passiv active passive
zielstrebig träge determined sluggish
führend unterwürfig leading submissive
energisch lethargisch energetic lethargic
selbständig abhängig independent dependent
fleißig faul industrious lazy
Ich Nicht-ich Me Not-me
mein euch my yourselves
mich eure mine your
meine ihr myself you
Ich ihnen I them
selbst andere self others
mir ihre me their
NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 25

Table 2

Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics among all measures

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. NPI _

2. LA .82* _

3. GE .66* .32* _

4. EE .50* .31* .18* _

5. Implicit agency .02 .03 .01 -.01 _

6. Explicit agency .41* .46* .23* -.00 .11* _

7. Explicit self- .31* .28* .31* -.14* .07 .55* _

esteem

M 13.33 3.74 3.27 1.22 .50 3.63 3.68

SD 6.07 2.50 2.26 1.10 0.34 0.61 0.80

Note. Analyses are based on pairwise present data and, hence ns may vary between 648 and

653. NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; LA = Leadership/Authority; GE = Grandiose

Exhibitionism; EE = Entitlement/Exploitativeness. *p < .001 (2-tailed).

NARCISSISM AND IMPLICIT SELF-ESTEEM 26

Highlights

 Conceptual replication of Campbell et al. (2007)

 Used a larger sample, carefully constructed stimuli, and improved statistical analyses

 Investigated whether the original findings were consistent across narcissism facets

 The latent correlation between narcissism and implicit agency was close to zero

 Narcissists do not seem to dislike (or like) themselves deep down inside