Loyal Now, but Not Forever!

A Study of
Narcissism and Male Consumer–Brand
Relationships
Aliette Lambert
University of Edinburgh

John Desmond
University of St Andrews

ABSTRACT

Two prominent areas of research to emerge in recent years are consumer relationships with brands
and narcissism in society. Whilst each of these research streams has contributed valuable insights on
contemporary consumer behavior, there has not yet been an in-depth comparative study of the
relations that narcissists and non-narcissists have with products and brands, a gap that this study
seeks to address. In the same vein as Fournier (1998), an idiographic qualitative study was devised to
investigate whether there are consistent differences in orientation to (a) people and (b) brands
between men scoring high and low on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. The findings show the
agentic nature of the narcissist, as compared to the communal orientation of the non-narcissist, in
dealing with both people and brands. Furthermore, the findings offer evidence of grandiose and
fragile variants of narcissism. 
C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Tom works as a broker in the City of London, living
in a riverside apartment in the prestigious docklands
area. He takes pride in his collection of modern art-
works, noting with pleasure their steady increase in
value since the time of purchase. Brands are important
to him and he readily admits his loyalty to a number,
although he will quickly substitute one brand for an-
other if its perceived status falls. Tom has a number of
friends, none of them too close. He recently let his old
girlfriend go because she did not fit his new lifestyle.
The fictitious account above tells the story of a
character whose relationship to people and to brands
is more or less the same: he treats both instrumen-
tally as objects for his admiration and enjoyment
until they outlive their usefulness to him and are dis-
carded. Tom’s story forms a confluence for two impor-
tant streams of research into consumer behavior: on
narcissism (Twenge & Campbell, 2009) and consumer–
brand relationships (Fournier, 1998), which form the
topic of this paper.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
Narcissism in Society
Christopher Lasch was one of the first to discuss
narcissism as a general tendency in modern society,
observing: “[Living] for the moment is the prevailing
passion—to live for yourself, not for your predecessors
or posterity” (1979, p. 5). Lasch blames capitalism for
this recent prevalence, noting that inherent in the sys-
tem is competition and “the will to win,” which, when
coupled with the advent of bureaucratic corporations,
shifted values from the community to the individual,
from self-denial to self-admiration (Lasch, 1979, p. 57;
Twenge & Campbell, 2009). Citing John Cawelti, Lasch
(1979) detects the origins of this in the spread of self-
promotional media:
By the end of the nineteenth century, self-help books
were dominated by the ethos of salesmanship and
boosterism. Personal magnetism, a quality which
supposedly enabled a man to influence and domi-
nate others, became one of the major keys to success.
(p. 58)
A fixation on self-esteem, further perpetuated by the
media, plays a central role in the narcissism epidemic
that Twenge & Campbell (2009) argue holds society in
its sway today. They locate the roots of the current wave
of narcissism in the 1960s: “The fight for the greater
good of the 1960s became looking out for number one by
the 1980s. Parenting became more indulgent, celebrity
worship grew, and reality TV became a showcase of
narcissistic people” (p. 4). Whilst acknowledging that

Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 30(8): 690–706 (August 2013)

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20638

690
everyone is narcissistic to some extent, it is argued
that narcissism predominately afflicts younger gener-
ations raised to live for themselves and not for “pre-
decessors or posterity” (Lasch, 1979, p. 5; Twenge &
Campbell, 2009). This theory corroborates Twenge,
Konrath, Campbell, Foster, and Bushman’s (2008a)
observation that levels of narcissism significantly in-
creased in college students from 1979 to 2006. More-
over, men tend to exhibit greater narcissistic tenden-
cies than women (Foster, Campbell, & Twenge, 2003)
given a more independent self-construal (Cross & Mad-
son, 1997).
The prevalence of narcissism is linked, particularly
in Western cultures, to the shift from a focus on col-
lectivism to individualism (Fukuyama, 1999; James,
2007): from concern for others to concern for individ-
ual goals of wealth and fame (Astin, Oseguera, Sax,
& Korn, 2004; Pew Research Center, 2007). Narcis-
sism is particularly associated with an agentic rather
than communal orientation toward interpersonal re-
lations (Campbell, Brunell, & Finkel, 2006), as nar-
cissists tend to view relationships with others instru-
mentally, selecting partners who improve image, rather
than those who can provide communal rewards of in-
timacy and warmth. Superficially charming, narcis-
sists play games with romantic partners (Campbell,
Foster, & Finkel, 2002), exhibiting little commitment
(Campbell & Foster, 2002) and attempting to enhance
their own status even at the expense of their partner
(Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002), all the while
showing less compunction to engage in infidelity (Buss
& Shackelford, 1997). These trends may be reflected
in increased propensity for college students to “hook
up” rather than engage in committed, long-term rela-
tionships (Glenn & Marquardt, 2001; Manning, Long-
more, & Giordano, 2005). Moreover, extreme narcis-
sists may act aggressively against those who block
their goals, instigating fights because they believe that
they will win (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996;
Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Narcissistic men are
more likely than others to use coercion against a ro-
mantic other, even to the extent of rape (Baumeister,
Catanese, & Wallace, 2002; Bushman, Bonacci, Van
Dijk, & Baumeister, 2003). This may be due to a sense of
entitlement, whereby narcissistic men are more likely
to believe that no person in his/her right mind would
refuse them.
The foregoing studies argue for a rise in narcissism
in the postmodern era, which brings forth the question
of the role played by consumption. To understand con-
sumption and materialism in conjunction with narcis-
sism, one may consider the role of products, and brands
particularly, in the life of a consumer.
Narcissism and Consumption
A propensity to incorporate brands as part of identity
formation accompanies trends toward narcissism and
materialism in postmodern society. Belk’s (1988) foun-
NARCISSISM AND MALE CONSUMER–BRAND RELATIONSHIPS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
dational study illustrates that people use material ob-
jects not only for self-expression, but also as a means
of providing support to an otherwise fragile identity
whereby, “we learn, define, and remind ourselves of
who we are by our possessions” (p. 160). It has been
argued more recently that “stuff” is not simply pas-
sively assimilated into the self, rather products and
brands actively engage in relationships with consumers
as agents of self-formation, in addition to that of self-
expression (Fournier, 1998; Aaker, 1997). In particu-
lar, Fournier’s foundational study of consumer–brand
relationships shows: “how the projects, concerns and
themes that people use to define themselves can be
played out in the cultivation of brand relationships and
how those relationships, in turn, can affect the culti-
vation of one’s concept of self” (1998, p. 359). Thus,
it is important to consider how narcissism manifests
through the material.
Narcissism and Materialism. Twenge and Camp-
bell argue: “Materialism is one of the most obvious
examples of America’s narcissism epidemic” (2009, p.
160). Those scoring high on narcissism also score high
on materialism (Kasser, 2003, p. 11), likely because ma-
terialism appeals to narcissists’ exhibitionist tenden-
cies. For instance, displaying expensive things enables
narcissists to show off “good” taste and signals their
charm and outgoing personality (Twenge & Campbell,
2009, p. 161). The importance, then, of studying the
narcissistic consumer lies not only in the proliferation
of narcissistic tendencies but also in the interdepen-
dency that narcissists have with products and brands.
Narcissism and materialism are intertwined partic-
ularly with respect to attributes of status, envy and
the pursuit of wealth (Belk, 1985; Richins & Dawson,
1992). The pursuit of wealth and of prized possessions
is linked to being on display—having the “right” image
and being well regarded socially. One example of this
tendency in Kates’ (2002) study concerns his subject
Sam, for whom “labels” became of utmost importance
upon “coming out of the closet,” even though he was not
very concerned with brands beforehand. As his slender
physique lacks muscular competency, Sam “resorted to
another traditional arbiter of invidious status and dis-
tinction: money and brands” (Kates, 2002, p. 393). Sam
openly admits that he and his friends purposively set
out to show that they have money.
Sam’s exhibitionist tendencies and affinity for
brands aligns with the actions and preferences of the
narcissist. Sedikides, Cisek, and Hart (2011) devise two
potential reasons for a narcissist’s penchant for brands.
First, brands simply add further luster to the already
grandiose self-image of the narcissist by communicat-
ing “uniqueness, haughtiness and dominance to the
world” (p. 385). But much of the literature on material-
ism highlights its negative effects on wellbeing (Belk,
1985; Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002; Ger & Belk, 1996;
Richins & Dawson, 1992). Such findings support a
second explanation—the “fragility” hypothesis—which
argues that narcissists prefer symbolically marked
691
products such as brands because they feel insecure
and in need of recognition. This form of narcissism,
also referred to as hypervigilant (Gabbard, 1989)
or closet (Masterson, 1993) narcissism (Dickinson &
Pincus, 2003), is differentiated from the exhibitionist
narcissism exemplified by Sam. “Closet” narcissists use
status brands in order to bolster self-image (and in-
ner fragility) by adopting a “beat the Joneses” men-
tality, which in turn propagates materialistic trends
(Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006; Sedikides, Cisek, & Hart,
2011; Twenge & Campbell, 2009). Interestingly, self-
doubt predicts materialism (Sedikides, Cisek, & Hart,
2011, p. 385), as social comparison via the material en-
ables narcissists to “compare themselves with others in
order to gauge their own personal worth and standing”
(DiMaggio et al., 2006, p. 500).
Furthermore, there are parallels between theoreti-
cal dichotomies established by researchers of materi-
alism and narcissism. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-
Halton (1981), who explore the meaning of things to
consumers, distinguish between two diverging ways of
relating to material objects. The first way is “instru-
mental materialism” in which the consumer may use
a product for self-cultivation and/or to strengthen rela-
tionships with others; for instance, s/he may purchase
a guitar in order to become more skillful in playing it
and to play it for others. Alternatively, “terminal ma-
terialism” involves the desire to acquire for the sake of
acquiring—that is, a narcissistic orientation whereby
the guitar is purchased simply for the status it conveys.
Several researchers have noted the dichotomy between
the use of objects to foster collectivist, communal values
versus individualist values of envy and status (Astin
et al., 2004; Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002; Pew Re-
search Center, 2007).
Narcissism and Brand Relationships. From the
above, given that narcissists adopt an agentic orien-
tation toward personal relationships, one would expect
them to display a similar orientation toward their rela-
tionships with brands in seeking to ameliorate feelings
of envy or to signify status in relation to competitors.
Fournier establishes consumer–brand relationship the-
ory, finding that brands “serve as powerful repositories
of meaning purposively and differentially employed in
the substantiation, creation, and (re)production of con-
cepts of self in the marketing age” (1998, p. 365). More-
over, she observes that quite often, the most embedded
identity anxieties are manifested in the mundane triv-
ialities of everyday life (e.g., brand selection), which is
to be expected particularly in the case of a narcissist.
The product itself may not be as important as what
it signals to these significant others, and, depending
on which orientation one takes, then the brand will
play the role of either glorifying the grandiose self or
bolstering the fragile self (Sedikides, Cisek, & Hart,
2011). Furthermore, one would expect narcissists to
treat humans similarly to products: in an agentic man-
ner (Campbell, Brunell, & Finkel, 2006) by choosing
partners who boost their image, rather than providing
692
communal benefits such as intimacy. As such, one may
expect narcissistic characteristics to have emerged from
previous studies of brand relationships such as that of
Fournier (1998), a study that explores the lives of three
women in some detail. It is thus surprising that there
is no mention of narcissism in Fournier’s influential
study. However if one reads her piece with an eye to
narcissistic traits, one character in particular stands
out.
Vicki, aged 23, is the last and youngest of the
women described by Fournier (1998). Vicki’s story reads
strangely because of the mismatch between what she
says and what she does. Vicki has a strongly expressed
belief in fidelity. She tells Fournier that it is time she
had a serious boyfriend. She is nostalgic for the one she
dated for four years and secretly hopes he may come
back to her. Meantime, she is dating a younger man
while concurrently cruising the bars with her friends in
search of something more satisfactory. Vicki describes
fidelity to products within a religious context: if you use
a product you should believe in it. She further describes
brand commitment as an obligation: “If you try a brand
and it is true to you in consistently delivering quality,
you must reciprocate by being true to it through consis-
tent purchase” (Fournier, 1998, p. 358). Given Vicki’s
talk of commitment and faithfulness, Fournier admits
to being rather disconcerted by Vicki’s frequent switch-
ing behaviors between brands and her need to “keep her
finger on the pulse of what is going on in the market”
(1998, p. 358). Fournier observes:
It is somewhat startling to note the switching
behaviors that coexist with Vicki’s claimed loy-
alties . . . More surprising then, is to observe the
readiness with which Vicki can terminate a long-
standing, seemingly committed brand relation-
ship . . . Looking across the pattern of her brand rela-
tionships over time, many of Vicki’s loyalties acquire
a transient quality, reflecting more of a character of
infatuation than one of true love and commitment.
(1998, p. 358)
This aligns with a narcissist’s tendency to exhibit
“shallow and transitory relationships” with people and
with brands (Campbell & Foster, 2002), as “narcissists
are likely to be constantly on the search for a ‘better
deal’ in the form of a better looking or more attractive
partner. This prediction follows from narcissists’ en-
hanced attraction to high-status – rather than caring –
others” (p. 486). This mirrors both Vicki’s relationship
status and brand attachments.
Vicki’s ambivalent attitude toward commitment and
her dealings with brands are most in contrast with
Jean, the oldest participant who holds very strong,
sometimes decades-long, loyalties to products (and
people) that have served her well. Jean is utilitarian
and her values lie in honesty, integrity, and success-
ful performance of wife and mother roles. She values
loyalty and prides herself on giving to her community
and sharing her resources. But Vicki has a different
LAMBERT AND DESMOND
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
prerogative, which Fournier attributes more largely to
the MTV generation: “‘Generation X’ is a product of
a postmodern society that encourages construction of
highly individuated identities through eclectic borrow-
ing of the fragments available in consumer culture”
(1998, p. 360). Vicki’s “confused” and “volatile” sense
of self is a: “kaleidoscope of images each finely tuned to
the situation at hand” (p. 359). Vicki: “readily adapts
her identity to fit the powerful institutionalized brand
meanings she judges to be relevant” (p. 359). Vicki has:
“a multiplicity of potential and realized selves” (p. 359);
she is engaged in a “brand-supported” project of identity
construction which may never be completed (p. 360).
One may thus envisage Vicki as the archetypal post-
modern consumer who exhibits the character traits of
the quintessential narcissist.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The above raises important questions for further re-
search. Vicki’s case, discussed above, offers potential
evidence to support the existence of a narcissistic ori-
entation toward both people and brands. However there
is a need to research this further in order to determine
whether there are indeed differences between narcis-
sists and non-narcissists in relation to their orienta-
tion toward people and brands. In this context it is
practical to focus on men as research subjects as men
are inclined toward increased narcissistic tendencies
(Foster, Campbell, & Twenge, 2003). A subsidiary ques-
tion relates to the constitution of narcissism; namely,
is narcissism a simply a matter of grandiosity or ele-
vated esteem as Twenge and Campbell (2009) argue,
or is there evidence to support the idea of narcissistic
fragility (Sedikides, Cisek, & Hart, 2011)?
METHOD
In order to explore the above questions, a two-stage
method was employed. In this study, narcissism was
operationalized using the Narcissistic Personality In-
ventory (NPI) (Raskin & Terry, 1988), a questionnaire
widely used in this field to differentiate narcissists from
non-narcissists (Twenge & Campbell, 2009; Twenge
et al., 2008a). The first stage of research involved using
the NPI to select individuals either high or low in nar-
cissism as subjects for qualitative research. The second
stage of the research employed a qualitative idiographic
method (Fournier, 1998), which is characteristic of an
important strand of consumer culture theory research
(Arnould & Thompson, 2005). This second stage en-
quired whether there are differences, consistent with
the NPI, between men scoring high and men scoring
low on this measure, in terms of their relationships
with (a) people and (b) brands. Although robust, the
NPI smoothes out individual uniqueness by represent-
ing differences in quantitative rather than qualitative
terms. By taking each individual as a unique case it is
possible to reflect on the adequacy of individual compo-
NARCISSISM AND MALE CONSUMER–BRAND RELATIONSHIPS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
nents of the NPI and its overall efficacy in diagnosing
narcissism. This approach is particularly useful in ex-
ploring potential qualitative differences between sub-
jects who achieve similar scores. It also enables the
researcher to look beyond the NPI to enquire whether
narcissism is a feature of a grandiose or fragile per-
sonality. By aiming toward verstehen, or understand-
ing of the world of the narcissist (Weber, 1949), this
research highlights the importance of meanings and
experiences to the understanding of narcissism (Miller
& Glassner, 1997). Nuances in meaning are important;
for example, the same construct of “confidence” can be
articulated differently by different subjects (Bannister
& Fransella, 1986; Kelly, 1991). Thus, the overall aim
of this research is to explore the meaning of people and
brands to narcissists and non-narcissists.
Procedure
In order to identify narcissists and non-narcissists, 25
male graduate students (mean age of 24.6) of a northern
university in the United Kingdom completed NPI ques-
tionnaires. The average score of the men surveyed was
17.5 with a standard deviation of 6.6, which is slightly
above average for the NPI but consistent with average
scores of male college students (Twenge et al., 2008a).
Survey participants scored highest on the authority and
self-sufficiency traits. Four men were selected for the
qualitative phase of research, two of whom scored in
the top five and two in the bottom five on the NPI.
All of the subjects for qualitative research are Western
European and are connected with the researcher to a
similar degree. Of the two narcissists, Chris (NPI: 29)
is well known to the researcher, being a neighbor and
social acquaintance, and James (NPI: 29), is a casual
acquaintance. The two non-narcissists Stephen (NPI:
12) and Ben (NPI: 9) are also within the researcher’s
circle of acquaintances. All of the participants were ea-
ger to take part in the research.
Initial interviews with each participant lasted from
one-and-a-half to two hours and were recorded, though
some conversation continued after the recorder had
been quieted. An aide memoir was used to provide a
loose structure for each interview. The aide memoir con-
sisted of two sections: one based on the NPI’s seven nar-
cissistic traits and one based on understanding brand
attachments. In the first part of the interview, partici-
pants were asked about how they relate to others. For
example, to understand the trait of authority, ques-
tions were posed related to participants’ position within
teams and whether they like being in control; in order
to ascertain feelings of superiority, participants were
asked whether they believe they are a special person
and why. Conversation flowed freely from these types of
questions. In order to understand brand attachments,
participants were asked to discuss their daily routine,
noting motivations for the products/brands used, along
with questions relating to shopping habits, favorite
brands, and which brands they believe most closely
match their personality and lifestyle. In pursuance of
693
Table 1. Participant NPI Score Analysis.
Name Score Authority Self-Sufficency
Chris 29 8 3
100% 50%
James 29 8 5
100% 83%
Stephen 12 6 1
75% 17%
Ben 9 4 1 2
50% 17%
a
The percentage below each score represents the percentage of the total number of questions in the questionnaire addressing each NPI component.
eliciting underlying feelings and emotions, the inter-
viewer facilitated a comfortable and open environment
by conducting all interviews at the time and location of
the participant’s choice (in all but one case the partici-
pant’s home, though the homes of all participants were
visited) and began each interview with a cup of tea,
coffee, or in one case, sharing a homemade meal. The
interviewer also allowed the participants to lead the
conversation and listened intently to what participants
felt was important to say, rather than forcing specific
questions at inopportune moments. Photographs were
taken of pertinent products in many of the participants’
private rooms. Following these initial interviews fur-
ther interviews were conducted, usually by phone.
Data Analysis
In order to best analyze the data, each interview
was recorded and transcribed. An idiographic analysis
(Fournier, 1998) provided a thick description (Geertz,
1973) of how these consumers relate to people and
brands. While biases are inherent in any type of re-
search, the qualitative researchers’ “insider” position
must be considered in the analysis. As noted above, the
researchers had a degree of familiarity with the partic-
ipants. This enabled a level of comfort with each partic-
ipant given pre-established trust and rapport (Miller
& Glassner, 1997). As Mullings suggests: “The in-
sider/outsider binary in reality is a boundary that is not
only highly unstable but also one that ignores the dy-
namism of positionalities in time and through space. No
individual can consistently remain an insider and few
ever remain complete outsiders” (1999, p. 340). Thus
consideration of positionality in the process of analysis
was essential.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
A cross-case analysis was conducted in order to validate
each participant’s NPI score and understand how each
participant relates to others, an analysis which lends
to both the credibility of the NPI and findings from the
interviews regarding participants’ relations to people
and brands. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the NPI
scores for each participant.
694
a
Components
Superiority Exhibitionism Exploitativeness Vanity Entitlement
3 4 4 3 4
60% 57% 80% 100% 67%
5 1 3 2 5
100% 14% 60% 67% 83%
2 2 0 0 1
40% 29% 0% 0% 17%
0 0 2 0
40% 0% 0% 67% 0%
NPI Personality Cross-Case Analysis
James and Chris, the two individuals identified as
highly narcissistic by the NPI, share a number of com-
monalities: both are the youngest children; both come
from wealthy, successful families; and both scored 29 on
the NPI (though with a different score distribution). Al-
though their narcissistic tendencies manifest in differ-
ent ways, similar apparent trends between James and
Chris include: leadership tendencies; need for achieve-
ment; feeling of superiority; and individual motivation.
The two men interviewed with low narcissism scores,
Stephen and Ben, largely contrast the attitudes por-
trayed by the narcissists and share similar qualities:
a self-effacing character; family-oriented values; and a
team-oriented nature. The following section analyses
the men together on the basis of NPI components in or-
der to consider more closely their approach to forming
relationships with other people.
Authority. While Ben and Stephen are not afraid to re-
linquish control and let others lead the way, both Chris
and James exhibit authoritative tendencies, though
hesitant to acknowledge this inclination. For exam-
ple, Chris states: “It’s funny because let’s say lately
when we’ve played the six-a-side [football] I always was
leader on the pitch but it was not because I wanted to
but because I felt it is necessary . . . ” This is just one ex-
ample in which Chris alludes to his natural tendency to
direct others, though he does admit, “I might be some-
times, let’s say, too much a leader or too much trying to
express my opinion.” James is also reticent to disclose
this innate proclivity, only citing one example (his par-
ticipation in an elite McKinsey workshop for emerging
leaders) in which he had difficulty finding his natural
authority position, lending to his discomfort and neg-
ative memories of the people in the program. But he
usually gravitates to a position of leadership, as he has
in University, noting: “I always found that I’m really
kind of a leader guy because some of the people were
lacking the initiative or they like weren’t really sure
what to do when to do it.” So, neither James nor Chris
admit leadership, rather citing incidences in which they
were in the position out of necessity, though this seems
a recurring trend for both.
LAMBERT AND DESMOND
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 Conversely, Stephen and Ben prefer to act as equal
team members, considering what is best for the team
rather than themselves. For example, Ben prefers to do
his own part and help others, but does not necessarily
need to be the leader, though he likes to keep control:
“I don’t have to be a leader but I think I have certain
capabilities that can help people . . . I constantly write
emails to see if I can help other people . . . Just to be
in the team and only follow and do something is, that’s
okay, but it is something that really doesn’t satisfy me.”
This illustrates his communal, team-oriented attitude.
Stephen, though assertive, is happy to let others take
control: “I think groups always work best when there is
someone who is in charge and who says “Okay now we
have to go on and discuss this point, we’ve addressed
this point already too long and then we have to go on.”
And I think I would like to become like a supervisor like
taking more responsibility one day but just if I am qual-
ified enough. Like if I really have the expertise to know
all the stuff.” And though James also acknowledges a
preference for having command of the material before
taking a leadership position, unlike Stephen, he cites
many instances in which he has assumed a position of
authority (e.g., in school he was a class representative
10 of 13 years, even though he switched schools three
times).
More than simply leadership tendencies, authority
is often revealed through assertiveness or dominance
(Raskin & Terry, 1988); exhibited in the interviews as
a reaction to the posed question: what do you do when
you disagree with the team leader? For James, being
wrong is not a problem because he is usually right:
“[Losing?] Oh it’s not a problem. The problem is though
I tend to be quite convinced that I’m right in certain sit-
uations.” So, when others disagree, James can become
quite irritated: “I will always try to convince them. I
will always try to get the other person to understand
that my point is right. And if they don’t understand it,
I get really angry . . . I wouldn’t say really angry but . . .
I really want people to understand my point.” If the
opposing side eventually triumphs, his rather vindic-
tive nature may materialize: “I will do it the way he
wants but I won’t put that much effort in it because I
disbelieve in his position and just do the minimum re-
quirement that he wants me to do.” But where James
will eventually concede, Chris simply will not partic-
ipate: “I wouldn’t do what he says because if I know
that I am right, why would I do it? Especially when it
is my grade.” Moreover, Chris does not often risk los-
ing: “I think I never took the risk that I can really lose
something.” He also admits that he has not always been
the best sport when it comes to defeat: “When I used
to lose I was really pissed and now I am not at all. I
just think okay it’s a game, next day I might be better.”
These statements not only illustrate Chris’s inability
to lose, but also his claimed maturity and “now” versus
“then” mentality, a mindset to be explored further on in
the analysis. On the other hand, he openly seeks help
from those who he perceives as having more knowledge
than him in certain areas, such as essay writing, and
NARCISSISM AND MALE CONSUMER–BRAND RELATIONSHIPS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
is happy to follow with a leader whom he perceives as
more knowledgeable or in command.
Both James and Chris exhibit confidence in their
opinions; in some cases there is little acknowledgement
that they may be in the wrong. But this is not the case
for Stephen and Ben. Stephen says he can be quite stub-
born, but also will give way to the leader without much
dissidence: “I would really try to convince the whole
group of my view, and maybe because it’s not given that
I’m always right, it might be that I’m making a mistake,
that I don’t see everything . . . then if I am of the other
opinion and the whole group doesn’t want to follow me
then it’s okay and I have to say okay that’s it . . . Of
course you are disappointed but then you have to work
further. It’s not like you can stop working.” Stephen’s
attitude reflects a willingness to consider what is best
for the team. This is mirrored even in his family life,
where he admits a desire for harmony: “In my last re-
lationship which was quite long, after we had like a
fight or something my old relationship partner said al-
ways you’re too good, you should argue more, you should
make your point and not always resigning. You should
push.” Ben, on the other hand, may be a bit more as-
sertive than Stephen, but he shares a similar approach.
He claims to work hard on projects in which he believes,
and hates it when people give up: “I hate losing . . . or
rather giving up. Not losing but giving up.” And if Ben
disagrees with the team, he attempts diplomacy when
asserting his opinion:“[I] get my opinion through [by]
being highly persistent . . . But I always start with ‘I do
believe, I reckon’ . . . I wouldn’t really say I disagree as
long as people respond in the same [polite] way.” Ben
will concede if the team chooses an option with which he
does not agree, and will commit himself to the cause: “[I]
would go for the team opinion because I don’t think that
anybody should be that selfish . . . I wouldn’t even at the
end say . . . in front of the team . . . yeah I was right . . .
If you vote for a team or you are in a team then it’s not
about yourself it’s just getting the most for the team.
I know it sounds very moral and ethically correct but
yeah. I would step back but if I do I try to get everybody
else working as hard as they can.” This demonstrates
an ability to “lose” and alludes to a team-oriented na-
ture. So, while Chris and James demonstrate leader-
ship tendencies and dominating tactics at times, Ben
and Stephen tend to consider other opinions more eas-
ily, though Ben does admit to a need for control at times
and a persistent attitude, and Chris is willing to ask for
help when in doubt.
Entitlement. A sense of entitlement, indicated by am-
bition and a need for power (Raskin & Terry, 1988),
was exposed through questions posed about success.
Both James and Chris are equally assured of their
future success, and describe success inwardly in terms
of individual self. Chris defines success as doing “your
own thing,” and “being yourself.” He knows he will be
successful because: “I have a good education. I think I
basically always got the women that I wanted to and
having a wife and children for me is really important
695
for the future. And with a job, I don’t know I just I don’t
feel any pressure, it’s I think it’s just going to develop
it’s just going to come . . . because I know I have qual-
ities and . . . so far if I want something I always get it.
Whatever it was. And however it was.” James’s vision
of this success mirrors this sense of entitlement, with
an added twist: superiority. He defines success as: “The
thing is it’s got to do with if you are respected and ac-
cepted among your peers and to be able to do that you
have to perform just better than them.” James certainly
believes he will be successful: “I’ve got no doubt about
it . . . because if I look at my track record, what hap-
pened, what I’ve done and how I approach things and
you know how I you know deal with things, I know it’s
going to be fine.”
Both James and Chris exhibit ambition through
their assurance that they will surely attain their ver-
sion of success. But for Ben and Stephen, success is
not a guarantee: they believe success is something for
which they must work, exemplified in Stephen’s words:
“I think my parents and in the situation probably we
both are, they gave us a good start in life but I am not
sure if now everything comes by itself. We still have to
work for it.” Moreover, both men define success not in
terms of themselves, but rather in terms of a successful
family life. To Ben, success is defined in terms of being
financially secure and having a happy family. At some
point, he wants what his parents have, but he knows
he has to work for this success. Stephen defines success
in much the same way: “If I can afford my children my
family everything they want to do then that would be
very successful . . . Or if I can keep the standards of my
parents which I enjoyed, should my children also en-
joy.” So, while Chris and James define success in terms
of self, Stephen and Ben reflect a commitment to family
and community, expressing a desire for a comfortable
lifestyle for their future family.
Superiority. James and Chris’s assurance of success
may link to the fact that they both believe they are
special people. Chris believes he has a winning combi-
nation of attributes: “I wouldn’t say I am the best look-
ing guy; I wouldn’t say I am the most intelligent guy; I
wouldn’t say I am the most sportive guy; but I’d say in
general the mix is the thing which is good.” James, on
the other hand, believes his superior edge is: “When I
pick up stuff and I set my mind and try to do it I will
be able to achieve a level that’s better and superior to
others. That’s what I think makes me special.” On the
other hand, Stephen and Ben do not believe they are
particularly special people; a sentiment that contrasts
directly with the attitudes of James and Chris. Even
though Ben has a firm and confident sense of his ca-
pabilities, he does not necessarily think of himself as a
special person or superior to others, commenting: “ev-
erybody is special otherwise [it] would be boring.” But
he cautiously confesses that his emotional and passion-
ate nature may set him apart from others, as well as
his rationality and ability to be cold-blooded when nec-
essary. Similarly, Stephen asserts: “I think we – no I’m
696
not kidding – we are all unique and I think otherwise it
would be pretty boring. And I think I’m on my own quite
unique but I wouldn’t say I’m special or whatever . . . I’m
not like anyone in the group or not the same as anyone
but I wouldn’t say I am totally special.” Characteristics
that Stephen believes set him apart from his peers are:
“That I’m stubborn in a good way. That I’m always very
long-term thinking – I think that’s correct and charac-
terizes me quite well – and I can be really patient even
though if an idea doesn’t pay off in the first time. I am
not resigning. I’m still working on it and I’m usually
still working so long on this project on whatever on this
idea until it pays off. And I am never losing the faith.”
Whereas Chris believes he is a good catch overall and
James blatantly asserts his superiority, Stephen sees
his patience and long-term thinking as traits that set
him apart and Ben hesitatingly admits that perhaps
his passion makes him unique.
Exhibitionism. A sense of superiority (characterized
by seeking social status according to Raskin & Terry,
1988) corresponds with a need to stand out from the
crowd, or extraversion. Neither Stephen nor Ben par-
ticularly craves attention. In fact, Ben asserts: “I don’t
need to be the center of attention, saying ‘Hey every-
body [Ben’s] here, say something, make a joke I don’t
know . . . I think too much attention is bad for any-
body.” Yet Stephen, not needing to necessarily stand
out, likes acknowledgment: “I don’t like to be so much
in the center of attention . . . [but] I don’t want to be
like lost in the group but I think that’s just normal . . .
Of course I’m dressing sometimes like you know with
the [colorful] trousers um which is not so like normal
or standard . . . I like to be recognized but I don’t like to
be the center of attention.”
On the other hand, both James and Chris enjoy at-
tention. Though James finds it difficult to stand out at
a party, he relishes being in the spotlight: “Everybody
wants to be noticed at a party so everybody is a little bit
narcissist at a party and that makes it difficult for you
to stand out. What I prefer is a situation where people
just come to specifically enjoy me, which is when I’m on
the stage and playing music on the stage is the absolute
super-duper feeling ever. It’s awesome. But party I like
to find my friends, sit down in the corner, have some
fun do some jokes, drink some beer and have a good
time.” As long as he will excel, he doesn’t mind giving a
speech, playing in a band, or even having people watch
him play a sport. James seems to find pleasure in dis-
playing his talents for others to enjoy, demonstrating
confidence in most things that he does (noting that his
“life is run like a warm knife through butter”) though he
does feel pressure to match the expectations of others.
Chris feels a greater pressure, and is far less con-
fident than James. Chris generally feels the need to
stand out, and is usually the center of attention. Fur-
thermore, Chris, intuiting the need to match expecta-
tions and create an identity separate from his siblings,
also craves social acceptance: “I’m a person who very
much likes to be liked. For me it’s very important that
LAMBERT AND DESMOND
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
everyone likes me . . . I always like to be admired . . .
sometimes I’m too outgoing or too loud or whatever
probably I could change . . . probably I am doing it be-
cause I want to be admired.” This reflects Chris’s in-
herent need for social confirmation, and can likely be
attributed to the fact that he often feels lost among
his siblings. He recalls frequent debates occurring over
family dinners in which his brothers and sisters argue,
sounding “basically like machine guns,” and so Chris is
sometimes “just simply quiet.” He believes that some of
his narcissistic tendencies stem from insecurities: “I al-
ways seem myself worse than I am . . . Very often it can
happen or Freud I think explained it like this because
if you have a low self confidence, ehm, you are always
making yourself better than you are . . . It could be be-
cause I always used to have like less self confidence
that’s why I always had girls who were let’s say un-
derneath me, that’s why I always needed it. And right
now I am, let’s say, this going away from home going
studying in [a foreign city] and studying here at [uni-
versity] made me like be much more mature . . . so I am
starting to become more self-confident.” In any case,
both high-scorers have an exhibitionistic bent, while
the low-scorers, though happy to be recognized have no
need for, and perhaps even an aversion toward, atten-
tion seeking.
Exploitativeness. James and Chris’s sense of superi-
ority, entitlement, and attention-seeking align with a
darker quality: exploitativeness. Chris fully admits his
nature, stating: “I think I can be manipulative. Defi-
nitely.” He puts this into the context of getting others
to do things for him, and admits that he may manipu-
late women with whom he just wants to have a fling,
noting that it’s all just part of the game. But aside from
this example, his “manipulation” seems quite harmless
(e.g., asking one parent for something the other par-
ent has refused; getting his friends to look over an es-
say). James takes this further: “[Manipulation is] not
bad from the perspective that it’s usually good for you.
Like when you manipulate, you want to gain advan-
tage of that manipulation so for you it’s good. If you
look at it from a moral perspective you might say it’s
bad, but who cares about morals anyway? So it’s fine.”
But he claims that he doesn’t have the skills or in-
tuition to be truly manipulative. Moreover, he admits
that he “always tend[s] to tell the truth,” a quality that
doesn’t align with an exploitative character. Despite
this, Chris and James’s statements show “a lack of tol-
erance and consideration of others” (Raskin & Terry,
1988).
The idea that manipulation could be justified is lost
on Stephen, asserting: “it would be like very egoistic
to say if it’s for the good of this person because that
would mean that you know what is better for this per-
son, um but sometimes in some situations it might be
useful, um, when it’s really about like health or what-
ever . . . but just in situations . . . when the other person
is in danger.” So Stephen is not likely to find himself ex-
ploiting others for his own good, only for the good of oth-
NARCISSISM AND MALE CONSUMER–BRAND RELATIONSHIPS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
ers. This is similar to Ben’s view: “Manipulating people
is okay, and yes I said it, because if you can manipulate
people in the way that gets their strengths out of them
the most than this is something good . . . yeah well ma-
nipulating is just rearranging components not breaking
them but if you exploit people this is something that I
wouldn’t do and I don’t like other people doing so.” So,
Ben “manipulates” others to help the greater good, at
least in his opinion.
Self-Sufficiency. Along with a superiority complex,
narcissists seldom ask for advice, given independence,
confidence, and a need for achievement (Raskin &
Terry, 1988). James describes himself as very much
self-contained, rarely reaching out to others unless he
has a very specific problem: “If I had a very concrete,
specific problem, like how do I do this with InDesign?
I usually call my sister. If I have problems with my
computer I usually call one of my friends . . . if I have
problems with golf I call my professional . . . it’s always
very specific; it’s either with a sport, it’s with one of my
hobbies or it’s anything I’m really struggling at.” He
generally feels like he has command over things such
as schoolwork, except in cases where he is faced with an
unrealistic objective: “If I feel that I’m confronted with
a task that’s absolutely above my abilities then I tend to
get upset and really angry.” His anger may stem from
the fact that, in this case, he is not in control; James
exhibited, through several examples, his desire to keep
control: “I’d rather be in control because then I can in-
fluence the outcome and if I have certain imagination
of how things should look like and I’m in control then I
can shape them, and if I’m not then I might not [be able
to].” Thinking about control leads James to summon
the following ideal: “I always say that the nicest seat in
the car is in the back seat because then you don’t have
to worry.” He explains, with an air of self-satisfaction,
that in situations in which his family is arguing in the
car over which way to go, James absolves himself of
responsibility by sitting in the back seat, just relaxing
and doing “nothing” while they’re all “smashing their
heads.”
Where James positions himself in relation to an ideal
of control relative to family strife, Chris admits that
he can feel out of control in family situations. Conse-
quently he is attempting to become more self-sufficient,
though he does not shy from asking for advice. He
states: “The decision to go to [a foreign university for
an undergraduate degree] was because of my parents.
I didn’t really want it because at this time I was, let’s
say, I wanted to stay at home with my friends. And
they said no [Chris] please take this step it is the most
important thing. Now I don’t regret one single second I
am so happy I did it. But the choice of [graduate school]
was absolutely my decision. They didn’t even know I ap-
plied.” Chris emphasizes (both through his personality
and brand choice) a separation between his personality
“now” and “then.” Since going to University, he says
that he has learned how to admit defeat; he has be-
come less jealous and possessive and he treats women
697
better, all of which suggest movement away from nar-
cissism. However the overall picture is complex and
other examples (including his apparent inability to lose)
contradict this claimed improvement and maturity, re-
flecting the disparity between Chris’s real and ideal
self. His ideal self is more self-sufficient, separated
from the tight grip of his parents. At several points
throughout the interview he mentioned his dependency
on his father’s monetary support and also that he
would turn to his father for advice when he is feeling
down.
Stephen and Ben do not hesitate to ask for advice,
especially from their family even though they are both
rather independent. Ben takes his family’s advice very
seriously, confessing that angry words from his family
can ruin his whole day. Even now he consults with his
siblings on topics from handy work to women. He does
not shy away from asking for advice and he even as-
serted that men who are too macho to ask for advice
are “stupid.” Stephen also eagerly seeks advice from
those he loves: “I’m always asking for feedback . . . For
example I really wanted to do this master’s here in [the
UK] but still I asked for feedback from my brother, my
father, my mom and said, ‘Do you think it’s a good idea?
I like to hear feedback.”
A separate point to consider is the narcissist’s need
for achievement, which according to Raskin and Terry
(1988), is a facet of self-sufficiency. Both Chris and
James rate achievement highly, saying that their suc-
cesses are never enough. Though they may receive
marks of distinction or excel in sport, they always have
the feeling of inadequacy. This may be a direct result of
the pressure they feel to match (or exceed) the success
and expectations of their families and other authority
figures. For instance, James admitted his feeling of in-
sufficiency: “I think it’s the people expect more from me
but I myself always expect more for myself. I’m always
unsatisfied.” For example, if James gets a perfect score
on a paper, “Then I am unhappy that I have never al-
ways gotten a [perfect score] . . . And if I get a [perfect
score] I’m really unhappy that, for example, maybe they
didn’t want to publish it in a journal or something . . .
there’s always something to worry about.” Chris echoes
this sentiment: “Even if I score four goals I don’t feel like
I am a leader . . . it’s the same with grades. If I see that
I have an average of [distinction] it could be really good
on the other hand I think like hmm could be better.”
But where James is very sure of himself and confident,
Chris admits that he is always trying to improve him-
self, and that he isn’t so self-assured. He attributes his
high narcissism score to his underlying insecure self,
while James seems to believe it is a reflection of his
self-confidence.
Vanity. Finally, vanity is reflected through a belief
that one is considered attractive both by oneself and
others (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Chris, in describing why
he is special, states his belief that he is good looking;
moreover, he spends ample time and energy perfecting
his outward appearance. James exhibits what he terms
698
as “natural vainness,” admitting: “I like to look at my-
self in the mirror. I think I’m handsome.” Conversely,
Stephen, though attentive to his appearance, doesn’t
really believe he is good-looking, explaining: “Yes I do
look quite often in the mirror, that’s true, but . . . in 75%
of the cases I say, who is this guy who’s looking at me?
Uh I don’t recognize this? Usually I am not totally sat-
isfied.” Finally, Ben also pays attention to his looks,
preferring a classic, neat appearance, but he does not
seem overly concerned by it.
Discussion of Cross-Case Analysis
Although presenting a more dynamic and complex
picture than that offered by the NPI, the qualita-
tive findings discussed above offer general support
for the NPI. The two participants identified as be-
ing narcissistic generally reflected a greater sense of
authority, entitlement, superiority, exhibitionism, ex-
ploitativeness and self-sufficiency than those identi-
fied as non-narcissistic. But how does this relate to re-
lationships with people and brands? These questions
are considered next within the context of the above
observations.
Relations to People. Most importantly to this study,
the two narcissistic participants seem to take an agen-
tic perspective with respect to relationships with other
people: Chris argues that manipulation of women is
‘just part of the game’ while James asserts: ‘For you
[manipulation] is good. If you look at it from a moral
perspective you might say it’s bad, but who cares
about morals anyway?’ On the other hand, the non-
narcissistic participants exhibit a more collective orien-
tation. For instance, where Stephen seeks to preserve
harmony with women and fears being considered too
pushy, Chris has no compunction in using them as ob-
jects. Furthermore, Stephen and Ben agree that some-
times manipulation is a good thing, but for quite dif-
ferent reasons than those espoused by the narcissists.
Stephen is drawn toward manipulation when he thinks
that it is truly for another person’s benefit, while Ben
clearly differentiates manipulation from exploitation
by arguing that he would only manipulate someone in
order to enhance his or her strengths. So, where those
scoring high on narcissism demonstrate more agen-
tic dispositions, their counterparts are illustrative of a
communal orientation that seeks to manipulate others
for the greater good rather than in pursuit of one’s self-
ish desires, providing support for Campbell, Brunell,
and Finkel (2006).
Evidence of the narcissistic tendency to treat oth-
ers agentically particularly surfaced when discussing
self-sufficiency, which linked directly to familial rela-
tions. For example, James emphasizes that he likes to
be in control in addition to his self-reliance and lack of
dependency on others with whom he consults only for
specific, practical matters. His fantasy that the back
seat of the car is best is suggestive of a desire to be
LAMBERT AND DESMOND
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
waited on. Chris strives to acquire this self-sufficiency
and independence but finds it difficult to separate from
home life. However, now that he is a graduate student
he believes he has matured and become less jealous
and possessive, and more independent from his family.
This, however, does not square with other aspects of his
behavior, such as his apparent inability to lose grace-
fully. In contrast, Stephen and Ben openly express their
secure relations with others, especially family, and do
not speak of their family in any agentic manner as both
James and Chris do, discussed in further detail below.
James mentioned his family several times during
the interview, suggesting a close relationship. But for
James, inspiration and family ties seem largely related
to measures of success. For example, James describes
his father as “an inspiration to develop a certain way
of working that would lead me to success.” He further
states that his father is “lazy” when it comes to his
family and personal life as he is not very communicative
and unwilling to admit when he is wrong, a fact that,
though it bothers James, he attributes to his father’s
successes. James feels closer to his mother because she
always cared for and catered to him, intimating James’s
agentic relationship with her. In further support of this
hypothesis, James notes that his mother gladly spends
money on him, with the attitude: “Boy as long as you’re
happy, it’s fine.”
Chris has perhaps the most intricate relationship
with family. The youngest of four highly ambitious chil-
dren in an affluent family, Chris often lost his voice
among them. He attributes his “immaturity” to his posi-
tion as the youngest: “I was always the baby was like ev-
eryone took care of me and I never had to do something.
That’s why I was let’s say until I was 18 let’s say imma-
ture?” Similar to James, Chris always felt close to his
mother as she took care of him, although more recently
he has grown much closer to his father. He expresses
his doubts and insecurities to his father, such as the
fact that he feels as one of six in the family to which his
father replies: “No [Chris] if you look at all the pictures
its always like you are somewhere in this picture in the
position which shows that you’re let’s say one of the
leaders.” Also, on days where Chris feels depressed and
like he hasn’t achieved enough, he goes to his father for
affirmation that he is working hard enough, and that he
can take a break. This may represent both Chris’s diffi-
culty in finding adult independence and his insecurities
possibly stemming from comparisons with his success-
ful older brother, a “workaholic” who has “traded stocks
since he was fifteen” and who is the “complete opposite”
of Chris. But even with his father’s emotional support,
Chris also views his support instrumentally: “My father
he would say like wherever I travel whatever if I am
playing sports he would definitely give me the money. If
I’m travelling somewhere he would give me the money.
If I am studying abroad he would give me the money.
[But] if I want to [detail] my car he wouldn’t give me
the money.”
Stephen and Ben have similar close relationships
with their families that contrast with the sometimes
NARCISSISM AND MALE CONSUMER–BRAND RELATIONSHIPS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
agentic relationships depicted with James and Chris.
Stephen is very close with his family, particularly his
mother as she stayed at home throughout his child-
hood. But his father’s bout with cancer brought them
much closer together. Though close with his brother,
Stephen admits that they have totally different life
outlooks and sometimes argue. Despite their disparate
views on some things, Stephen affirms a deep love for
his brother and often goes to him for advice. Ben has a
very “deep and trusting” relationship family, claiming
that family is the most important part of his life. He
is very close with all members of his family, but has a
particularly close relationship with his father, who he
calls his hero. Both Stephen and Ben frequently turn to
their family for advice, from academic advice to advice
on women, demonstrating strong communal affiliation
and orientation.
Narcissism: Fragile or Grandiose?. The person-
ality analysis provides some support for the view
that there are two forms of narcissism, one linked to
grandiosity and one to fragility (Dickinson & Pincus,
2003; Gabbard, 1989; Masterson, 1993; Sedikides,
Cisek, & Hart, 2011). James exhibits traits of a narcis-
sist with few insecurities and a rather grandiose vision
of himself, captured by his statements about whether
he will be successful:
I’ve got no doubt about it . . . because if I look at my
track record, what happened, what I’ve done and
how I approach things and you know how I you know
deal with things, I know it’s going to be fine. And
throughout life you know people have always sort of
looked up to me. It’s like you know back in kinder-
garten when you’re like let’s do a game, James, you’ll
be the game leader . . . Or I was class representative
in my school for like ten out of 13 years or some-
thing in different schools, right, I changed schools
three times . . . I was voted to the board at the uni-
versity kind of thing. I was taken up into this elite
program in university for the [prestigious consulting
firm] workshop, like it’s always been fine yeah I’ve
got no doubt.
He also mentions his ability to master any task set
before him, if he puts his mind to it: “When I pick up
stuff and I set my mind and try to do it I will be able
to achieve a level that’s better and superior to others.
That’s what I think makes me special.” This air of supe-
riority confirms a grandiose sense of self along with the
fact that very few, if any, insecurities were mentioned
during the course of the interview.
Chris is quite different from James in that he
openly attributes his narcissistic habits to underlying
insecurities and a lack of self-confidence, stating: “I
always seem myself worse than I am.” For example,
though Chris shows leadership and authoritative qual-
ities, he is reluctant to admit it, reinforcing his lack
of self-confidence. “Absolutely I don’t feel like a leader.
And it’s funny because very often when I play on a
699
team they say, ‘Come on Chris’ or they give me all the
time the ball . . . even if I score four goals I don’t feel
like I am a leader.” Chris’s reluctance to take a leader-
ship position, or to admit his leadership abilities, stems
from a fear of failure: “My problem is if I take the lead
I am always afraid that I fail.” He also admits feel-
ing depressed at times and seeking reassurance from
his father in cases when he can’t snap out of it on his
own. He also openly seeks advice from those whom he
respects and admires when feeling insecure in certain
areas, such as schoolwork.
Analysis of Brand Relations
The above examination of each participant’s relation-
ships supports the view that narcissists develop re-
lations with others that are instrumental and agen-
tic. It further uncovers evidence of the existence of
grandiose and fragile narcissism. The following descrip-
tion of connections to brands demonstrates how aspects
of each participant’s personality are uniquely expressed
through brand choice.
Commonalities. There were a number of commonali-
ties relating to relationships with brands between those
identified as narcissists and non-narcissists. Given that
the participants all have German heritage, it is not sur-
prising to find allegiance professed to German brands
such as Hugo Boss, Volkswagen, and Adidas. More-
over, Ben, Stephen, and Chris all have a love for Adidas
that predominately, especially in the case of Chris and
Stephen, stems from the sponsorship of their preferred
sports team.
Each participant is supportive of German cars, par-
ticularly the brands owned by their parents; Ben, de-
scribes his father’s older BMW as a “brilliant car”
avowing that he will also purchase a BMW if he has
the money, and Stephen mentions his and his par-
ent’s satisfaction with their Mercedes and Volkswagen
cars, further stating “we Germans need to support our
German market.” Chris says that he loves Volkswa-
gen and Audi, noting that his family has had five of
the former and two of the latter over the years; James
notes the reliability and quality he gets from his Golf,
saying that he will stick to Volkswagen products as
he dislikes the BMW/Mercedes images. This draws a
second commonality: a love for Germany and German
products. However, closer investigation reveals marked
differences between participants in terms of their rela-
tionships to brands.
Chris: “Before it was because I wanted people to
see it.”. Chris’s need for admiration and social con-
firmation underlies many of his conspicuous brand
choices. He gravitates toward recognizable “luxury”
brands such as Polo Ralph Lauren, Armani, Calvin
Klein, Marc O’Polo and Hugo Boss, among others. He
terms his signature look as “conservative but trendy,”
which is reflected in his most esteemed brand, D-
700
Squared: “[D-Squared is the] craziest most expensive
brand I’ve ever seen. Hate them. Hate them because
they are so expensive. I love them.” He claims that he
must buy expensive jeans for the fit, dropping a cool
€600 on his D-Squared jeans: “I got it and said BOOM.
That’s it. But my mom spent the money. But still.” The
D-Squared designer brand values reflect Chris’s desired
reputation: it is described as “alternative luxury” that
is “chic and sophisticated” while maintaining “sexy and
provocative traits.”1 This fits in well with Chris’s de-
sire to be recognized, and to be fashionable: “I want to
be a person where the people say oh he’s really fash-
ionable . . . to be honest sometimes I just check like if
you see . . . on the TV just Beckham walks there and
wears this and ah looks good then I might wear it. But
I am not the person who wears it first . . . but since [my
home country] is so back in trends and I am very inter-
nationalized I usually set very often trends or I wear
something before other people.”
Chris’s “now” versus “then” theme is also reflected
in his brand choices. He makes sure to emphasize that
he is much less into brands than he used to be (he
will now even shop at H&M, a fast-fashion retailer) and
doesn’t care about what people think as much, giving
the example of his Apple computer: “I actually bought
[this Mac] because I saw how many people have a Mac
and how cool it is, basically. Now I am really surprised
and I would never buy anything else anymore because I
really like the functions. I don’t care at all if anyone sees
that I have a Mac, but just because I like the functions.
Before it was because I wanted people to see it.”
Another theme present in Chris’s brand choice is the
influence of his older brother. More than becoming more
independent, Chris is trying to create his own iden-
tity separate from his siblings, particularly his brother
who now has a high-profile job at a multinational fast-
moving consumer goods company, commenting: “I was
always the one who can be very successful if he wants
something but can super relax and just do nothing. My
brother is like hardworking and workaholic.” Chris de-
scribes himself as “exactly the opposite,” and acknowl-
edges that “I might have tried to be like my brother
but I realized cannot be like him, I am just a different
person . . . ” But when it comes to brand choice, particu-
larly consumer goods, Chris’s veneration of his brother
is apparent: he specifically uses Blend-A-Med tooth-
paste (which he brings to the United Kingdom from
his home country) and Listerine because his brother
told him that those are the best brands on the market,
and he will not consider anything else.
Finally, Chris’s seeming inability to hold down a
long-term relationship mirrors his lack of attachment
to any brand in particular. While he has many “loy-
alties,” unlike the other participants, Chris does not
exhibit many strong connections, rather choosing from
an array of tested brands. Drawing on Fournier’s (1998)
typology, Chris’s brand relationships tend to mani-
fest as “flings” or “compartmentalized friendships”—
1
http://www.dsquared.com/html/corporate/profile/
LAMBERT AND DESMOND
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
attachments devoid of commitment, with the exception
of kinship ties to products his brother recommends.
James: “The more expensive, the more I like it!”.
James also exhibits a need for recognition through
his brand choices, but in a way that is distinctive
from Chris. Interestingly, his brand portfolio is by
far the most expansive (and expensive) of the partic-
ipants and includes, among many others: Seven jeans;
Calida t-shirts; Van Laack dress shirts; Zegna; Allen
Edmonds shoes; Rimowa suitcases; and SieMatic
kitchens. Though he is committed to specific brands
in each product category, he is “always looking for the
product that has the highest quality and serves the
purpose best.” So, if something better comes along, he
is not hesitant to change loyalties. This exemplifies
brand relationships in Fournier’s typology (1998) such
as “flings” or “courtships” that, similar to Chris’s rela-
tionships, require little long-term commitment.
James’s philosophy to always have the best reflects
his need for achievement, mirrored in a penchant for
extremely high-class products. James’s motto is “the
more expensive, the more I like it,” and he has a rela-
tionship of adulation with many of the brands he cov-
ets. For James, a life milestone will be the purchase of a
Zegna suit, for example, commenting wistfully, “I would
totally cherish the moment when I would first buy a
Zegna suit.” He is also quite proud of his family’s famil-
iarity with a posh gentleman’s store: “We have this one
shop in [my hometown] where my dad goes ever since
like 20 years to buy his suits. It’s a man’s shop. And they
are quite big and quite posh in a good shopping area in
[my hometown]. When I told [my friend from the same
town] that I’m going to the shop he laughed . . . They’ve
got two in [the town] and then he said ha you probably
go to the one in [the posh area], and I’m like right, that’s
the one.”
James’s brand portfolio exhibits his more unassum-
ing personality and innate confidence. James doesn’t
need superficial recognition from his peers; rather, his
brand values lie with his future aspirations and as-
sumed success. Like D-Squared’s brand values mirror
Chris’s values, so does Zegna for James: “To embrace
his passion the modern gentleman needs sartorial ex-
cellence.”2 He is attracted to products that are best-
in-class, made from the highest quality material and
craftsmanship. He does not seek the same attention
as Chris, rather purchasing these products because of
their quality, armed with the knowledge that people of
a certain status will recognize the brand. When talk-
ing about his favorite brand, Zegna, James commented
that it is “one of those brands you’ll hear if you’ve got
more money,” insinuating that he doesn’t need peer
recognition, rather recognition from those on a supe-
rior level. For example, his favorite brand of dress shirt,
Van Laack, stitches buttons in a certain way that only
those with the money and status to purchase the brand
would recognize. While his mother is happy to purchase
2 3
http://www.zegna.com/en/europe/ermenegildozegna
NARCISSISM AND MALE CONSUMER–BRAND RELATIONSHIPS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
the shirts for him now (at around £150 a shirt), James
is excited to purchase the shirts on his own: “I have
one brand . . . once I earn money, I’ll totally buy this
brand, all the time. It’s van Laack.” He further jus-
tifies his choice, stating: “it’s just such a great shirt.
It’s absolutely beautiful. This shirt is just so me, as
you can tell.” Moreover, James refrains from wearing
his van Laack shirts and prized Zegna jacket in the
university setting, explaining, “Once I reach a certain
level it will make more sense for me to use that [Zegna]
coat.”
Stephen: “There’s no school like old school.”.
While Chris and James express a need for admiration
through their brand choice, though in distinct ways,
Stephen prefers products that express his inner indi-
viduality, particularly through vintage products and
vintage-style clothing: “I like old products, usually,
there’s no school like old school . . . You know my car
is vintage as well . . . I like products which are unique.”
This lends to his brand-generalist attitude: “I have to
say I’m not so much looking on the brand, I’m more look-
ing at oh that looks nice and then I recognize the brand
and say okay I’m remembering the brand and then
I’m buying this brand because I know it looked good
on another person.” But he does form deep loyalties—
i.e., “committed partnerships” and “best friendships”
(Fournier, 1998)—with specific brands that serve him
well and define his image such as Abercrombie & Fitch,
ordering it from the United States when he can because
he feels the clothes best match his style. Indeed, Aber-
crombie & Fitch brand values are described with key-
words such as: preppy, classic, vintage, rugged, casual,
and collegiate. One phrase describing a men’s look on
the Web site captures Stephen’s style and explain his
attraction to the brand: “Grab a vintage cardigan to
finish off your classic look.”3
Stephen shops for new clothes and accessories (such
as his rustic leather satchel and vintage-style head-
phones) that give him a vintage edge, and also pur-
chases antique products such as his 1973 Porsche 914
and his 1968 automatic watch, among others. More
than just expressing his individuality, Stephen also
finds solace in these products: “I like old products. I
think if you look at an old car which is 30 years old and
we can see how it works actually and when you some-
times even can fix it yourself . . . that just inspires me
and I really just love it.” His desire to be recognized and
to have ‘special’ products also transfers to technology:
one of Stephen’s deepest brand attachments is to Apple.
“I bought it in the first place because it was something
special . . . which I like things that are unique and which
are special which not everyone has and in 2006 in [my
home country] not everyone had a Mac. And since then
I am really satisfied.” Clearly, his exhibited purchase
values greatly contrast with Chris’s reasoning when
buying his Apple computer (because he wanted to fit
in).
http://www.abercrombie.co.uk/
701
Ben: “Why change a winning team?”. While
Stephen expresses his individuality through his brand
choice, Ben prefers brands that reflect his hardworking,
ambitious nature, and the value instilled by his mother
of keeping a neat, tidy and classic outward appear-
ance. Moreover, he remains very loyal to brands that
have served him well, exhibiting many life-long brand
connections typically in the form of “best friendships,”
“committed partnerships,” and “kinships” (Fournier,
1998). True to Ben’s personality, Hugo Boss strives to
fuse modern trends with classic fashion. He is person-
ally drawn to the brand because “they have an under-
statement in fashion I think and the company as well
they aren’t that . . . poser-like you know? Very classic,
traditional.” He also wears Christian Berg dress shirts
because of the quality and the way the shirts fit, noting
that he wears each brand for the quality of the cloth-
ing, not because he wants to buy the brand name, and
that he prefers quality clothing to quantity. Further-
more, his committed nature is reflected in his loyalty to
Nivea. He grew up with Nivea products as his mother
used them even when he was a baby: “This is some-
thing that somehow I am used to; always used it never
had any problems so why change a winning team . . . I
don’t have an emotional attachment to the company . . .
[but] definitely always my first choice.” He maintains
that he stands by these products because of “trust and
confidence that you will get the quality you expect.”
Perhaps Ben’s deepest brand attachment is to Adi-
das, as he explains: “I would always prefer to buy Adi-
das. ALWAYS. Can’t really tell why, I know it’s also a
German company . . . no Adidas always.” His love for
Adidas ties together his brand values: the trustworthi-
ness attained from long-term use; a conservative, un-
derstated nature; and German origin. He states that
what attracts him to Adidas is “also that understate-
ment that I found in Boss. It is very simple . . . I think
I grew up in it.” Though he may occasionally stray if he
finds a better product—such as Asics handball shoes or
Nike socks—his preference lies with Adidas, and other
brands that have served him well.
DISCUSSION
The above analyses not only depict a marked difference
between a narcissistic and non-narcissistic approach
to personal relations, but also illustrates the distinc-
tive ways in which each participant expresses himself
through the brands and products that he owns. As
Fournier observes: “Brands cohere into systems that
consumers create not only to aid in living but also to
give meaning to their lives” (1998, p. 367). For example,
both non-narcissists, Stephen and Ben, exhibit, though
in different ways, a family-oriented, outward-focused
attitude. Many of their personality characteristics (e.g.,
loyal; committed; humble) are captured through brand
choice, though neither Stephen nor Ben are particu-
larly brand oriented, demonstrated in a lower number
of brand connections. Ben particularly has deep, en-
702
trenched loyalties with only a few brands (e.g., Hugo
Boss, Nivea, and Adidas) while Stephen has a loy-
alty to brands/products that make him unique (vintage
products in particular). On the other hand, Chris and
James are highly brand oriented with product portfo-
lios aimed at status recognition and admiration, re-
inforcing narcissism’s close connection to materialis-
tic tendencies (Belk, 1985; Richins & Dawson, 1992).
In this vein, one of the most useful insight unearthed
was the agentic nature in which these men seem to
treat both products and people, as well as the un-
derlying reason—one case confirmed the fragility hy-
pothesis (Chris) while the other seem to suffer from
a grandiose sense of self (James) (Sedikides, Cisek,
& Hart, 2011). Importantly, both hypotheses correlate
negatively with wellbeing and associate with termi-
nal materialism (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton,
1981), reaffirming the harmful habits of a narcissistic
consumer.
Perhaps the most efficient way to demonstrate the
difference between how a narcissist relates to brands
versus a non-narcissist is through three examples of
brands in common, illustrated in Table 2 on the follow-
ing page.
As demonstrated in the table and in the analy-
sis of brand relations, non-narcissists have fewer and
deeper attachments to brands, and exhibit different
purchase values on the whole. Notably, NPI scores
essentially corresponded with the number of brands
mentioned—the higher the score, the more brand con-
nections. Further, a narcissist’s tendency to “compare
themselves with others in order to gauge their own
personal worth and standing” (Dimaggio et al., 2006,
p. 500) is reflected in both Chris and James’s prefer-
ence for status-symbol brands—Chris chooses from an
assortment of recognizable luxury brands while James
selects brands that exhibit a state of luxury not iden-
tifiable by the masses. For example, James currently
uses a “luxury” shampoo (from Loreal’s professional
line) that his hairdresser recommended, spitting on the
suggestion of using Redkin: “I wouldn’t specifically use
Redkin ‘cause that has the impression of being like a
brand that’s really distributed by hairstylists. I would
always try to get . . . an upper-class kind of brand.” This
also follows Sedikides, Cisek, and Hart’s, observation
that brand names attract narcissists as they both “glo-
rify the narcissistic disposition” and “[compensate] for
inner fragility” (2011, p. 385).
This penchant for brands further corresponds with
a narcissist’s need for recognition (Rosenthal & Pittin-
sky, 2006) and parallels both Chris and James’s person-
alities, respectively. Narcissists frequently participate
in “shallow and transitory relationships” (Campbell &
Foster, 2002, p. 486), a theme mirrored in Chris’s brand
preferences and brand portfolio. Chris does not demon-
strate brand commitment; he rather selects products
from a collection of brands with which he shares “low
levels of affective attachment” (Fournier, 1998, p. 362).
Moreover, it is reflective of a narcissists’ tendency to
continuously search for a “better deal” in order to
LAMBERT AND DESMOND
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 2. Brand Relationships: Narcissists versus Non-Narcissists.
Rimowa Suitcase—James versus Stephen
James only recently purchased a Rimowa suitcase, based on its reputation for quality, and because it looks “absolutely terrific.”
Though previously loyal to Samsonite, once James’s friend mentioned the product, he knew he couldn’t consider any other
brand: “I had to think what should I get? What suitcase? And obviously there was only one brand I could order and I didn’t
even CONSIDER anything else . . . I already knew I wanted the suitcase because it was German, because it looked absolutely
terrific . . . I knew the quality was absolutely brilliant and I knew the suitcase would last my life . . . Usually I used to like
Samsonite products because we always had them, suitcase equals Samsonite, that’s it. But then I started considering this
brand and I’m really happy about it.” James recalls his “super annoying Samsonite” suitcase with an annoying handle, which
he thought was “really stupid.” He pulls down his new Rimowa, demonstrating its maneuverability, multi-directional wheels,
and light, durable polycarbonate material. He justifies the purchase, noting that while it is “really expensive,” it is “obviously
really good.” Gleeful he proclaims, “Look at the thing! Super-duper handy.” So, James has easily discarded his loyalty to
Samsonite in favor of a ‘better’ and more expensive product, alluding to the prestige of owning a Rimowa over a Samsonite.
Stephen, on the other hand, purchased his Rimowa suitcase because the model has been “unchanged for 50 years.” It’s silver,
metallic material gives it an “old school” look, and the lifetime warranty guarantees its performance, thus tying together
Stephen’s purchase values: quality, reliability and vintage style. He was drawn to the product as a means of differentiation,
and because it matched his style. He also defined his love of Rimowa in terms of his purchase value, rather than in terms of
an aversion to a brand to which he was previously loyal. Moreover, he exhibits his relationship with the brand, stating that
if he lost his suitcase, he would be sad because of memories he has of trips with it, noting he will purchase undoubtedly
another.
Apple Macbook Pro—Chris versus Stephen
As with Rimowa, Stephen initially purchased his MacBook Pro as a means of differentiating himself from others. For Stephen,
it was a special product that not many others owned. He was attracted to its sleek and clean design, and through extensive
use, incredibly impressed with its performance. On the contrary, Chris purchased his MacBook to fit in with the crowd – he
noted many people, (almost certainly those of higher social standing) with the product and subsequently bought one for
himself. Like Stephen, he was also attracted to the design and usability, and upon further use, drawn in by its performance
and quality.
Hugo Boss—Ben versus Chris
Both Chris and Ben cited Hugo Boss as a clothing brand to which they are loyal, but this loyalty presents itself in two very
different ways. For Ben, Hugo Boss is one of the brands to which he is deeply attached. He is drawn to the brand for the
following reasons: “German brand. Simple cut. Perfect is hard to say, but good for me.” But he is also attracted to Hugo Boss
because “they have an understatement in fashion I think and the company as well they aren’t that . . . poser-like you know?
Very classic, traditional.” He believes that these brand values reflect principles instilled by his parents: to be hardworking
and ambitious, and tidy and neat. But for Chris, Hugo Boss is just another brand in an array of brands that suit him. He has
many loyalties, but no true attachment to any of the brand names he rattles off when asked what clothing brands he most
often purchases.

enhance status (Campbell & Foster, 2002). This also
illustrates James’s brand preference, as he frequently
shows attachment to brands, but exhibits a capac-
ity for change if something better comes along. For
example, when Rimowa caught his attention, James
quickly gave up his allegiance to Samsonite. Further-
more, he justified his Rimowa purchase by degrading
the brand that had previously served him well. Both
Chris and James’s brand relationships reflect the fact
that “narcissists are attracted to a potential romantic
partner based on self-enhancement rather than caring”
(Campbell & Foster, 2002, p. 486). They choose brands
that elevate their sense of self rather than actually car-
ing about the brand, as Stephen and Ben seemingly
do. Moreover James and Chris exhibit terminal ma-
terialistic tendencies, often consuming for the sake of
consuming such as in their purchase of designer label
clothes and consumption of brands in general. Thus,
these two cases again underpin the close relationship
between narcissism and materialism, and the negative
implications on well being that accompany narcissism
and (terminal) materialism (Belk, 1985; Csikszentmi-
halyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Richins & Dawson,
1992).
Contrary to the narcissists, Stephen and Ben demon-
strate deep loyalty and attachment to a few brands,
though neither is very brand-focused. Both tend to en-
gage in brand relationships of purposive commitment
such as “best friendships” and “committed partner-
ships” (Fournier, 1998). Once they have had positive
experiences with the brand, they will not easily switch
to another, reflecting a secure sense of self, indiffer-
ence toward social affirmation, and a committed char-
acter. This is exemplified through Ben’s tie to Nivea
and Hugo Boss, among others, and Stephen’s loyalty
to Mac, Rimowa, and Abecrombie & Fitch. Further-
more, consumption seems purpose-driven, rather than
a quest to enhance image or prove wealth. Thus their
consumption practices align with instrumental mate-
rialism, materialism more congruent with wellbeing
(Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Richins
& Dawson, 1992).
It is interesting to note however, that, like Chris and
James, brands do seem to contribute to both Stephen

NARCISSISM AND MALE CONSUMER–BRAND RELATIONSHIPS 703

Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
and Ben’s identity construction (Belk, 1985). For exam-
ple, Ben identifies closely with Nivea as the brand has
been ever-present in his life, while brands like Hugo
Boss, Christen Berg and Adidas reflect, in his opin-
ion, an understated but classy product, adjectives with
which he would describe himself. Stephen also defines
his identity through the products he owns, maintain-
ing a commitment to his unique image by purchasing
vintage clothes, cars, watches and even (vintage-style)
headphones. Notably, Stephen exhibited his communal
values when he mentioned the idea of belonging to a
brand community (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001) for people
owning vintage, or as he terms, special items: “This is
also a nice feeling that you can say you belong to a
group.” This demonstrates the critical role of consump-
tion in young adult identity projects.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The cross-case analysis sought to uncover whether
men with high NPI scores exhibit consistently differ-
ent relationships with (a) people and (b) brands to
those with low NPI scores. Findings from the inter-
views conducted illustrate that the manner in which
participants integrate products and brands into their
sense of identity also reflects how they relate to oth-
ers. Moreover, the findings show that narcissistic and
non-narcissistic participants relate differently to both
people and brands.
The non-narcissistic participants express a deep
sense of loyalty toward friends and family, mentioning
very close relationships with siblings, parents, long-
term friends and girlfriends. Furthermore, both par-
ticipants demonstrate disdain toward manipulation,
unless used for the good. Both non-narcissistic par-
ticipants also prefer not to stand out from the crowd
and prefer not to necessarily be an authority figure or
center of attention, though both are willing to assert
their opinion if necessary. These characteristics reflect
a loyal, committed nature present in their brand re-
lationships, as well as a communal orientation more
conducive to wellbeing (Campbell, Brunell, & Finkel,
2006). As such, if a person, or a brand, is good to
them, they will remain loyal rather than agentically
passing that person (or product) on for the next best
thing. This reflects Fournier’s (1998) conceptualiza-
tion of consumer–brand relationship strength—both in
personal and brand relationships, the non-narcissistic
participants express a deep sense of interdependence,
self-connection, and intimacy, among other indicators
of relationship quality.
The narcissistic participants, on the other hand,
tend to be more exploitative and agentic in their deal-
ings with others, also possessing a greater sense of
entitlement, ambition and authority compared to non-
narcissists. For instance, Chris’s justification of ma-
nipulating women as “part of the game” suggests no
qualms toward objectifying women, while James ar-
gues that manipulation is always justified as long as it
704
benefits him, even if he eschews morals in the process.
Moreover, these men both admit that they like being
the center of attention and are attentive to their ap-
pearances. This need for recognition is directly reflected
in their brand relationships: both men have amassed a
wide selection of brands, and have no hesitation in sev-
ering ties should the brand fail to serve its purpose. The
agentic disposition they display toward both brands
and people is reflective of the lack of wellbeing that
accompanies both terminal materialism and the nar-
cissistic persona. In Chris’s case, underlying fragility
contributes toward compensation via brands, while in
James’s case a grandiose sense of self demands a ro-
bust and ever-evolving brand portfolio. In this vein, the
interviews further sought to discuss whether narcis-
sism is simply a matter of grandiosity or whether there
is also support for a fragile sense of self (Sedikides,
Cisek, & Hart, 2011; Twenge & Campbell, 2009). The
findings reveal two narcissistic personas similar in be-
havior but with different underlying conditions—one
demonstrates an inner fragility (Chris) while the other
a grandiose sense of self (James).
Several authors discuss policy implications of such
findings by summoning attention to the deleterious role
played by marketing images and practices in fostering
a culture of narcissism and materialism (Kasser, 2003;
James, 2007; Twenge et al., 2008a, 2008b; Twenge &
Campbell, 2009). From this study, constant exposure
to media messages reminding one how special one is
does not appear to have resulted in overinflation of the
egos of Stephen and Ben, who are team-players, lacking
a sense of entitlement, with a nuanced understanding
of relationships. On the other hand, one might imag-
ine that such messages simply validate James’ exist-
ing feelings of superiority and entitlement and bolster
Chris’s fragile self-image. In addition, rather than as-
suming that brands foster an instrumental and agen-
tic orientation toward others, it may be better to de-
scribe them as differentially assimilated into the lives
of the participants depending on the specific nature
of that person’s prior socialization. For instance, each
of the participants mentions important incidents in
their family life or peer group as formative: Stephen
discusses this in relation to his desire for harmony;
Ben, in relation to persistence; James in relation to
the control he felt in the back seat of the family car;
Chris, in relation to the “machine-gun” arguments at
family dinner. Drawing attention to the importance
of early socialization and the interindividual context
does not negate the importance of the manipulation
of meaning in consumer culture, where to love is in-
creasingly equated with to buy. However, to understand
how these messages are interpreted and the extent to
which they are acted upon requires cognizance of early
socialization and the inter-individual context (Stiegler,
2006).
Considering implications for marketers, this study
finds that those with brand-oriented and narcissis-
tic tendencies exhibit a higher degree of switching
behavior, while non-narcissists demonstrate potential
LAMBERT AND DESMOND
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
for long-term, committed brand relationships. There-
fore, marketers might consider a strategy that en-
courages long-term loyalties from non-narcissistic con-
sumers, rather than perpetuating a frenetic, fling-like
brand-relationship pattern with narcissistic counter-
parts. In the case of the narcissistic consumer, short-
term gains are likely to result in long-term losses due
to increased marketing costs of constantly attracting
new consumers. Even if brand-oriented narcissistic con-
sumers seem to be loyal now, they will not likely be loyal
forever.
LIMITATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH
This discovery-oriented research (Wells, 1993), through
its limitations, offers several opportunities for fu-
ture research. This study reinforces the importance
of brands in the daily lives of consumers. It further
reveals the impact of character traits—in this case
narcissism—on consumption habits. The proliferation
of narcissistic tendencies in Western society, along with
potentially harmful traits and habits exhibited by nar-
cissistic participants in comparison to their counter-
parts in this study and a lack of wellbeing generally
associated with narcissism and materialism, demands
further study of the narcissistic consumer and the
implications therein. Given the differences observed
in this study, there are further opportunities to in-
vestigate the nature of grandiose (Twenge & Camp-
bell, 2009) versus hypervigilant (Gabbard, 1989), or
closet, narcissism (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Master-
son, 1993). Although this study is mainly applicable
to men as consumers, both the findings and the earlier
discussion of Vicki, one of the participants in Fournier’s
(1998) study, indicate that would also be useful to con-
duct a study of women, as well as a study incorporating
both men and women for comparison, and using addi-
tional quantitative and qualitative research techniques
to advance the findings. Because the participants are
from relatively privileged backgrounds, it is also impor-
tant to replicate this study using achievement-oriented
strivers (Lawson & Todd, 2002, p. 300; Mitchell, 1983).
In addition, given the bias noted in psychological re-
search of selecting educated respondents from West-
ern industrial countries (Henrich, Heine, & Norenza-
yan, 2010) and the belief that narcissism is a partic-
ularly Western phenomenon (see for example, James,
2007) it is also important to conduct cross-cultural re-
search into this area. It should also be acknowledged
that while narcissism was included as an item in Fos-
ter’s et al. (2003) study of Western Europe, it appar-
ently is not featured as a topic for study in its own
right. All things considered, the exploratory nature of
the study and the richness of the data support the
study’s findings, which lay a foundation for future re-
search on narcissism, its effects, and consumer–brand
relationships.
NARCISSISM AND MALE CONSUMER–BRAND RELATIONSHIPS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151897.
Arnould, E. J., & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer cul-
ture theory (CCT): Twenty years of research. Journal
of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly,
31, 868–882. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/
10.1086/426626.
Astin, A. W., Oseguera, L., Sax, L. J., & Korn, W. S. (2004). The
American freshman: Thirty-five year trends. Los Angeles:
Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Bannister, R., & Fransella, F. (1986). Inquiring man: The psy-
chology of personal constructs. London: Routledge.
Baumeister, R., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of
threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark
side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 10, 5–33,
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5.
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Wallace, H. M. (2002).
Conquest by force: A narcissistic reactance theory of rape
and sexual coercion. Review of General Psychology, 6, 92–
135, doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.1.92.
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the
material world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 265–
280.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal
of Consumer Research, 15, 139–168.
Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism
and well-being: A conflicting values perspective. Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 29, 348–370. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/344429
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened ego-
tism, narcissism, self-esteem and direct and displaced ag-
gression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219–229,
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219.
Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., Van Dijk, M., & Baumeis-
ter, R. F. (2003). Narcissism, sexual refusal, and sexual
aggression: Testing a narcissistic reactance model of sex-
ual coercion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84, 1027–1040, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1027.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Susceptibility to
infidelity in the first year of marriage. Journal of Research
in Personality, 31, 193–221, doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2175
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2002). Narcissism and com-
mitment in romantic relationships: An investment model
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,
484–495, doi:10.1177/0146167202287006.
Campbell, W. K., Foster, C. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2002). Does
self-love lead to love for other?: A story of narcissistic game
playing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,
340–354, doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.340.
Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Nar-
cissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two
portraits of self-love. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 358–368, doi:10.1177/0146167202286007.
Campbell, W. K., Brunell, A. B., & Finkel, E. J. (2006). Nar-
cissism, interpersonal self- regulation, and romantic rela-
tionships: An agency model approach. In E. J. Finkel, &
K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Intrapersonal processes, interpersonal
relationships (57–83). New York: Guilford.
Cross, S., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-
construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–22,
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5
705
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The
meaning of things. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Interper-
sonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcis-
sism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 188–207,
doi:10.1521/pedi.17.3.188.22146.
DiMaggio, G., Fiore, D., Lysaker, P. H., Petrilli, D., Salvatore,
G., Semerari, A., et al. (2006). Early narcissistic transfer-
ence patterns: An exploratory single case study from the
perspective of dialogical self theory. Psychology & Psy-
chotherapy: Theory, Research, & Practice, 79, 495–516,
doi:10.1348/147608305×63089.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Devel-
oping relationship theory in consumer research. Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–373. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/209515.
Foster, J., Campbell, W. K., & Twenge, J. M. (2003). Individ-
ual differences in narcissism: Inflated self-views across the
lifespan and around the world. Journal of Research in Per-
sonality, 37, 469–486, doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00026-6.
Fukuyama, F. (1999). The great disruption: Human nature
and the reconstitution of social order. New York: Free
Press.
Gabbard, G. O. (1989). Two subtypes of narcissistic person-
ality disorder. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 53, 527–
532.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: selected es-
says. New York: Basic Books.
Ger, G., & Belk, R. W. (1996). Cross-cultural differences in
materialism. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 55–77,
doi:10.1016/0167-4870(95)00035-6.
Glenn, N., & Marquardt, E. (2001). Hooking up, hanging out,
and hoping for Mr. Right: College women on dating and
mating today. An Institute for American Values report
for the Independent Women’s Forum. Retrieved from:
http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcmanaman/pages/
mfhook.pdf
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weird-
est people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33,
61–83.
James, O. (2007). Affluenza: How to be successful and stay
sane, London: Vermillion.
Kates, S. M. (2002). The protean quality of subcultural con-
sumption: An ethnographic account of gay consumers. Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 29, 383–399. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/344427
Kasser, T. (2003). The high price of materialism. London: MIT
Press.
Kelly, G. A. (1991). The role of personal constructs. In G. A.
Kelly (Ed.), The psychology of personal constructs (Vol. 1,
pp. 74–128). London: Routledge.
Lasch, C. (1979). The culture of narcissism: American life in
the age of diminishing expectations. New York: Warner
Books.
Lawson, R., & Todd, S. (2002). Consumer lifestyles: A so-
cial stratification perspective. Marketing Theory, 2, 295–
307.
Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C.
(2005). Adolescents’ involvement in non-romantic sex-
ual activity. Social Science Quarterly, 34, 384–407,
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.03.001.
Masterson, J. (1993). The emerging self: A developmental
self & object relations approach to the treatment of the
closet narcissistic disorder of the self. New York, London:
Routledge.
706
Miller, J., & Glassner, B. (1997). The ‘inside’ and the ‘outside’:
Finding realities in interviews. In D. Silverman (Ed), Qual-
itative research (pp. 99–112). London: Sage.
Mitchell, A. (1983). The nine American lifestyles. New York:
Warner.
Mullings, B. (1999). Insider or outsider, both or neither: Some
dilemmas of interviewing in a cross-cultural setting. Geo-
forum, 30, 337–350, doi:10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00025-1.
Muniz Jr, A. M., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community.
Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 412–432. Retrieved
from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/319618.
Pew Research Center. (2007). How young people view
their lives, futures and politics: A portrait of ‘‘Genera-
tion Next’’. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for
the People and the Press. Retrieved from: http://people-
press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=300.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components anal-
ysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further
evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 890, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890.
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orien-
tation for materialism and its measurement: Scale devel-
opment and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19,
303–316, doi:10.1086/209304.
Rosenthal, S., & Pittinsky, T. (2006). Narcissistic
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 617–633,
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.005.
Sedikides, C., Cisek, S., & Hart, C. M. (2011). Narcissism and
brand name consumerism. In W. K. Campbell & J. D. Miller
(Eds.), The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic person-
ality disorder (pp. 382–392). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Stiegler, B. (2006). The disaffected individual in the process
of psychic and collective disindividuation. Working paper
presented at the seminar: Suffering and consumption,
25th February. Patrick Crogan & Daniel Ross (trans). Ars
Indusrtrialis. Retreived from: http://www.arsindustrialis.
org/disaffected-individual-process-psychic-and-collective-
disindividuation.
Twenge, J. M. (2011). Narcissism and culture. In W. K. Camp-
bell, & J. D. Miller (Eds.), The handbook of narcissism and
narcissistic personality disorder (pp. 202–209). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Twenge, J. M. & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epi-
demic: living in the age of entitlement. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Keith Camp-
bell, W., & Bushman, B. J. (2008a). Egos Inflating Over
Time: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory. Journal of personality, 76, 875–902,
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00507.x.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Campbell, W. K., Foster, J. D., &
Bushman, B. J. (2008b). Further evidence of an increase in
narcissism among college students. Journal of Personality,
76, 919–927, doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00509.x.
Weber, M. (1949). Objectivity of Social Science and Social
Policy. Retrieved from: www.public.iastate.edu/∼s2005.
soc.401?weber(feb23).pdf.
Wells, W. (1993). Discovery-oriented consumer research. Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 19, 489–504. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489436.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to:
Aliette Lambert Ferns, Business School, University of Ed-
inburgh, 29 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9JS, Scotland,
United Kingdom (a.v.lambert@sms.ed.ac.uk).
LAMBERT AND DESMOND
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar