Personality and Individual Differences 73 (2015) 12–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The Grandiose Narcissism Scale: A Global and Facet-Level

Measure of Grandiose Narcissism
Joshua D. Foster a,⇑, Jessica L. McCain c, Mary F. Hibberts a, Amy B. Brunell b, R. Burke Johnson a
a
University of South Alabama, United States
b
The Ohio State University at Mansfield, United States
c
University of Georgia, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) is the primary measure of grandiose narcissism (GN) despite
Received 8 November 2013 possessing numerous limitations. Here we present a new 33-item measure of GN called the Grandiose
Received in revised form 2 May 2014 Narcissism Scale (GNS) that exhibits a reproducible seven-factor structure that maps on to Raskin and
Accepted 28 August 2014
Terry’s (1988) seven factor model. GNS subscales exhibit high reliability, with several being substantially
more reliable than their NPI counterparts. As a full-scale, the GNS correlates with other variables in a way
that is consistent with the theoretical portrait of GN. Additionally, two of the GNS subscales (entitlement,
Keywords:
exploitativeness) are shown to uniquely predict independent measures of entitlement and exploitative-
Narcissism
Grandiose narcissism
ness, suggesting good subscale validity. Cumulatively, the GNS represents a viable complement or
Narcissistic Personality Inventory alternative to the NPI.
Scale development Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Personality assessment
Factor analysis
Reliability

1. Introduction reflect theoretically uncontroversial facets of GN (although, the

inclusion of authority has been debated; Brown, Budzek, &
Research on narcissistic personality relies almost exclusively on Tamborski, 2009; Miller & Campbell, 2011) and together they paint
the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988) a portrait that is consistent with classic and contemporary theoret-
as the primary or only measure of narcissism (Cain, Pincus, & ical descriptions of GN (Campbell & Foster, 2007; Freud, 1914;
Ansell, 2008). Although other measures of narcissism exist, most Horney, 1939; Millon & Davis, 1996; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001;
measure uniformly unhealthy forms of narcissism, such as patholog- Reich, 1972). It is also one of the most empirically defensible factor
ical narcissism (Pincus et al., 2009). Few options outside of the NPI solutions in terms of model fit (Corry, Merritt, Mrug, & Pamp,
are available to researchers who study grandiose narcissism (GN) 2008). Unfortunately, several of these factors’ corresponding sub-
– a type of narcissism characterized by generally positive intraper- scales exhibit consistently low reliability (e.g., Corry et al., 2008;
sonal functioning (e.g., high self-esteem) and negative (especially del Rosario & White, 2005; Foster & Campbell, 2007).
long-term) interpersonal functioning (Campbell & Foster, 2007; Several attempts have been made to address issues of subscale
Foster & Twenge, 2011). reliability, but none have, in our opinions, been entirely successful.
The NPI functions well as a global measure of GN – it is highly For example, Corry et al. (2008) proposed a two factor model (lead-
reliable and provides good content coverage of the construct ership/authority, exhibitionism/entitlement) that exhibits good
(Miller, Price, & Campbell, 2012) – but significant problems arise subscale reliability, but lacks coverage of seemingly critical facets
when researchers attempt more nuanced facet-level examinations of GN, including superiority and exploitativeness. Other proposed
of GN. Numerous factor-analytic studies of the NPI have been pub- models offer somewhat more expansive coverage of the construct,
lished over the past 30 years. One of the earliest and most influen- but continue to exhibit poor subscale reliability (e.g., Ackerman
tial of these studies (Raskin & Terry, 1988) revealed seven factors et al., 2011, three factor solution includes an entitlement/exploita-
underlying GN (i.e., authority, self-sufficiency, vanity, superiority, tiveness subscale with a  .40). In short, none of the published fac-
exhibitionism, entitlement, exploitativeness). Most of these factors tor models of the NPI offer both comprehensive coverage of the
construct and reliable facet-level measurement.
⇑ Corresponding author at: Psychology Department (UCOM 1131), University of One way to solve the problem of unreliable facet-level measure-
South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688, United States. ment is to develop measures that are purpose-built to reliably
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.D. Foster). measure specific GN facets (Brown et al., 2009). Indeed, several

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.042
0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J.D. Foster et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 73 (2015) 12–16 13

of these measures now exist (e.g., the Psychological Entitlement seven distinguishable factors. These seven factors cumulatively
Scale; Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004). For accounted for 61% of the variance. Examination of the pattern
researchers interested exclusively in the facets of GN, this matrix revealed factor loadings largely consistent with the hypoth-
approach may be most appropriate. However, for researchers esized factor structure (see Table 1). There were, however, two
who are also interested in the global construct of GN, this approach problematic items. SUP4 (‘‘I’m a superior person’’) cross-loaded
may prove to be inefficient and even impractical. Thus, we think on the entitlement factor and ENT4 (‘‘I expect people to bend the
there is a need for an instrument that efficiently, comprehensively, rules for me’’) cross-loaded on the exploitativeness factor. These
and reliably measures GN at both the global and facet levels. 2 items were culled from the GNS, leaving 33 items.
Although the NPI meets this first objective (efficiency), it does
not meet the second and third (at least, not concurrently). We
2.2.2. Item-total correlations
are skeptical that resorting NPI items into new subscales will solve
All of the remaining 33 items correlated positively and signifi-
these problems and thus we decided instead to develop an entirely
cantly with both the full-scale score (rs > .26; M = .45) and their
new measure of GN.
respective subscale scores (rsauthority > .62; rsself-sufficiency > .50;
Our measure, the Grandiose Narcissism Scale (GNS), was
rssuperiority > .47; rsvanity > .58; rsexhibitionism > .58; rsentitlement > .48;
designed to reliably and validly measure GN at both the global
rsexploitativeness > .55). Based on these results, we decided to retain
and facet-levels. At the facet-level, the GNS was designed to repli-
all 33 items.
cate Raskin and Terry’s (1988) seven NPI subscales, consisting of
authority (preferring to be in charge), self-sufficiency (preferring
to do things on one’s own rather than in groups), superiority (belief 2.2.3. Reliability estimates and comparisons
that one is better than others), vanity (strong focus on physical The GNS and each of its subscales exhibited high levels of reliabil-
appearance), exhibitionism (acting in ways that grab others’ ity (full-scale = .91, authority = .87, self-sufficiency = .76, superior-
attention), entitlement (belief that one is deserving of special treat- ity = .78, vanity = .86, exhibitionism = .86, entitlement = .76, and
ment), and exploitativeness (willingness to take advantage of oth- exploitativeness = .85). Notably, all GNS subscales outperformed
ers). As noted earlier, most of these subscales represent their NPI counterparts, several by large margins (full-scale = .85,
theoretically uncontroversial facets of GN. All of them (including authority = .73, self-sufficiency = .36, superiority = .58, vanity = .68,
authority) represent traits and proclivities that have long been exhibitionism = .65, entitlement = .52, exploitativeness = .56).
components of the theoretical description of GN and its theoretical
ancestors, such as phallic and elitist narcissism (Campbell & Foster, 3. Study 2: Confirmatory test of hypothesized GNS factor
2007; Freud, 1914; Horney, 1939; Millon & Davis, 1996; Morf & structure
Rhodewalt, 2001; Reich, 1972). Given these facts, we concluded
that the seven subscales derived by Raskin and Terry (1988) were After identifying and culling two poor performing items, the 33-
both theoretically justifiable and provided comprehensive cover- item GNS and seven subscales exhibited promising psychometric
age of the construct of GN (Miller et al., 2012). properties. In Study 1, we examined the GNS factor structure using
EFA, which was appropriate considering it was an initial test and
2. Study 1: Scale construction and examination of psychometric we intended to use the results to guide culling decisions. The
properties purpose of the present study was to conduct a confirmatory test
of the hypothesized seven factor structure.
We wrote a pool of 35 items that tapped into the seven hypoth-
esized factors (5 items per factor). We examined the psychometric 3.1. Method
properties of these items and submitted them to an exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) to test whether they loaded onto their respec- 3.1.1. Participants and materials
tive factors. We also examined the reliability of the full-scale GNS A sample of 980 college students (M age = 20.32; 61% female)
and putative subscales and compared them to their NPI completed the GNS (M = 114.66, SD = 22.32). The GNS again exhib-
counterparts. ited good reliability for both its full-scale (a = .91) and its seven
subscales (as > .76).
2.1. Methods
3.2. Results and discussion
2.1.1. Participants and materials
A sample of 1017 college students (M age = 20.27; 62% female)
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using
completed the GNS and NPI. The GNS consisted of 35 items (see
Mplus (version 7) software (Muthen & Muthen, 2011) and
Table 1) each responded to using a Likert-type scale (1 = strongly
employed maximum likelihood estimation. The seven hypothe-
disagree, 6 = strongly agree). The NPI consisted of 40 pairs of state-
sized latent factors were measured by their respective observed
ments that differed in terms of how narcissistic they sounded. Par-
(manifest) GNS items (e.g., latent ‘‘authority’’ factor measured by
ticipants selected the statement that best described them and
observed items AUT1, AUT2, AUT3, AUT4, AUT5). No post hoc mod-
received one point each time they selected a narcissistic statement
ifications were performed. Based on widely used guidelines (Hu &
(M = 15.95, SD = 6.88).
Bentler, 1998, 1999), our hypothesized seven factor model
exhibited acceptable fit (X2[474] = 1243.60; CFI = .95; TLI = .94;
2.2. Results and discussion SRMR = .04; RMSEA = .04, 95% CI = .038, .043).1 Given the results
from Study 1’s EFA and the present study’s CFA, we deemed the
2.2.1. Exploratory factor analysis hypothesized seven factor structure of the GNS empirically
We submitted the 35 GNS items to an EFA (principal axis factor- supported.
ing, promax rotation). The resulting scree plot showed a distinctive
pattern whereby there was a drop in eigenvalue between the sev- 1
We also tested a model that omitted the facet-level factors in favor of a single
enth (1.02) and eight factors (.78) and an approximate straight-line ‘‘GN’’ factor. This model exhibited very poor fit (CFI = .44, TLI = .40, RMSEA = .13,
path between factors eight through 35, suggesting the presence of SRMR = .13) and was thus rejected.
14 J.D. Foster et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 73 (2015) 12–16

Table 1
Pattern matrix resulting from EFA of the 35 GNS items (Study 1).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
aut1 I like to be in charge of things .63
aut2 I lead rather than follow .72
aut3 I naturally take charge in situations .79
aut4 I have a take charge personality .80
aut5 I am a natural born leader .83
suf1 I don’t rely on other people to get things done .55
suf2 When something needs to be done, I do it on my own .61
suf3 I get irritated when I have to depend on other people .62
suf4 I don’t like to depend on other people to do things .80
suf5 I like to do things on my own. .56
sup1 I’m more talented than most other people .83
sup2 I’m better than other people at most things .75
sup3 If it’s just me versus another person, I almost always win .47
sup4 I’m a superior person .32 –
sup5 I have more going for me than most people .40
van1 I care about how good I look .83
van2 I try to look as attractive as possible when I leave the house .69
van3 Looking good is important to feeling good .62
van4 My looks are important to me. .81
van5 I think it’s important to look as good as possible .77
exh1 I do things that grab people’s attention .64
exh2 I do things that get people to notice me .85
exh3 I make myself the center of attention .74
exh4 I can be a showoff .52
exh5 I do things to get attention .88
ent1 I expect to be treated better than average .81
ent2 The level of treatment I expect is higher than what most other people expect .66
ent3 I deserve to get what I want .50
ent4 I expect people to bend the rules for me .33 –
ent5 I deserve more out of life than other people .60
exp1 I’ll do whatever it takes to get ahead, even if it means some people get hurt .69
exp2 If I have to take advantage of somebody to get what I want, so be it .84
exp3 I can be pretty manipulative .59
exp4 I’m willing to manipulate others to get what I want .86
exp5 I’ve been known to use people to get what I want .79

Notes: Principal axis factoring extraction, promax rotation; items with factor loadings >.30 shown (– = loading <.30).

4. Study 3: Validity tests and comparisons with other measures and exploitativeness (Brunell et al., 2013). We expected the GNS
of narcissism subscales of entitlement and exploitativeness to uniquely predict
these two outcome variables. Finally, we examined how the GNS
Studies 1 and 2 suggest the GNS is a viable candidate measure relates to other measures of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism,
of GN that possesses stable and reliable subscales. The present such as the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (Pincus et al., 2009).
study sought to test whether total scores on the GNS predict out-
come variables consistent with the theoretical portrait of GN. Addi-
tionally, we tested the validity of two of the GNS subscales (i.e., 4.1. Method
entitlement, exploitativeness). Finally, we examined how similar
the GNS is to another measure of GN (i.e., NPI) and vulnerable 4.1.1. Participants and materials
narcissism. Participants consisted of 262 college undergraduates (M
According to prominent theoretical models, such as the agency age = 19.28, SD = 3.85; 75% female) who completed the GNS
model of GN (Campbell & Foster, 2007), there are several key traits (M = 110.71, SD = 21.34, a = .91), the NPI (M = 15.06, SD = 6.66,
associated with GN. These include an emphasis of agentic versus a = .84) and 11 other measures. All of these remaining measures
communal concerns, approach orientation, sense of entitlement, have been described in detail elsewhere and thus we provide brief
and inflated self perceptions (Bradlee & Emmons, 1992; Campbell overviews and relevant citations.
et al., 2004; Campbell, Brunell, & Finkel, 2006; Campbell & Agency-communion was measured using the 32-item Interna-
Foster, 2007; Foster & Brennan, 2011; Foster & Trimm, 2008; tional Personality Item Pool-Interpersonal Circumplex (IPC;
Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004). GN is also Markey & Markey, 2009). Agency and communion scores were cal-
theoretically and empirically linked to several other personality culated using the formulae found in Markey and Markey (2009,
traits and individual differences, including psychopathy (in partic- p. 355) such that higher scores reflected higher levels of agency
ular, primary psychopathy, which is a cold and callous attitude and communion (Ms = 0.00 and 0.00, SDs = .91 and .87, respectively).
toward others), the big five traits of extraversion and disagreeable- Approach-avoidance motivation were measured using the 20-
ness, behaviors, such as aggression and interpersonal exploitative- item BIS–BAS Scales (Carver & White, 1994). Responses to items
ness, and low empathy (Brunell et al., 2013; Lynam, 2011; Miller & were summed such that higher scores on the BAS scale
Maples, 2011; Watson, Grisham, Trotter, & Biderman, 1984). We (M = 38.79, SD = 6.36) and BIS scale (M = 20.73, SD = 3.86) reflected
expected the GNS to correlate with these outcome variables consis- higher levels of approach and avoidance motivation, respectively.
tent with this theoretical and empirical literature. Entitlement was measured using the 9-item Psychological
As noted above, we also examined two instances of subscale Entitlement Scale (PES; Campbell et al., 2004). Responses to items
validity by assessing associations between the GNS subscales and were averaged such that higher scores reflected higher levels of
two independent measures of entitlement (Campbell et al., 2004) psychological entitlement (M = 3.11, SD = 1.28).
 J.D. Foster et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 73 (2015) 12–16 15

Self-esteem was measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Table 2

Self-Esteem Scale (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965). Responses to items were Correlations between GNS, NPI, and relevant outcome variables (Study 3).

summed such that higher scores reflected higher levels of Trait GNS NPI
self-esteem (M = 63.61, SD = 15.67). General personality (BFI)
Primary psychopathy was measured using the primary psychop- Extraversion .35*** .41***
athy subscale of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale Agreeableness .25*** .10
(LSRP; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). Responses to items Neuroticism .10 .30***
Conscientiousness .03 .00
were summed such that higher scores reflected higher levels of pri- Openness .11 .14*
mary psychopathy (M = 30.04, SD = 7.69).
Interpersonal circumplex (IPC)
Big five personality traits were measured using the Big Five Communion dimension .01 .08
Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; John, Naumann, & Agency dimension .47*** .47***
Soto, 2008). Responses to items were summed such that higher Approach-avoidance motivation (BIS–BAS)
scores reflected higher levels of extraversion (M = 9.28, Approach motivation .27*** .26***
SD = 4.09), agreeableness (M = 11.07, SD = 3.19), conscientiousness Avoidance motivation .12* .32***
(M = 9.51, SD = 3.23), neuroticism (M = 6.82, SD = 4.04), and open- Aggression (BPAQ)
ness (M = 11.23, SD = 3.25). Total .27*** .12
Aggression was measured using the 29-item Buss–Perry Aggres- Physical aggression .26*** .20**
Verbal aggression .31*** .18**
sion Questionnaire (BPAQ; Buss & Perry, 1992). Responses to items
Anger .18** .04
were summed such that higher scores reflected higher levels of Hostility .15* .06
physical aggression (M = 26.22, SD = 11.45), verbal aggression
Additional traits
(M = 18.13, SD = 6.49), anger (M = 21.35, SD = 9.05), and hostility Self-esteem (RSE) .16** .31***
(M = 28.30, SD = 9.49). Empathy (EQ) .14* .03
Exploitativeness was measured using the 6-item Exploitative- Primary psychopathy (LSRP) .40*** .33***
ness Scale (IES; Brunell et al., 2013). Responses to items were Entitlement (PES) .54*** .41***
Exploitativeness (IES) .32*** .25***
summed such that higher scores reflected higher levels of interper-
sonal exploitativeness (M = 11.65, SD = 7.64). Narcissism types
Grandiose (NPI) .58***
Empathy was measured using the 40-item Empathy Quotient Vulnerable (PNI) .36*** .13
(EQ; Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). EQ items were Vulnerable (HSNS) .28*** .02
responded to using a four-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly dis- *
p < .05.
agree, 4 = strongly agree). Responses were then recoded such that a **
p < .01.
response of four received two points, a response of three received ***
p < .001.
one point, and responses of two or one received zero points.
Responses were then summed such that higher scores reflected
R2 = .49, emerged as a significant predictor. Likewise, when IES was
higher levels of empathy (M = 41.18, SD = 11.66).
Vulnerable narcissism was measured with two measures: the used as the outcome variable, only the GNS exploitativeness sub-
scale, iables. In general, the GNS predicted outco2b = .56, p < .001,
52-item Pathological Narcissism Inventory (Pincus et al., 2009)
and the 10-item Hypersensitivity Narcissism Scale (Hendin & R2 = .32, emerged as a significant predictor. In contrast, when the
Cheek, 1997). Responses to items on both measures were summed same analyses were conducted using analogous NPI subscales,
such that higher scores reflected higher levels of vulnerable narcis- multiple subscales emerged as significant predictors of both PES
sism (Ms = 115.88 and 27.14, respectively; SDs = 34.50 and 6.80, (entitlement, self-sufficiency, exploitativeness, and superiority)
respectively). Note that because of experimenter error, the PNI and IES (entitlement, exploitativeness). These results offer initial
was not included in the survey packet completed by the first 130 evidence that the GNS subscales provide valid assessments of their
participants; thus, N = 132 for all analyses involving the PNI. purported constructs.

4.2. Results and discussion

4.2.3. GNS relations with other measures of GN and vulnerable
4.2.1. Full-scale validity tests narcissism
Table 2 shows how scores on the GNS correlated with each of As expected, the GNS correlated strongly with the NPI, but inter-
the outcome variables. In general, the GNS predicted outcome vari- estingly it was also significantly correlated with both measures of
ables consistent with the theoretical portrait of GN. Participants vulnerable narcissism (see Table 2). Because the GNS shared vari-
who scored high on the GNS reported high levels of agency, ance with both measures of vulnerable narcissism in addition to
moderate levels of communion, high approach motivation, low the NPI, it was important to test whether the GNS measured GN
avoidance motivation, high entitlement, high self-esteem, high separate from vulnerable narcissism. We tested this by submitting
primary psychopathy, high extraversion, low agreeableness, high all four narcissism measures to a factor analysis (principal axis
levels of all facets of aggression, high interpersonal exploitative- factoring extraction, promax rotation) and observing whether
ness, and low empathy. Notably, when scores on the NPI were used the GNS and NPI (putative measures of GN) loaded onto a
to predict these outcome variables, the pattern of correlations was separate factor than the PNI and HSNS (putative measures of
largely the same (see Table 2). vulnerable narcissism). This analysis extracted two factors that pos-
sessed eigenvalues >1.00 (third factor possessed eigenvalue = .43).
4.2.2. Subscale validity tests The first factor (eigenvalue = 1.99; 49.63% variance) contained the
It was expected that scores on the GNS entitlement and explo- GNS (loading = .73) and NPI (loading = .89). The second factor
itativeness subscales would share unique variance with scores on (eigenvalue = 1.31; 32.64% variance) contained the PNI
the PES and IES, respectively. We tested this using stepwise regres- (loading = .64) and HSNS (loading = .90). None of the scales
sion analysis with scores from all seven GNS subscales serving as cross-loaded at >.30. These results suggest that, although the GNS
potential predictors. When scores on the PES were used as the out- shares some variance with measures of vulnerable narcissism, it is
come variable, only the GNS entitlement subscale, b = .70, p < .001, at its core a measure of GN.
16 J.D. Foster et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 73 (2015) 12–16

5. Summary and conclusion Corry, N., Merritt, R. D., Mrug, S., & Pamp, B. (2008). The factor structure of the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(6),
593–600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223890802388590.
The results of the present studies suggest the 33-item GNS is a del Rosario, P. M., & White, R. M. (2005). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory:
viable measure of GN. It possesses seven stable and reliable fac- Test–retest stability and internal consistency. Personality and Individual
Differences, 39(6), 1075–1081.
tors/subscales that reflect Raskin and Terry’s (1988) influential NPI
Foster, J. D., & Brennan, J. C. (2011). Narcissism, the agency model, and approach-
factor solution. As a whole, the GNS exhibits adequate validity and avoidance motivation. In W. K. Campbell & J. D. Miller (Eds.), The handbook of
correlates with outcome variables in roughly the same manner as narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical
findings, and treatments (pp. 89–100). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
the NPI. Additionally, two of the GNS subscales, entitlement and
Foster, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2007). Are there such things as ‘Narcissists’ in social
exploitativeness, were demonstrated to possess construct validity. psychology? A taxometric analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory.
Future research should continue to research the psychometric prop- Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1321–1332.
erties of the full-scale GNS and its subscales (e.g., employ item Foster, J. D., Trimm, R. F., & IV. (2008). On being eager and uninhibited: Narcissism
and approach-avoidance motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
response theory). Future research is also needed to further examine 34, 1004–1017.
the validity of the GNS subscales (e.g., test whether authority sub- Foster, J. D., & Twenge, J. M. (2011). Narcissism and relationships: From light to
scale uniquely predicts emergent leadership). All seven subscales dark. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships
II (pp. 381–407). New York, NY, USA: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
exhibit high face validity and strong reliability, which is promising Freud, S. (1914). On narcissism: An introduction. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard
in terms of the likelihood of successful future validity tests. edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (pp. 73–102).
In contrast to the NPI, the GNS exhibits significant overlap with London: Hogarth.
Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A
measures of vulnerable narcissism. The results of the factor-ana- reexamination of Murray’s Narcism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality,
lytic examination of the measures of GN and vulnerable narcissism 31(4), 588–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2204.
suggest that the GNS is primarily a measure of GN that shares some Horney, K. (1939). New ways in psychoanalysis. New York, NY, USA: WW Norton &
Co.
variance with measures of vulnerable narcissism (perhaps the GNS
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling:
provides better coverage of negative content than the NPI). Future Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological
research should continue to investigate links between the GNS and Methods, 3(4), 424–453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
both GN and vulnerable narcissism. More generally, including the
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
GNS in future studies that contrast GN and vulnerable narcissism Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
may permit more sophisticated analytic techniques, such as struc- John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five inventory – Versions 4a
tural equation modeling, to help elucidate differences between GN and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality
and Social Research.
and vulnerable narcissism – something that has been called for John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big
extensively in the literature (cf., Campbell & Miller, 2011). It is cer- five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John,
tainly our hope that researchers will find the GNS to be a useful R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(3rd ed., pp. 114–158). New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press.
addition to their measurement toolboxes. Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic
attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68(1), 151–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151.
References Lynam, D. R. (2011). Psychopathy and narcissism. In W. K. Campbell & J. D. Miller
(Eds.), Handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical
approaches, empirical findings, and treatments. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., &
Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2009). A brief assessment of the interpersonal
Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory really
circumplex: The IPIP-IPC. Assessment, 16(4), 352–361. http://dx.doi.org/
measure? Assessment, 18(1), 67–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
10.1177/1073191109340382.
1073191110382845.
Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2011). Addressing criticisms of the Narcissistic
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation
Personality Inventory (NPI). In W. K. Campbell & J. D. Miller (Eds.), The handbook
of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex
of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches,
differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163–175.
empirical findings, and treatments (pp. 146–152). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/b:jadd.0000022607.19833.00.
Sons.
Bradlee, P. M., & Emmons, R. A. (1992). Locating narcissism within the interpersonal
Miller, J. D., & Maples, J. (2011). Trait personality models of narcissistic personality
circumplex and the five-factor model. Personality and Individual Differences,
disorder, grandiose narcissism, and vulnerable narcissism. In W. K. Campbell &
13(7), 821–830.
J. D. Miller (Eds.), The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder:
Brown, R. P., Budzek, K., & Tamborski, M. (2009). On the meaning and measure of
Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments (pp. 71–88). Hoboken,
narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(7), 951–964. http://
NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc..
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167209335461.
Miller, J. D., Price, J., & Campbell, W. K. (2012). Is the Narcissistic Personality
Brunell, A. B., Davis, M. S., Schley, D. R., Eng, A. L., van Dulmen, M. H. M., Wester, K.
Inventory still relevant? A test of independent grandiosity and entitlement
L., et al. (2013). A new measure of interpersonal exploitativeness. Frontiers in
scales in the assessment of narcissism. Assessment, 19(1), 8–13. http://
Psychology, 4.
dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191111429390.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality
Millon, T., & Davis, R. O. (1996). Disorders of personality: DSM-IV and beyond (2nd
and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
ed.). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.
3514.63.3.452.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A
Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2008). Narcissism at the crossroads:
dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4),
Phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/
177–196.
personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review,
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2011). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
28(4), 638–656.
Muthen & Muthen.
Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004).
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G. C., & Levy, K. N.
Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-
(2009). Initial construction and validation of the Pathological Narcissism
report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29–45.
Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 365–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
Campbell, W. K., Brunell, A. B., & Finkel, E. J. (2006). Narcissism, interpersonal self-
a0016530.
regulation, and romantic relationships: An agency model approach. In K. D.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic
Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and
Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of
interpersonal processes (pp. 57–83). New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press.
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902.
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2007). The narcissistic self: Background, an extended
Reich, W. (1972). Character analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
agency model, and ongoing controversies. In C. Sedikides & S. Spencer (Eds.),
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Frontiers in social psychology: The self (pp. 115–138). Philidelphia, PA:
University Press.
Psychology Press.
Sedikides, C., Rudich, E. A., Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004). Are
Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2011). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic
normal narcissists psychologically healthy? Self-esteem matters. Journal of
personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments.
Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 400–416.
Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc..
Watson, P. J., Grisham, S. O., Trotter, M. V., & Biderman, M. D. (1984). Narcissism and
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and
empathy: Validity evidence for the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of
affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales.
Personality Assessment, 48(3), 301–305.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333.