Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Pers Individ Dif. 2024 Mar 23;224:112614. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2024.112614

Aiming (too) high: Narcissism and unrealistic goal setting

Ellen F Finch 1,*, Sarah E Kalinowski 1, Daniel L Schacter 1, Jill M Hooley 1
PMCID: PMC11178282  NIHMSID: NIHMS1980992  PMID: 38882675

Abstract

It is well established that people scoring high in narcissism fantasize about a grandiose future. However, little research has examined whether narcissism is actually associated with setting unrealistic, grandiose future goals for oneself. In the present study, we pool three independent adult samples (total N = 482) to evaluate the relationship between three dimensions of narcissism (agentic extraversion, antagonism, and narcissistic neuroticism) and self-reported likelihood of setting statistically unlikely goals (e.g., creating world peace). Through a series of bootstrapped correlation and regression analyses, we find that participants scoring higher in agentic extraversion and antagonism are more likely to set unrealistic goals, whereas participants scoring higher in narcissistic neuroticism are less likely to set unrealistic goals. When controlling for covariance between these narcissism dimensions as well as self-esteem and history of manic/hypomanic symptoms, agentic extraversion emerges as the strongest correlate of setting unrealistic goals. Overall, this study demonstrates that narcissism, and particularly agentic extraversion, is associated with intending to set grandiose future goals.

Keywords: narcissism, goal setting, grandiose fantasizing, agentic extraversion

Introduction

A central cognitive component of narcissism is grandiose fantasizing. Defined as engaging in fantasies of success, power, brilliance, or beauty (American Psychiatric Association, 2022), grandiose fantasizing is related to both grandiose (e.g., entitlement, exhibitionism) and vulnerable (e.g., need for admiration, shame) narcissistic features (Dinić et al., 2022). Retreating to a fantasy world in which one is successful or admired can counteract threats to ego in the real world, creating an internal safe haven for people with an inflated sense of self. Although the tendency for people scoring high in narcissism to fantasize about a future in which they achieve unrealistic goals is well-established, little empirical work has examined whether people scoring high in narcissism hope to actualize these fantasies. In other words, do such individuals set grandiose or unrealistic goals for themselves in the real world?

There is good reason to believe that people scoring high in narcissism may not only fantasize about a grandiose future, but intend to actualize it. Narcissism is characterized by self-enhancement (for review and meta-analysis: Grijalva & Zhang, 2016), and people scoring high in narcissism tend to overestimate their abilities in laboratory, professional, and interpersonal settings (e.g., Brunell & Buelow, 2017; Campbell et al., 2004; O’Reilly & Hall, 2021). This overestimation of abilities extends to future predictions; people scoring high in narcissism tend to hold overly optimistic beliefs about their likelihood of future success (for review: Wallace, Ready, & Weitenhagen, 2009). For example, in one study, at the beginning of an academic term, undergraduates were asked to predict their final course grades. Students scoring higher in narcissism were more likely to predict better final course grades, despite ultimately not receiving better grades (Farwell & Wohlwend‐Lloyd, 1998). It stands to follow that narcissism’s characteristic overestimation of abilities may lead to setting unrealistic future goals. In the context of the aforementioned study, this may mean setting the goal of achieving perfect grades even when one is unlikely to achieve those grades. At a more grandiose level, this may mean setting the goal of becoming the CEO of a prominent company, even if this goal is highly unlikely based on actual achievements at that time. Setting unrealistic future goals not only follows from overestimating one’s future abilities, it may also serve a self-enhancing function in the moment. For example, believing that one can become a prominent CEO reinforces present beliefs of being exceptionally smart and talented. Overall, due to established overestimation of future abilities and the foundational need to self-enhance, it seems likely that people scoring higher in narcissism have an increased likelihood of setting unrealistic future goals.

However, it is also possible that people scoring high in narcissism engage in grandiose fantasizing without setting accompanying future goals. Grandiose fantasizing has benefits regardless of any additional goal setting. It has long been documented as an internal defense mechanism (Kernberg, 1970) and recent work suggests that grandiose fantasizing in and of itself regulates affect among people scoring high in narcissism (Finch & Hooley, 2023). Thus, people scoring high in narcissism can benefit from grandiose fantasizing without taking the psychological risk of planning to turn fantasies into actual goals. Setting unachievable goals may not necessarily be risky for the general population, for example, ample literature has shown that optimistic future thinking and setting high expectations for oneself can foster motivation and success (for review, see Oettingen & Mayer, 2002). However, in the context of narcissism, there are notable risks to unachievable goal setting. Failing to meet one’s grandiose self-expectations often precipitates depression, shame, and in extreme cases, suicide (e.g., Ronningstam et al., 2008). In other words, grandiose future expectations may help sustain self-enhancement for a while; but reality will ultimately intervene. For people with high levels of narcissism and a precarious sense of self, this realization can be damaging.

One prior study (Fulford et al., 2008) has examined the relationship between narcissism and unrealistic goal setting using the Willingly Approached Set of Statistically Unlikely Pursuits (WASSUP; Carver & Johnson, 2013). The WASSUP was originally designed to detect unrealistic goal setting in people with an elevated risk for mania (e.g., Johnson et al., 2009; Johnson & Carver, 2010).1 The WASSUP asks respondents to rate how likely they are to set 30 statistically unlikely goals for themselves, such as running a Fortune 500 company, stopping world hunger, or being a perfect parent. The WASSUP includes goals that are both agentic – focused on the self, such as fame and political influence – as well as goals that are communal – focused on others, such as having many friends or helping the world. It is important to contextualize the WASSUP within broader goal setting theory. Prior work (Locke & Latham, 2002) suggests that challenging and specific goals are more effective at eliciting goal-directed behavior and performance than unchallenging or vague goals, however this is contingent on the individual having adequate ability and commitment to achieve the goal. Although the goals included in the WASSUP are challenging, they vary in specificity (e.g., you will be president of your country [specific] vs. you will be famous [vague]), and the WASSUP does not assess the critical moderators of ability or commitment. Further work (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006) differentiates between goal intentions (i.e., intending to achieve a goal) and implementation intentions (i.e., intending to initiate goal-directed behavior), finding that implementation intentions are critical for goal attainment. The WASSUP items assess goal intentions, not implementation intentions. Thus, attesting to setting a WASSUP goal should not be equated to likelihood of pursuing or achieving that goal, but rather indicates a long-term goal intention.

Fulford and colleagues (2008) found positive correlations between narcissism and likelihood of setting goals relating to popular fame, political influence, and financial success, but not goals relating to family and world well-being. This finding suggests that people scoring high in narcissism may be particularly likely to set unrealistic agentic, but not communal, goals. Fulford et al.’s study was conducted entirely with undergraduate students. It also evaluated narcissism using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), which largely assesses narcissism’s grandiose, but not vulnerable, features (Ackerman et al., 2011). No work to date has considered how extreme goal setting relates to dimensions of narcissism other than grandiosity, nor has it examined these relationships in a more generalizable sample. Further, narcissism is associated with bipolar disorder/mania (Fulford et al., 2008; Nagel et al., 2023) and self-esteem (e.g., Rosenthal et al., 2020), both of which are associated with an increased likelihood of setting ambitious future goals (e.g., Erez & Judge, 2001; Johnson et al., 2009; Johnson & Carver, 2010). Fulford et al. found that narcissism remained a predictor of goals relating to financial success and popular fame even when hypomania was accounted for. Unclear, however, is whether these overlapping effects are different for other dimensions of narcissism, and if findings related to narcissism might be better attributed to narcissism’s covariance with self-esteem.

Here, we extend prior work by systematically examining if narcissism is associated with an intention to set unrealistic future goals. We document the relationships between narcissism dimensions and WASSUP subscales in a large, pooled sample that includes participants from student, community, and online settings, and we consider the covariates of self-esteem and history of manic/hypomanic symptoms to ensure that findings are not better attributed to these related constructs. To gain a more complete view of narcissism, we use the trifurcated model. The trifurcated model identifies three dimensions of narcissism: antagonism, agentic extraversion, and narcissistic neuroticism (for review, see Crowe et al., 2022). Antagonism is considered the core dimension of narcissism, present in both narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability. It includes features of entitlement, manipulativeness, arrogance, and reactive anger (Weiss et al., 2019). In contrast, agentic extraversion and narcissistic neuroticism differentiate between grandiosity and vulnerability, with agentic extraversion reflecting more grandiose features such as exhibitionism and acclaim seeking, and narcissistic neuroticism reflecting more vulnerable features such as a need for admiration and feelings of shame (Miller et al., 2013). Thus, this trifurcated model can distinguish between shared and unique features of grandiosity and vulnerability (Crowe et al., 2022; Weiss et al., 2019) allowing us to extend prior work that focuses solely on grandiose components.

Given narcissism’s strong associations with grandiose fantasizing and overestimation of abilities, we predicted that all dimensions of narcissism would be associated with setting unrealistic goals, even when self-esteem and manic/hypomanic symptoms were controlled for. Informed by Fulford et al., we predicted that antagonism and agentic extraversion would be more strongly associated with setting agentic goals, whereas narcissistic neuroticism would be more strongly associated with setting communal goals. Our report fills a critical gap in the narcissism literature through specifying whether people scoring higher in narcissism are not only more likely to fantasize about unrealistic future goals, but are also more likely to intend to set these goals for themselves, than people scoring lower in narcissism.

Methods

Participants

Sample 1.

Adult participants (N = 120) were recruited from the Harvard University Community and Student study pools between July and September 2021. To meet inclusion criteria, participants were between ages 18 and 30, lived in the United States, reported no major mental or physical illness, and were not taking medication that affects cognitive function. Seven participants were removed for failing more than one attention check and one participant was removed for nonsensical reporting, leaving a final sample of 112.

Sample 2.

Adult participants (N = 215) were recruited from the Harvard University Community and Student study pools between December 2021 and June 2022, meeting the same inclusion criteria as Sample 1. Fifteen participants were removed for failing more than one attention check, leaving a final sample of 200.

Sample 3.

Adult participants (N = 175) were recruited from Amazon’s mTurk via CloudResearch in September 2022, and met the same inclusion criteria as Samples 1 and 2. Three participants were removed for failing attention checks and two were removed for inconsistent responding, leaving a final sample of 170.

Pooled Sample.

Given that each sample completed identical questionnaires and were demographically similar, the three independent samples were pooled to create a single dataset used for all analyses to maximize analytic power and generalizability of results. The pooled sample (N = 482) had an average age of 23.57 years (SD = 2.87). 57.88% of the sample identified as cisgender female, 39.32% as cisgender male, 2.28% as non-binary/genderqueer, one participant as transgender male, and one participant preferred not to indicate gender. Regarding race, the sample was majority (59.54%) White, followed by Asian (16.39%), Black or African American (13.28%), more than one race (4.36%), and race not listed (3.11%). Two participants identified their race as Middle Eastern, one as American Indian/Alaska Native, and one as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Students represented 44.19% of the sample, another 34.65% were employed full time, 12.03% were employed part time, and 13.27% were unemployed. Full participant characteristics for the three samples and the pooled sample are available in Table S1 of the online supplement.

Questionnaires

Willingly Approached Set of Statistically Unlikely Pursuits (WASSUP; Carver & Johnson, 2013).

Using a five-point Likert type scale (1 = NO CHANCE I will set this goal for myself; 5 = Definitely WILL set this goal for myself), respondents rate how likely they are to set 30 statistically unlikely goals for themselves, for example “you will stop world hunger.” Certain items are averaged to generate subscales of popular fame, partner/family, world well-being, political influence, friends, financial success, and creation/fulfillment, and all 30 items are averaged to generate a total score. Higher scores indicate reporting a higher likelihood of setting statistically unlikely goals. The WASSUP had strong internal reliability in the present sample (Cronbach’s alpha = .93).

Five Factor Narcissism Inventory-Short Form (FFNI-SF; Sherman et al., 2015).

The FFNI-SF is a 60-item short form of the original Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory (Miller et al., 2013). It evaluates fifteen facets of narcissism (e.g., entitlement, need for admiration). Respondents rate their agreement with 60 statements (e.g., “I deserve to receive special treatment”) on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Disagree Strongly; 5 = Agree Strongly). Responses are summed to form fifteen facet scores, which can then all be summed to generate subscores for each dimension of the trifurcated model of narcissism: agentic extraversion, antagonism, and narcissistic neuroticism. Each of the trifurcated model subscales had good internal reliability in the present sample, with Cronbach’s alphas of .75, .84, and .76, respectively.

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965).

The RSES is a 10-item self-report measure of global self-worth. Respondents rate their agreement with statements about self-views (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”) on a four-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Agree; 4 = Strongly Disagree). Responses for all 10 items (some of which are reverse scored) are summed to generate a total score, with higher scores indicating higher levels of self-esteem. In the present sample, the RSES had strong internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .95).

Mood Disorders Questionnaire (MDQ; Hirschfeld et al., 2000).

The MDQ is a self-report measure that screens for lifetime history of manic or hypomanic symptoms. Participants respond yes/no to 13 items derived from DSM-IV criteria for bipolar spectrum disorders as well as clinical insights (e.g., “has there ever been a period of time when you were not your usual self and you were much more talkative or spoke faster than usual?”). One point is assigned for each item responded to with a “yes”, and the sum of these points provides a total symptoms score. Additional items and scoring procedures contribute to generating a cut-off score; however, for the present study the total symptom score (out of 13) was used as a continuous measure of history of manic or hypomanic symptoms, with higher scores indicating more symptoms. These items showed good reliability in the present sample (Cronbach’s alpha = .86).

Procedure

All study procedures were approved by the Harvard University IRB, and all participants provided informed consent prior to completing the study. In each of the three samples, participants completed the self-report questionnaires (RSES, FFNI-SF, WASSUP, and MDQ, in that order) in a single sitting via Qualtrics. These questionnaires were part of studies that were mainly focused on cognitive task performance that are reported elsewhere ( (Finch, Kalinowski, Hooley, & Schacter, 2024).

Analytic Plan

All analyses were completed in R (RStudio version 2023.03.0+386). There were no missing data. All variables were standardized using the “scale” function in base R for ease of interpretability. First, we calculated simple correlations between all variables (antagonism, agentic extraversion, narcissistic neuroticism, self-esteem, history of manic/hypomanic symptoms, WASSUP total score, and WASSUP subscales) using Pearson’s r (“cor” function in stats package). Second, given that many of our predictor variables are correlated, we conducted a series of linear regressions (“lm” function in stats package) to predict WASSUP total and subscores, with all predictor variables (antagonism, agentic extraversion, narcissistic neuroticism, self-esteem, and history of manic/hypomanic symptoms) entered in each regression.2 We evaluated for multicollinearity using the “vif” function in the car package. No variance inflation factor exceeded 1.38, suggesting minimal collinearity.

To increase confidence in the reliability of results and ensure that analyses are robust to any violated normality assumptions, bootstrapped resampling was completed for all analyses. We used non-parametric bootstrapping (“boot” function in bootstrap package) with 2000 repetitions, followed by calculating 95% bias corrected and accelerated (BCa) confidence intervals (CIs) on the bootstrapped samples (function “boot.ci” in bootstrap package). The bootstrapped output was considered statistically significant if the 95% CIs did not encompass zero. All reported correlations and regressions reflect bootstrapped results. Given that all analyses used previously collected data, a priori power analyses were not completed. Post-hoc power analysis demonstrated that the present sample was well powered to detect a small effect in a multiple regression with five predictors. The present study was not preregistered. However, all conducted analyses are included in the present report.

Results

Descriptive statistics and simple correlations

Descriptive statistics of predictor variables and simple correlations between predictor variables and WASSUP scores are reported in Table 1. Antagonism had moderate, positive associations with agentic extraversion and history of manic/hypomanic symptoms, and it had a small negative association with narcissistic neuroticism. Agentic extraversion had a small negative association with narcissistic neuroticism, and moderate positive associations with self-esteem and history of manic/hypomanic symptoms. Narcissistic neuroticism had a moderate negative association with self-esteem.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Bootstrapped Simple Correlations

M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. % ≥ very good chance
1. FFNI-SF: Antagonism 73.59 21.02
2. FFNI-SF: Agentic Extraversion 52.97 12.58 .40
3. FFNI-SF: Narcissistic Neuroticism 37.62 10.17 −.17 −.12
4. RSES 21.49 8.02 .07 .33 −.33
5. MDQ 6.13 3.88 .35 .30 .04 .04
6. WASSUP Total 2.31 0.73 .31 .60 −.16 .27 .29 2.28
7. WASSUP: Popular Fame 1.70 0.89 .35 .55 −.19 .15 .23 .83 3.53
8. WASSUP: Partner/Family 3.15 1.08 .14 .42 −.06 .25 .22 .75 .35 * 26.56
9. WASSUP: World Well-Being 1.84 1.12 .15 .31 −.09 .16 .19 .68 .56 * .42 * 8.92
10. WASSUP: Political Influence 1.59 0.94 .32 .44 −.09 .13 .22 .66 .70 * .26 * .58 * 5.39
11. WASSUP: Friends 2.46 0.90 .21 .45 −.07 .27 .17 .75 .51 * .58 * .40 * .42 * 6.43
12. WASSUP: Financial Success 2.19 1.02 .35 .49 −.21 .16 .28 .76 .60 * .50 * .40 * .45 * .47* 8.10
13. WASSUP: Creation/Fulfillment 2.73 0.89 .14 .40 −.10 .22 .24 .78 .57 * .56 * .52 * .39 * .48 * .50 * 11.2
Open in a new tab

Note. Means and standard deviations calculated from raw (non-standardized) data. All correlation coefficients are Pearson’s r that have been 2000x non-parametric bootstrapped. Bold indicates statistical significance, as indicated by bootstrapped 95% BCa confidence intervals not including zero. WASSUP subscale means were compared using paired-sample t-tests.

(*)

Subscales that significantly differed at the p < .001 level are indicated by an asterisk next to the correlation coefficient.

FFNI-SF = Five Factor Narcissism Inventory-Short Form; RSES = total score of Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; MDQ = symptom total of Mood Disorders Questionnaire; WASSUP = Willingly Approached Set of Statistically Unlikely Pursuits. Column “% ≥ very good chance” indicates the percentage of participants who scored a 4.0 or above on a WASSUP subscale, indicating that they reported on average at least a “very good chance” of setting goals in that category.

Regarding WASSUP scores, antagonism was significantly and positively correlated with the total score and all subscales of the WASSUP. The correlations ranged from small (r=.14) to moderate (r=.35). Agentic extraversion was significantly and positively correlated with the total scores and all subscales of the WASSUP, and it had effect sizes ranging from moderate (r=.31) to large (r=.60). Narcissistic neuroticism, however, was significantly and negatively associated with total WASSUP score and all subscales except partner/family and friends. These effects were smaller, ranging from r=−.09 to r=−.21. Lastly, self-esteem and manic symptoms were both positively associated with total score and all subscales of the WASSUP, with correlations ranging from small (r=.15) to moderate (r=.29).

Linear regressions predicting WASSUP scores

Full regression output is reported in Table 2. Agentic extraversion significantly predicted WASSUP total score and all WASSUP subscales, with beta coefficients ranging from 0.25 to 0.51. In contrast, antagonism significantly predicted only three subscales of the WASSUP (popular fame: β=0.12; political influence: β=0.15; financial success: β=0.13). Narcissistic neuroticism significantly and negatively predicted two subscales of the WASSUP (popular fame: β=−0.14; financial success: β=−0.16). Self-esteem predicted three WASSUP subscales (partner/family: β=0.14; friends: β=0.16; creation/fulfillment: β=0.16). History of manic/hypomanic symptoms significantly predicted WASSUP total (β=0.12), partner/family (β=0.12), world well-being (β=0.11), financial success (β=0.13), and creation/fulfillment (β=0.16). Overall, agentic extraversion was a significantly stronger predictor of the WASSUP total score and every WASSUP subscale than all other variables, as determined by a lack of overlap between 95% BCa confidence intervals. Regression analyses without the inclusion of the history of manic/hypomanic symptoms and self-esteem covariates are reported in Table S2. Removing these covariates changed the significance of two relationships: antagonism significantly positive predicted WASSUP total score, and narcissistic neuroticism significantly negatively predicted WASSUP total score.

Table 2.

Bootstrapped Linear Regression Output

Intercept FFNI Antag FFNI Extra FFNI Neurot RSES MDQ
β SE CI β SE CI β SE CI β SE CI β SE CI β SE CI
WASSUP Total Score 0.00 .04 −0.07, 0.08 0.06 .04 −0.02, 0.14 0.51 .04 0.43, 0.59 −0.07 .04 −0.14, 0.00 0.07 .04 −0.01, 0.15 0.12 .04 0.04, 0.19
Popular Fame 0.00 .04 −0.07, 0.08 0.12 .05 0.02, 0.21 0.50 .05 0.41, 0.60 −0.14 .04 −0.22, −0.06 −0.07 .04 −0.16, 0.02 0.04 .04 −0.02, 0.12
Partner/Family 0.00 .04 −0.08, 0.08 −0.05 .05 −0.14, 0.05 0.36 .05 0.27, 0.45 0.02 .04 −0.06, 0.11 0.14 .05 0.05, 0.24 0.12 .04 0.03, 0.20
World Well-Being 0.00 .04 −0.08, 0.09 0.00 .05 −0.10, 0.10 0.25 .04 0.16, 0.34 −0.04 .04 −0.14, 0.04 0.06 .05 −0.03, 0.16 0.11 .04 0.02, 0.20
Political Influence 0.00 .04 −0.08, 0.08 0.15 .05 0.06, 0.26 0.35 .04 0.27, 0.45 −0.01 .04 −0.09, 0.07 0.03 .04 −0.06, 0.11 0.06 .04 −0.02, 0.13
Friends 0.00 .04 −0.08, 0.08 0.04 .05 −0.04, 0.14 0.37 .05 0.28, 0.47 0.04 .04 −0.05, 0.13 0.16 .04 0.07, 0.24 0.03 .05 −0.07, 0.11
Financial Success 0.00 .04 −0.07, 0.08 0.13 .04 0.05, 0.21 0.39 .04 0.30, 0.47 −0.16 .04 −0.23, −0.09 −0.03 .04 −0.11, 0.05 0.13 .04 0.04, 0.21
Creation/Fulfillment 0.00 .04 −0.08, 0.09 −0.06 .05 −0.15, 0.03 0.35 .05 0.26, 0.45 −0.05 .04 −0.13, 0.04 0.09 .05 0.00, 0.18 0.16 .04 0.07, 0.24
Open in a new tab

Note. All regression output is 2ss000x non-parametric bootstrapped. Bold indicates statistical significance, as indicated by bootstrapped 95% BCa confidence intervals not including zero. FFNI Antag = Five Factor Narcissism Inventory -Short Form (FFNI-SF) Antagonism subscale; FFNI Extra = FFNI-SF Agentic Extraversion subscale; FFNI Neurot = FFNI-SF Narcissistic Neuroticism subscale; RSES = total score of Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; MDQ = symptom total of Mood Disorders Questionnaire.

Discussion

We examined how different dimensions of narcissism related to setting statistically unlikely goals when controlling for self-esteem and history of manic/hypomanic symptoms. We found that people scoring high in agentic extraversion and antagonism were more likely to set unrealistic goals, whereas people scoring high in narcissistic neuroticism were less likely to set unrealistic goals. Agentic extraversion emerged as the strongest correlate of setting unrealistic goals by far, positively predicting every category of goal in the WASSUP.

Agentic extraversion was not only associated with setting agentic goals (e.g., popular fame, political influence) as was hypothesized, but also communal goals (e.g., family, world well-being). In accordance with our hypotheses, antagonism was associated with all three agentic goals (popular fame, political influence, financial success) but no communal goals. Surprisingly, narcissistic neuroticism had negative associations with some agentic goals (popular fame, financial success), but none of our hypothesized associations with communal goals. Within the context of the trifurcated model of narcissism, this outcome suggests that pursuing agentic goals may be most core to narcissism, aligning with narcissism’s central features of entitlement and arrogance. Then, having more grandiose features (i.e., agentic extraversion) may broaden the scope of these goals to both agentic and communal, whereas having more vulnerable features (i.e., narcissistic neuroticism) may diminish the likelihood of setting agentic goals to begin with.

The robust associations between agentic extraversion and likelihood of setting communal goals merit attention. Although most research examining narcissism focuses on agentic, and often antisocial, traits, burgeoning work emphasizes how grandiose narcissism is also associated with communal, prosocial behaviors (Nehrlich et al., 2019). The current results support this view, with the dimension of narcissism most closely related to grandiosity (agentic extraversion) showing little differentiation between agentic and communal goal setting. This pattern of results provides a basis for pushing back against the notion that narcissism, and particularly grandiose narcissism, is an inherently antisocial trait.

The finding that narcissistic neuroticism has significant negative associations with likelihood of setting unrealistic goals is surprising, given that even vulnerable narcissism is strongly associated with grandiose fantasizing and shares the entitled and antagonistic core of grandiose narcissism (Crowe et al., 2022; Dinić et al., 2022). However, this result may point to an important differentiation in how ambitious future thinking manifests in vulnerable versus grandiose narcissism. Grandiose narcissism may be associated with an increased likelihood of both fantasizing about and setting ambitious goals, whereas vulnerable narcissism may be more strongly associated with fantasizing about ambitious goals, in the absence of any intention to actualize them. This idea aligns with the general pattern of grandiosity having a stronger relationship to overconfidence than does vulnerability (e.g., O’Reilly & Hall, 2021).

Across all these findings, few participants are attesting to there being a “very good chance” of or “definitely” setting WASSUP goals (see Table 1). Rather, average scores of WASSUP subscales are closer to reporting a “slight” chance of setting these goals. Thus, it is critical to keep in mind that positive associations between narcissism and WASSUP scales do not imply that someone scoring high in narcissism plans to set these goals, rather they are more likely to do so than their low-narcissism counterparts.

Strengths of this study include the pooling of three unique datasets, rigorous bootstrapping procedure, and controlling for self-esteem and history of manic/hypomanic symptoms. Together, these study elements increase confidence that results are reliable and generalizable. However, there are also limitations to the present work. Given that all three samples were recruited from non-clinical settings, future work should examine unrealistic goal setting in participants diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder before any clinical implications can be offered. Further, this study relies on the 30 goals specified in the WASSUP, and thus likely misses additional unrealistic (and perhaps idiosyncratic) goals that participants may set for themselves. For more naturalistic results, future work should consider having participants self-generate future goals and rate the likelihood that they will follow through on those goals. Similarly, using different methodological approaches to elicit future goals would reduce the likelihood that common method bias is influencing results, as may be the case with our fully questionnaire-based data. Lastly, as previously mentioned, goal setting is a complex and multifaceted process (Latham & Locke, 2002). Although the WASSUP was developed as a measure of goal setting (Johnson et al., 2012; Johnson & Carver, 2010), it more specifically asks how likely someone believes they are to set a goal for themselves. In this sense, the WASSUP assesses predictions about future goal setting, or predicted goal intentions, which is just one component of broader goal setting processes. Future work should continue to explore other aspects of goal setting in narcissism, such as implementation intentions, task persistence (e.g., Wallace, Ready, & Weitenhagen, 2009), or goal attainment.

Overall, we show here that narcissism, in particular agentic extraversion, is associated with an increased likelihood of setting unrealistic future goals that are both agentic and communal. These findings serve as an example of how narcissistic self-enhancement may manifest behaviorally and contribute to a currently understudied area addressing the communal aspects of narcissism.

Supplementary Material

1

Funding Details.

This work was supported by National Institute on Aging Grant R01-AG008441 (to D.L.S.) and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grants Nos. DGE 2140743 and DGE 1745303 (to S.E.K.).

Footnotes

Statement of Ethical Considerations. All study procedures were approved by the Harvard University IRB, and all participants provided informed consent prior to completing the study.

Declaration of interest: none.

1

The WASSUP scale used by Fulford et al. (2008) reflects an older version. For a review of changes between versions, see Johnson & Carver (2010). Most notably, the version used by Fulford et al. does not include subscales of friends and creation/fulfilment.

2

We also tested linear mixed-effects models in which participant sample (i.e., sample 1, sample 2, or sample 3) was included as a random effect as a potential alternative to the linear models. The linear mixed effects models resulted in identical significance of predictors as the linear models, with only one exception (self-esteem was no longer a significant predictor of the creation/fulfillment WASSUP subscale). The widespread consistency reinforced our decision to pool the three datasets. We chose to report the linear models in the present work to keep results as parsimonious as possible, and because the linear models had a consistently stronger model fit (i.e., lower Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion) than the linear mixed effects models.

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

References

  1. Ackerman RA, Witt EA, Donnellan MB, Trzesniewski KH, Robins RW, & Kashy DA (2011). What does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory really measure? Assessment,18(1),67–87. 10.1177/1073191110382845 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text). 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787 [DOI]
  3. Brunell AB, & Buelow MT (2017). Narcissism and performance on behavioral decision-making tasks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,30(1),3–14. 10.1002/bdm.1900 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Campbell WK, Goodie AS, & Foster JD (2004). Narcissism, confidence, and risk attitude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,17(4),297–311. 10.1002/bdm.475 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carver CS & Johnson SL (2013). Willingly Approached Set of Statistically Unlikely Pursuits (WASSUP). Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science. Retrieved from www.midss.ie. [Google Scholar]
  6. Crowe ML, Weiss B, Lynam DR, Campbell WK, & Miller JD (2022). Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Moving toward a trifurcated model. In Widiger TA (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Personality Disorders (2nd edition). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dinić BM, Sokolovska V, & Tomašević A. (2022). The narcissism network and centrality of narcissism features. Current Psychology,41,7990–8001. 10.1007/s12144-020-01250-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Erez A, & Judge TA (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,86(6),1270–1279. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1270 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Farwell L, & Wohlwend‐Lloyd R. (1998). Narcissistic processes: Optimistic expectations, favorable self‐evaluations, and self‐enhancing attributions. Journal of Personality,66(1),65–83. 10.1111/1467-6494.00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Finch EF & Hooley JM (2023). Functional fantasies: The regulatory role of grandiose fantasizing in pathological narcissism. Frontiers in Psychiatry,14,1274545. 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1274545 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Finch EF, Kalinowski SE, Hooley JM, & Schacter DL (2024). Grandiose narcissism influences the phenomenology of remembered past and imagined future events. Memory, 32(1), 25–40. https://doi-org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.1080/09658211.2023.2274807 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fulford D, Johnson SL, & Carver CS (2008). Commonalities and differences in characteristics of persons at risk for narcissism and mania. Journal of Research in Personality,42(6),1427–1438. 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gollwitzer PM, & Sheeran P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta‐analysis of effects and processes. Advances in experimental social psychology, 38, 69–119. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Grijalva E, & Zhang L. (2016). Narcissism and self-insight: A review and meta-analysis of narcissists’ self-enhancement tendencies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,42(1),3–24. 10.1177/0146167215611636 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hirschfeld RMA, Williams JBW, Spitzer RL, Calabrese JR, Flynn L, Keck PE, … Zajecka J. (2000). Development and Validation of a Screening Instrument for Bipolar Spectrum Disorder: The Mood Disorder Questionnaire. American Journal of Psychiatry, 3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Johnson SL, & Carver CS (2010). Extreme goal setting and vulnerability to mania among undiagnosed young adults. Cognitive Therapy and Research,30(3),23. 10.1007/s10608-006-9044-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnson SL, Eisner LR, & Carver CS (2009). Elevated expectancies among persons diagnosed with bipolar disorder. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,48(2),217–222. 10.1348/014466509X414655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Johnson SL, Fulford D, & Carver CS (2012). The double‐edged sword of goal engagement: Consequences of goal pursuit in bipolar disorder. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy,19(4),352–362. 10.1002/cpp.1801 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kernberg OF (1970). Factors in the psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personalities. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association,18(1),51–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Locke EA, & Latham GP (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist,57(9),705. 10.1037//0003-066X.57.9.705 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Miller JD, Few LR, Wilson L, Gentile B, Widiger TA, MacKillop J, & Campbell KW (2013). The Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory (FFNI): A test of the convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of FFNI scores in clinical and community samples. Psychological Assessment,25(3),748–758. 10.1037/a0032536 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Nagel MG, Marcus DK, & Zeigler‐Hill V. (2023). Bipolar disorders and narcissism: Diagnostic concerns, conceptual commonalities and potential antecedents. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy,30(2),235–249. 10.1002/cpp.2796 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Nehrlich AD, Gebauer JE, Sedikides C, & Schoel C. (2019). Agentic narcissism, communal narcissism, and prosociality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,117(1),142–165. 10.1037/pspp0000190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Oettingen G, & Mayer D. (2002). The motivating function of thinking about the future: Expectations versus fantasies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,83(5),1198–1212. 10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. O’Reilly CA, & Hall N. (2021). Grandiose narcissists and decision making: Impulsive, overconfident, and skeptical of experts–but seldom in doubt. Personality and Individual Differences,168,110280. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ronningstam E, Weinberg I, & Maltsberger JT (2008). Eleven deaths of Mr. K. – Contributing factors to suicide in narcissistic personalities. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes,71(2),169–182. 10.1521/psyc.2008.71.2.169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rosenberg M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rosenthal SA, Hooley JM, Montoya RM, van der Linden SL, & Steshenko Y. (2020). The Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale: A measure to distinguish narcissistic grandiosity from high self-esteem. Assessment,27(3),487–507. 10.1177/1073191119858410 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Sherman ED, Miller JD, Few LR, Campbell WK, Widiger TA, Crego C, & Lynam DR (2015). Development of a short form of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory: The FFNI-SF. Psychological Assessment,27(3),1110–1116. 10.1037/pas0000100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Wallace HM, Ready CB, & Weitenhagen E. (2009). Narcissism and task persistence. Self and Identity, 8(1), 78–93. 10.1080/15298860802194346 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Weiss B, Campbell WK, Lynam DR, & Miller JD (2019). A trifurcated model of narcissism: On the pivotal role of trait antagonism. In Miller JD & Lynam DR (Eds.), The handbook of antagonism (pp. 221–235). Elsevier. 10.1016/C2017-0-01875-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS1980992-supplement-1.docx (25.9KB, docx)

RESOURCES