Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Exp Soc Psychol. 2009 Feb 1;45(2):448. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.11.005

Creating Hostility and Conflict: Effects of Entitlement and Self-Image Goals

Scott J Moeller 1, Jennifer Crocker 2, Brad J Bushman 3
PMCID: PMC2717041  NIHMSID: NIHMS115044  PMID: 20126295

Abstract

People who feel entitled to admiration and respect from others do not make good companions. This research shows one reason why. Entitled people adopt self-image goals (goals that aim to construct and defend a positive self-image), which then lead to interpersonal conflict and hostility. Studies 1A and 1B documented a unique relation between entitlement and self-image goals. Study 2 extended these results by showing, via a longitudinal design, that entitlement prospectively predicts chronic self-image goals. These chronic self-image goals then predict chronic relationship conflict and hostility, all averaged over 10 weeks. Further, Study 2 revealed that self-image goals mediate the effect of pretest entitlement on both weekly hostility and conflict. These results suggest that by pursuing self-image goals, entitled people create conflict and hostility in their relationships.

Keywords: narcissism, entitlement, goals, hostility, conflict, relationships, interpersonal problems, self-defeating behavior

It is a good idea to be ambitious…but it is a terrible mistake to let drive and ambition get in the way of treating people with kindness and decency.

— Robert Solow

Compassionate goals and self-image goals have important implications for creating or undermining interpersonal relationships. Compassionate goals involve supporting others and contributing to their well-being; these goals foster social support and trust. Conversely, self-image goals involve constructing, maintaining, and defending a positive self-image; these goals undermine social support and trust (Crocker & Canevello, 2008).

Narcissistic people should be especially likely to adopt self-image goals as an interpersonal strategy because they are concerned (if not downright obsessed) with obtaining admiration and respect from others (Baumeister & Vohs, 2001). Narcissistic people hold grandiose self views, an inflated sense of entitlement, and an interpersonal style marked by exploitative attitudes and low empathy (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Narcissists may pursue self-image goals to obtain the inclusion, acceptance, advancement, status, admiration, and respect from others that they desire (Leary, 2007; Schlenker, 2003).

However, the self-image goals adopted by narcissists may ultimately trigger relationship conflict. We suggest that narcissists’ fragile self-esteem becomes damaged when they do not achieve their self-image goals. Because narcissists care deeply about maintaining their grandiose self-views, they respond with aggression, conflict, and hostility against those who insult or criticize them (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Bushman, Bonacci, van Dijk, & Baumeister, 2003; Kernis, Grannemann, & Barclay, 1989; Rhodewalt, Madrian, & Cheney, 1998; Zeigler-Hill, 2006). Therefore, narcissists may use a self-defeating interpersonal strategy, aimed at garnering respect and admiration, but instead breeding conflict and ill-will (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). And because narcissism and entitlement continue to rise among today’s young adults, compared to previous generations (Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008), understanding how narcissism contributes to negative interpersonal outcomes becomes increasingly important.

The present research tests the hypothesis that narcissists, particularly those with a high sense of entitlement, pursue self-image goals, which lead to conflict with others. We are particularly interested in the entitlement component of narcissism (i.e., the belief that one simply deserves more than others), because it specifically relates to interpersonal conflict (e.g., Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004), and also because it may contribute more to maladaptive behavior than other narcissism components (Bushman & Baumeister, 2002; Emmons, 1984, 1987). Studies 1A and 1B sought to establish a link between entitlement and self-image goals. Study 2 tested whether self-image goals mediate the link between entitlement and perceived interpersonal conflict and hostility.

STUDIES 1A and 1B

Participants

Study 1A

Participants (N=96) were college students who received course credit for their voluntary participation. Although demographic data are unavailable, participants came from a population that mainly consisted of college freshmen (49% female, 65% Caucasian, 6% African American, 13% Asian American).

Study 1B

Participants (N=86; 59% female; Mage=19.6; 41% Caucasian, 11% African American, 40% Asian American) were college students who responded to advertisements. They received $5 for their voluntary participation.

Procedure

Study 1A

Participants completed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988; total α=.82), which contains 40 forced choice items divided into seven subscales: Authority, Self-Sufficiency, Superiority, Exhibitionism, Exploitativeness, Vanity, and Entitlement. Analyses focused on Entitlement, which contains six items (e.g., “If I ruled the world it would be a much better place” versus “The thought of ruling the world frightens the hell out of me”; α=.54).

We assessed self-image goals (e.g., “get others to recognize or acknowledge your positive qualities”; α=.89) and compassionate goals (e.g., “be supportive of others”; α = .86; see Crocker & Canevello, 2008). Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (always).

Study 1B

Participants completed the NPI (total α=.83; entitlement α=.44) and a different measure of self-image goals and compassionate goals (Moeller, Crocker, & Canevello, 2008, Study 2). Participants responded to an open-ended question about an important self-improvement goal, then responded to 11 items about the consequences of having the goal [response scale: 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely)]. Two composite scores were computed: self-image items (e.g., “make you want to project a certain image to others”; α=.71) and compassionate items (e.g., “help you make a difference for other people”; α=.80) (see supplementary online material for the complete list of items). As expected, this new measure of goals correlated with the goal measures used in Study 1A (self-image goals: r=.41, p<.001; compassionate goals: r=.50, p<.001) (Moeller et al., 2008).

Results & Discussion

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among all variables. Because of intercorrelations among NPI subscales, self-image goals, and compassionate goals across all studies (Tables 1 & 2), the zero-order correlations could be spurious; therefore, all analyses controlled for compassionate goals and the other NPI subscales.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for all variables in Studies 1A and 1B.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Self-Image Goals 2.95 (2.84) 0.72 (0.80) -- .40** .22* −.03 .01 .22* .10 −.12 .14 .06
2. Compassionate Goals 3.54 (2.78) 0.63 (0.88) .10 -- .09 .03 .01 .05 −.13 −.05 −.03 −.02
3. Entitlement 0.24 (0.33) 0.21 (0.21) .35** .05 -- .23* .47** .29** .39** .42** .21 .50**
4. Authority 0.57 (0.57) 0.28 (0.27) .23* .24* .44** -- .57** .28* .17 .31** .41** .78**
5. Self-Sufficiency 0.40 (0.40) 0.24 (0.23) −.12 .01 .10 .16 -- .35** .16 .40** .30** .73**
6. Superiority 0.42 (0.46) 0.27 (0.26) .07 .16 .25* .30** .18 -- .35** .20 .38** .63**
7. Exhibitionism 0.21 (0.24) 0.25 (0.25) .25* −.02 .60** .42** −.01 .36** -- .14 .45** .53**
8. Exploitativeness 0.27 (0.26) 0.22 (0.25) .09 −.14 .39** .35** .16 .09 .35** -- .17 .55**
9. Vanity 0.36 (0.37) 0.37 (0.36) .06 .09 .15 .10 .05 .15 .27** .05 -- .66**
10. Narcissism 0.39 (0.40) 0.16 (0.17) .18 .13 .56** .77** .45** .60** .66** .54** .40** --
Open in a new tab

Note. Numbers not in parentheses and on the lower diagonal come from Study 1A; numbers in parentheses and on the upper diagonal come from Study 1B. Narcissism represents the total NPI score (scores range from 0 to 1), with subscales entitlement, authority, self-sufficiency, superiority, exhibitionism, exploitativeness, and vanity.

*

p<.05

**

p<.01.

Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for all variables in Study 2.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Self-Image Goals 3.03 0.56 --
2. Compassionate Goals 3.30 0.64 .53** --
3. Entitlement (PES) 3.05 1.06 .09 −.23** --
4. Entitlement (NPI) 0.30 0.20 .04 −.28** .45** --
5. Authority 0.61 0.27 .06 −.06 .21** .43** --
6. Self-Sufficiency 0.42 0.22 −.09 −.15* .23** .27** .41** --
7. Superiority 0.44 0.29 .00 −.04 .39** .33** .33** .24** --
8. Exhibitionism 0.26 0.24 15* −.03 .33** .43** .31** .15* .41** --
9. Exploitativeness 0.34 0.28 −.01 −.13 .26** .38** .34** .29** .17* .28** --
10. Vanity 0.41 0.38 .09 −.03 .20** .24** .21** .16* .35** .39** .26** --
11. Narcissism 0.43 0.17 .05 −.11 .41** .55** .76** .59** .64** .63** .61** .56** --
12. Hostility 1.64 0.54 .14* −.15* .19** .24** .12 −.03 −.11 .21** .15* .05 .10 --
13. Conflict 2.19 0.63 .25** −.02 .14* .22** .19** −.05 −.07 .11 .14* .09 .12 .60** --
Open in a new tab

Note. Narcissism represents the total NPI score (scores range from 0 to 1), with subscales entitlement, authority, self-sufficiency, superiority, exhibitionism, exploitativeness, and vanity. NPI and PES were assessed at pretest; self-image goals, compassionate goals, hostility, and conflict were averaged over 10 weekly reports.

*

p<.05

**

p<.01.

Regression analysis showed that entitlement was significantly related to self-image goals when controlling for the other narcissism subscales and compassionate goals (Study 1A: β=.32, p<.016; Study 1B: β=.26, p<.048). The total NPI score, and the other subscales, were unrelated to self-image goals.

Consistent with our hypotheses, Studies 1A and 1B showed that people with high entitlement pursue goals to construct and inflate desired images of the self. Study 2 aimed to replicate the specificity of the entitlement finding in a larger sample while also examining the potential interpersonal problems that arise as a consequence of the self-image goals of highly entitled people. Study 2 assessed goals, entitlement, and perceived interpersonal conflict and hostility in a longitudinal design, and employed a second measure of psychological entitlement to address the low reliability of the entitlement scale of the NPI. We predicted that self-image goals would mediate the effects of entitlement on interpersonal conflict and hostility.

STUDY 2

Method

Participants and Procedure

Study 2 used data from the Goals and Adjustment to College Study (Crocker & Canevello, 2008), a 12-week longitudinal study consisting of a pretest, a posttest, and 10 weekly surveys. Participants were college students (N=199; 61% female; Mage=18.1; 71% Caucasian, 6% African American; 19% Asian American) who received $5 for each survey, plus a $40 bonus if they completed all 12 surveys.

At pretest, participants completed the NPI (Raskin & Terry, 1988) and the Psychological Entitlement Scale (Campbell et al., 2004), which consists of 9 items (e.g., “If I were on the Titanic, I would deserve to be on the first lifeboat!”; α = .83) rated on scales ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 7 (strong agreement).

Weekly surveys included measures of self-image and compassionate goals (Crocker & Canevello, 2008; the same items used in Study 1A), which exhibited good internal consistency each week of the study (self-image goals: .85<α<.95, Mα=.91; compassionate goals: .88<α<.96, Mα=.94), and measures of hostility and conflict. Weekly hostility was assessed using three items from the Brief Symptom Inventory (Derogatis, 2000). Items included “having urges to beat, injure, or harm someone,” “getting into frequent arguments,” and “feeling easily annoyed or irritated”. Weekly hostility exhibited adequate internal consistency each week of the study (.64<α<.78, Mα=.68). Weekly conflict was measured using one item: “In the past week, how often did you have conflicts with people?” All items from the weekly surveys were rated using 5-point scales.

Results

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among all variables used in Study 2. Data were analyzed using regression analysis. Again, due to intercorrelations among our variables of interest, and to establish the specificity of entitlement, all NPI entitlement analyses controlled for the other NPI subscales. No significant effects emerged for total NPI scores or any other NPI subscale in any analysis. All analyses also controlled for compassionate goals, because they correlated with self-image goals over the ten weeks.

Although the zero-order correlations were not significant, regression analysis showed that when we entered the control predictors, NPI entitlement and PES prospectively predicted self-image goals, averaged over the 10 weeks (β=.18, p<.019 and β=.23, p<.001). NPI entitlement prospectively predicted chronic hostility, averaged over the 10 weeks (β=.17, p<.042), as did PES (β=.16, p<.028). Both NPI entitlement and PES predicted chronic interpersonal conflict (β=.20, p<.023 and β=.14, p<.05). Chronic self-image goals, averaged over 10 weeks, predicted chronic hostility (β=.31, p<.001) and chronic interpersonal conflict (β=.36, p<.001).

Mediation

Chronic self-image goals mediated the effect of NPI entitlement (Sobel’s z=1.81, p<.07) and PES (Sobel’s z=2.51, p<.012) on weekly hostility. Chronic self-image goals also mediated the effect of NPI entitlement (Sobel’s z=1.99, p<.047) and PES (Sobel’s z=2.77, p<.006) on weekly conflict. In all mediation analyses, the effects of NPI entitlement and PES became nonsignificant, indicating complete mediation.

Discussion

Study 2 replicated Studies 1A and 1B by showing an association between entitlement and self-image goals. Study 2 extended these results by showing that two different measures of entitlement prospectively predict chronic self-image goals, averaged over the following ten weeks.

In Study 2, these relations only emerged when we controlled for compassionate goals, which was not unexpected because these chronic goals correlate over time (Crocker & Canevello, 2008). Therefore, detecting effects of one goal may require controlling for the other. We also caution that although we again found effects using the NPI entitlement subscale, its poor reliability remains a concern (Campbell et al., 2004). Therefore, replicating these relations with the PES, a more reliable measure of entitlement, increases confidence in our findings.

Importantly, the results of Study 2 also revealed that self-image goals mediated the effect of entitlement on perceived hostility and conflict in relationships. Thus, the self-image goals that entitled people adopt predict perceptions of interpersonal problems.

General Discussion

Narcissism, particularly a sense of entitlement, predicts a variety of negative outcomes (Campbell et al., 2004; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Vazire & Funder, 2006). Our results indicate that the self-image goals entitled people pursue might ultimately damage their relationships. Previous studies have not investigated the types of goals entitled people pursue, nor have they broadly linked such goals to the interpersonal consequences that ensue within a single theoretical framework.

All studies reported here revealed a unique effect of the entitlement subscale of the NPI, demonstrating the reliability and specificity of this effect; no other NPI subscale remained significant in the regressions, including the four subscales identified by Emmons (1987) (see supplementary online material). Thus, although other narcissism components may relate to self-image goals, our results suggest that such associations are explained by shared variance with entitlement. This perspective is consistent with the hypothesis that entitlement may be particularly responsible for narcissists’ maladaptive behavior (Bushman & Baumeister, 2002; Emmons, 1984, 1987).

Accordingly, our results also support previous research demonstrating problematic outcomes specifically associated with psychological entitlement. Although we acknowledge the impressive body of literature linking narcissism to interpersonal consequences (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Bushman et al., 2003; Kernis et al., 1989; Rhodewalt et al., 1998; Zeigler-Hill, 2006), we draw on recent research to suggest that entitlement may drive such associations (Bushman & Baumeister, 2002; Campbell et al., 2004; Reidy, Zeichner, Foster, & Martinez, 2008; van Dijk & De Cremer, 2006). But whether entitlement accounts for all narcissism findings, or only conflict-related findings, requires further research.

In general, our findings support the hypothesis that narcissism is self-defeating (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Narcissistic people often attempt to construct and inflate desired self-views in the eyes of others, such as boasting about accomplishments or flaunting money and possessions (Buss & Chiodo, 1991; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). However, people often perceive such strategies negatively, perhaps because the motivations underlying them likely come across as empty and selfish (Crocker & Canevello, 2008; Feeney & Collins, 2001, 2003; Schlenker & Leary, 1982; Turan & Horowitz, 2007). Thus, rather than receiving the attention and admiration they desire, narcissistic people instead alienate others.

Our mediation results indicated that self-image goals completely accounted for the effect of entitlement on conflict and hostility. These results are consistent with process models of personality, which posit that personality traits shape goals, affect, and cognition to produce behavior (Mischel, 2004; Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Mischel & Shoda, 1998). Our mediation findings suggest that reducing self-image goals (and, we speculate, adopting compassionate goals) could provide a sustainable approach for reducing the consequences of narcissism and entitlement. This idea is buttressed by zero-order correlations indicating negative associations between entitlement (both measures) and compassionate goals in Study 2 (see Table 2), and by our previous work showing that establishing an interpersonal connection in a laboratory setting can reduce narcissistic aggression (Konrath, Bushman, & Campbell, 2006). This idea of shifting toward compassionate goals is also consistent with recent calls to replace self-esteem programs with programs that encourage empathy (Twenge, 2006).

Several limitations of these studies should be acknowledged. First, these studies relied on correlations, and therefore other causal sequences could account for these data. For example, a childhood characterized by lack of (or inconsistent) parental support could give rise to the pathological self-focus and unstable self-esteem that characterize narcissism, as classical clinical accounts have emphasized (Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971); this kind of childhood could similarly give rise to chronic self-image goals, in which people who experienced deficient parental support chronically feel the need to prove their worth to others. We consider this explanation to be less plausible, though, because narcissism relates positively to parental warmth, and to recollections of pervasive parental admiration (Horton, Bleau, & Drwecki, 2006; Otway & Vignoles, 2006). Competition contingencies of self-worth, which correlate with both narcissism and self-image goals, may also be involved (Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003; Moeller & Crocker, 2008; Zeigler-Hill, Clark, & Pickard, 2008). Therefore, only experimental studies that manipulate self-image goals can establish causality.

Another limitation involves these studies’ inability to assess objective markers of conflict and hostility. Study 2 relied on self-reports from only one person; future studies could use dyads, perhaps observing them while they interact in the laboratory (e.g., Roisman, Clausell, Holland, Fortuna, & Elieff, 2008). We note, though, that socially desirable responding and other demand characteristics are probably not especially prominent in these studies, because we believe few people would arbitrarily report relationship conflict and hostility if none existed. Nevertheless, future studies should remedy some of these concerns.

In summary, these studies have shown that entitled people pursue self-image goals, which aim to construct and inflate a desired image of the self. However, their self-image goals appear to damage their relationships, breeding relationship conflict and hostility, outcomes contrary to the admiration and respect they desire from others. By pursuing self-image goals, entitled people appear to create exactly the opposite of what they want.

Supplementary Material

01

Footnotes

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 citable 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.

Contributor Information

Scott J. Moeller, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan

Jennifer Crocker, Department of Psychology and Institute for Social Research.

Brad J. Bushman, Departments of Psychology and Communication Studies and Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4. Washington, DC: Author; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  2. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD. Narcissism as addiction to esteem. Psychological Inquiry. 2001;12(4):206–210. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bushman BJ, Baumeister RF. Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998;75(1):219–229. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.75.1.219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bushman BJ, Baumeister RF. Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Research in Personality. 2002;36(6):543–545. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.75.1.219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bushman BJ, Bonacci AM, van Dijk M, Baumeister RF. Narcissism, sexual refusal, and aggression: Testing a narcissistic reactance model of sexual coercion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;84(5):1027–1040. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Buss DM, Chiodo LM. Narcissistic acts in everyday life. Journal of Personality. 1991;59(2):179–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00773.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Campbell WK, Bonacci AM, Shelton J, Exline JJ, Bushman BJ. Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2004;83(1):29–45. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Crocker J, Canevello A. Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008;95(3):555–575. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Crocker J, Luhtanen RK, Cooper ML, Bouvrette A. Contingencies of Self-Worth in College Students: Theory and Measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;85(5):894–908. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Derogatis LR. Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) 18 administration, scoring, and procedures manual. Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  11. Emmons RA. Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1984;48(3):291–300. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Emmons RA. Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987;52(1):11–17. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.52.1.11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Feeney BC, Collins NL. Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;80(6):972–994. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Feeney BC, Collins NL. Motivations for caregiving in adult intimate relationships: Influences on caregiving behavior and relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2003;29(8):950–968. doi: 10.1177/0146167203252807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Horton RS, Bleau G, Drwecki B. Parenting Narcissus: What Are the Links Between Parenting and Narcissism? Journal of Personality. 2006;74(2):345–376. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00378.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kernberg OF. Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York: Aronson; 1975. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kernis MH, Grannemann BD, Barclay LC. Stability and level of self-esteem as predictors of anger arousal and hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1989;56(6):1013–1022. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.56.6.1013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kohut H. The analysis of the self. New York: International University Press; 1971. [Google Scholar]
  19. Konrath S, Bushman BJ, Campbell WK. Attenuating the Link Between Threatened Egotism and Aggression. Psychological Science. 2006;17(11):995–1001. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01818.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Leary MR. Motivational and Emotional Aspects of the Self. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007;58:317–344. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Mischel W. Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology. 2004;55:1–22. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.042902.130709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mischel W, Shoda Y. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review. 1995;102(2):246–268. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Mischel W, Shoda Y. Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology. 1998;49:229–258. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Moeller SJ, Crocker J. Linking contingencies of self-worth to compromised well-being: The mediating role of self-image goals. University of Michigan Ann Arbor; 2008. Unpublished Manuscript. [Google Scholar]
  25. Moeller SJ, Crocker J, Canevello A. Compassionate goals and feeling connected: Enhancing self-regulation of the self and others. University of Michigan Ann Arbor; 2008. Unpublished Manuscript. [Google Scholar]
  26. Morf CC, Rhodewalt F. Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry. 2001;12(4):177–196. [Google Scholar]
  27. Otway LJ, Vignoles VL. Narcissism and Childhood Recollections: A Quantitative Test of Psychoanalytic Predictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2006;32(1):104–116. doi: 10.1177/0146167205279907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Raskin R, Terry H. A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988;54(5):890–902. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.5.890. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Reidy DE, Zeichner A, Foster JD, Martinez MA. Effects of narcissistic entitlement and exploitativeness on human physical aggression. Personality and Individual Differences. 2008;44(4):865–875. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rhodewalt F, Madrian JC, Cheney S. Narcissism, self-knowledge organization, and emotional reactivity: The effect of daily experiences on self-esteem and affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1998;24(1):75–87. [Google Scholar]
  31. Roisman GI, Clausell E, Holland A, Fortuna K, Elieff C. Adult romantic relationships as contexts of human development: A multimethod comparison of same-sex couples with opposite-sex dating, engaged, and married dyads. Developmental Psychology. 2008;44(1):91–101. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Schlenker BR. Self-presentation. In: Leary MR, Tangney JP, editors. Handbook of self and identity. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 2003. pp. 492–518. [Google Scholar]
  33. Schlenker BR, Leary MR. Audiences’ reactions to self-enhancing, self-denigrating, and accurate self-presentations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1982;18(1):89–104. [Google Scholar]
  34. Turan B, Horowitz LM. Can I count on you to be there for me? Individual differences in a knowledge structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007;93(3):447–465. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Twenge JM. Generation Me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled--and more miserable than ever before. New York, NY, US: Free Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  36. Twenge JM, Konrath S, Foster JD, Campbell WK, Bushman BJ. Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality. 2008;76:875–901. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00507.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. van Dijk E, De Cremer D. Self-Benefiting in the Allocation of Scarce Resources: Leader-Follower Effects and the Moderating Effect of Social Value Orientations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2006;32(10):1352–1361. doi: 10.1177/0146167206290338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Vazire S, Funder DC. Impulsivity and the Self-Defeating Behavior of Narcissists. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2006;10(2):154–165. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Zeigler-Hill V. Discrepancies Between Implicit and Explicit Self-Esteem: Implications for Narcissism and Self-Esteem Instability. Journal of Personality. 2006;74(1):119–143. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00371.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Zeigler-Hill V, Clark CB, Pickard JD. Narcissistic subtypes and contingent self-esteem: Do all narcissists base their self-esteem on the same domains? Journal of Personality. 2008;76(4):753–774. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00503.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

01
NIHMS115044-supplement-01.doc (22.5KB, doc)

RESOURCES