This article was downloaded by: [ECU Libraries] On: 26 April 2015, At: 07:23 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
New Narcissism Scales for the California Psychological Inventory and MMPI Paul Wink & Harrison G. Gough Published online: 22 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: Paul Wink & Harrison G. Gough (1990) New Narcissism Scales for the California Psychological Inventory and MMPI, Journal of Personality Assessment, 54:3-4, 446-462, DOI: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674010 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9674010
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 1990, 54(3&4), 446-462 Copyright CD 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
New Narcissism Scales for the California Psychological Inventory and MMPI Paul Wink and Harrison G . Gough
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
Institute of Personality Assessment and Research University of California, Berkeley
New Narcissism scales for the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and the Minnesota Multiphasic PersonalityInventory (MMPI)were developed on the basis of DSM-111 criteria and the writings of Akhtar and Thomson (1982), Kernberg (1975) and Kohut (1971, 1977). Self-report protocols from 152 adults and 198 college students were utilized. Rationally selected preliminary items were retained or discarded according to their alignment with the total score on these items. The resulting 49-item CPI and 39-item MMPI scales correlated .81 with each other, and significantly so at p < .O1 with ratings of narcissism, the Raskin-Hall Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI)and the MMPI Narcissism scale of Morey, Waugh, and Blashfield. Personological implications of the two new scales were examined in relation to other measures and to observers' adjectival and Q-sort descriptions. Intrascale factor analyses identified five common themes: Cathexis of Power, Risk-SeekingPropensity, Need for Attention, Disesteem for Others, and Impatient Willfulness.
The last 25 years has witnessed a burgeoning interest in narcissism. A tangible expression of this interest has been the inclusion of narcissism as one of the personality disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed. [DSM-1111; American Psychiatric Association, 1980). However, research on narcissism has not been confined within the boundaries of clinical psychiatry. The concept has been used to analyze core aspects of contemporary American culture (Lasch, 1978); the personality of American corporate leaders (Macoby, 1977); and characteristics such as creativity, wisdom, and humor (Kohut, 1971). Although narcissism has received particular attention from psychoanalysis (Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971,1977; Rosenfeld, 1964), other theoretical avenues
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
NEW NARCISSISM SCALES
447
have also been scrutinized. For example, Millon (1981) presented a social learning theory of narcissism. Also, DSM-I11 lists diagnostic criteria for the disorder that are independent of any specific theloretical orientation. The reason for current interest in narcissism is not obvious. It might be argwed that this interest reflects the increase in narcissism in contemporary Western society (Kohut, 1977; Lasch, 1978); or it could be related to the developmer~tof new and more effective treatment methods (Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971); or it could indicate a greater sensitivity of contemporary clinicians and researchers to narcissistic phenomena. The definition of narcissism has been slow in achieving consensus among clinicians. One reason is the multiplicity of uses to which the concept of narcissism has been applied (Pulver, 1970). For instance, narcissism has variously been used to denote a sexual perversion (Freud, 1914/1953), a developmental stage (Freud, 1914/1953; Kohut, 1971), a mode of relating to others (Breniner, 1955; Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971), and a cllinical syndrome (Akhtar & Thomson, 1982; Kernberg, 1975). Lack of consensus also stems from the fact that some writers refer to narcissistic phenomena without use of the term narcissism. Adler's (1912/1917) concept of neurotic character, for example, was in many ways similar to Freud's formulations of narcissism (Ansbacher, 1985). With the appearance of DSM-111, however, convergence of meaninp seemed to be within reach. The joint occurrence of ambivalent self-esteem (see Adler, 1912/ 1917) and pathological grandiosity seems to be key elen~cntsin narcissism. Other symptoms such as exhibitionism, lack of empathy, entitlement, exploitativeness, and rage in response to criticism may be seen as secondary manifestations of the key elements. The convergence in formulations of the syndrome, however, does not preclude differences among the various classificatory schema (Akhtar & Thomson, 1982; Ronningstam, 1985). For example, Kernberg (1975, 1986) listed excessive overwhelming envy, both on a conscious and unconscious level, as a primary index of pathological, narcissistic object love. In contrast, DSM-IlI(1980) does not mention envy in its criteria of narcissistic personality disorder, and Akhtar and Thomson (19821 cited envy only as a covert, ego-syntonic feature of interpersonal relations. It should also be noted that not all contemporary clinicians welcome or even accept the concept of inarcissism. Dyrud (1983), for example, commented on the confusion generated by attempts to distinguish between 'primary" and 'secoindary" narcissism, and o n the questionable relevance of the concept of narcissism to psychotherapeutic concerns. The existence of an agreed-upon definition of narcissistic syndrome, in addition, does not rule out the possibility of atypical instances of the phenc~menon. Atypical cases can be divided into two groups: (a) one including individuals who present themselves in an anxious, timid, and insecure manner, but
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
448
WINK AND GOUGH
whose fantasies and daydreams are replete with grandiosity; and (b) the other group of individuals whose grandiosity is openly projected onto a partner (e.g., in an intimate relationship) or onto a political, ideological, or religious idea, movement, or group (Kernberg, 1986). An example of this second category is the seemingly humble guru who espouses love for mankind in the abstract, bur who is totally uninterested in concrete personal relations (Kemberg, 1986). Contemporary formulations of narcissism do not differentiate on tha basis of gender (DSM-111, 1980; Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 19711, wheteas Freud (1914/1953) believed that narcissism was more common in women than men, His argument was based on the assumption that women are more prcsxoccupied with their own physical beauty and that they tend to make object choicm in reference to qualities desired for the self. Nonerheless, it nay be that gender differenaes in narcissism are not reflected in varying prwaksrce rates af the disordet among men and women but rather relatti to dif&rences in he manikstatitm. The!once common notion of phallic narcissism (Bursten, 1979; W, &eich, flpgrant disphy of 1949), with its strem on self-assurance, arrogance, ~@@r@bsiusn,~ superiority, and ebullient enekgy, seems more &pplicable?to men than women. On the other hand, women seem to be mare Ziblg to sngzqe In saraksiscl conflicts over self-ax#eem, resulting in a patmm of relatianships ichaxr~ct&kdby idealikatirbn, merger, and atrachmmt to an inoimatltr pamm i)r an emaithqlly charged cause @hilipson, 1985; A. Reich, 19531, The grdwth~dfntare~ltin narcissism has rcsulmd in a v a r i ~ gof memares for asrresdng the c~n~ma. For oxample, Exnm (1969) d e ~ e l o p da hxslchach scoring system fm narcissism, and Harder (1979) propos~dcnitmia for domkting the syqdrome &am early memories, the Thmatic Apperception Test VAT), and the Rorschach. An observer's rating scale to measure Xohut's concepaualizatim of narcissism was publishd by Pawon, Qanmior, qad Scott (1982). Q'grien (1987) developed a 75-itern se&report solille d<p&%Ito Measwre p81trholtrgin;aln&r@dlsmg defined itr D&'M-IIX afid in the & d ~ gof MiUw (l98l). The Mikm Clidrd Midtiaxial hvemtory { M m :h$l&m,1982), ccslmMins a naicis&m ptur~dn&ty &brdw male, 1 of 11 measures em Ca~ss& ~ S r l - f l petsor;~4litydhrd@s+ The niost: rhorovghly researched scale for nardssism appear$ to be the Raskin-Hall 54-item NM (Raskin & Wall, 1979, 1941). Rqmleseihtarive validaqianal studies include that by Prifimra and R y w (1984) on the (l9M) disc&dmpt validiq of the NPI within a patient popuhion; i%u@rbadh!k; srudy af the NPI and the MCMT swle for pwcis&iing ariarid Ekamon~b(1981) analysis of the relation hetween the NPJ and disi&ibitia'~-r,lexp&#ima~ @e~king, and boredom suacegtibility-these latter notions am il&xc&by @heZuck~rman Sensati~ln&keki$g&ale (Zuckermaa &tLink, 19626$. A faator adalysb d the NPI by Emmo& (1ullM)idenrifled four major themes: Expkbi'tlkt$~y~n@sd6hti,t~eusly:~~, Led~r$hip/Aatbori.ty,S'qv@ht&ydAdgance, A Isicer factor analysl by RcaaYia and and S~~&Ahrption/S~11F-Artmi1:ationh
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
NEW NARCISSISM SCALES
449
Terry (1988) identified seven dimensions: Authority, Exhibitionism, Superiority, Vanity, Exploitativeness, Entitlement, and Self-Sufficiency. Raskin and Terry also reported two second-level factors: Control of Others, and SelfAdmiration. Several narcissism scales have been developed for the MMPI. The first seems to be a Masculinity-Femininity (Mj) Ego-Sensitivity subscale by Pepper and Strong (1958). Graham, Schroeder, and Lilly (1971) identified a similar narcissistic sensitivity theme in their factor analysis of the Mfand Social Introversion (Si) scale items. Serkownek (1975) also proposed a Naucissism-Hypersensitivity subscale within the MMPI Mf scale. A different approach to the MMPI was taken by Ashby, Lee, and Duke (1979), who studied responses of 20 patients diagnosed as narcissistic. They selected items that differentiated the criterion group from a sample of nonnarcissistic psychotherapy patients and also from individuals not in treatment. Solomon (1982) evaluated the Ashby, Lee, and Duke's measure of narcissism, finding a negative correlation with the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, a negative correlation with self-reported involvement in a satisfying love relationship and a positive correlation with frequency of nightmares; the findings were interpreted as supportive of hypotheses derived from Kohut's formulation of narcissism. A n MMPI narcissism scale was also developed by Morey, Waugh, and Blashfield (1985) as 1 of 11 measures to assess each of the personality disorders included in the DSM-111, These authors asked four experienced clinicians to assign MMPI items to the 11 categories. If two agreed, the item was placed in that preliminary scale. Then the 11 tentative scales were analyzed in a sample of 475 patients, for which item endorsement rates of high-scoring versus low-scoring patients on each scale were contrasted. This internal consistency strategy led to the retention of 3 1 items for the Narcissism scale, of which 14 did not appear on any of the other 10 scales. Largest cotrelations between the Narcissism scale and standard MMPI scales were - .62 with Si, - .58 with Depression (D) and .44 with Hypomania (Ma).
NEW MEASURES We now turn to the development of two new narcissism scales, one for the CPI (see Gough, 1957, 1987), and one for the MMPI (see Hathaway & McKinley, 1940). Development of complementary narcissism scales for the CPI and the MMPI should facilitate research on data pools such as those at the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research (PAR) where both inventories are routinely used. The absence up to now of a measure of narcissism for the CPI is another reason for our work. Narcissism was conceptualized in regard to four baeic themes drawn from the
450
WINK AND GOUGH
,
criteria of Akhtar and Thomson (1982), Kernberg (1975), Kohut (1971, 1977) and DSM-111. The first is exaggerated self-esteem associated with fantasies of power and brilliance. The second is devaluation of others, with intense competitiveness and envy of other's attainments. The third is feelings of entitlement, that is, being above and beyond the dictates of ordinary social conventions. The fourth is dissatisfmtion with cuwent statws or feelings of underappreciation.
METHOD
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
Participants Participants were 350 individuals (175 men, 175 women) who had taken part in studies at IPAR between 1972 and 1984. Subjects included 152 San Francisco Bay Area residents (76 couples) and 198college sophomores at Berkeley (99men, 99 women). Eighty-two of the Bay Area residents were seen in weekend assessments dealing with issues in population psychology; the other 70 were interviewed by two staff psychologists and were administered a 6-hr battery of questionnaires pertaining to personal history, coping methods, and interpersonal dependency. The Berkeley students all participated in weekend assessments at IPAR. The 76 Bay Area men ranged in age from 21 to 59 pars (M = 37.09, SD = 10.22); the 76 Bay Area women ranged in age from 20 to 57 years (M = 34.54, SD = 10.22). Nearly all of the college students were between 18 and 21 years of age, with a strong mode at 19.
Assessment Procedures The 280 assessed subjects came to PAR in groups of 10 or 12 and took part in a variety of activities including two or three personal interviews, observational methods (e.g., a game of charades or leaderless group discussions), laboratory tasks in perception, informal contacts with the PAR staff, and monitored testing. Each of the 280 assessees was described by a panel of from five to seven observers on Block's (1961) California Q-set (CAQ-set).The 70 adults seen only in interviews were described by two observers on the CAQ-set items. The CAQ-set formulations of each subject were composited and made comparable to each other by rearranging the items into the prescribed frequencies. &o, within the 76 couples, each man was described on the Adjective Check List (ACL; Gough & Heilbrun, 1983) by his female partner, and each woman was described on the ACL by her male partner. For the college students only, assessment staff ratings of narcissisfn were assigned to 57 students; the other 141 students were not rated for narcissism. The definition of narcissism used by the raters was "self-admiration that is
NEW NARCISSISM SCALES
451
characterized by tendencies toward grandiose ideas, fantasized talents, exhibitionism, and defensiveness in response to criticism; and by interpersonal relations that are characterized by feelings of entitlement, exploitativeness, and lack of empathy."
Self-Report Measures All of the 350 subjects took the CPI a d the MIWZ; in addition, all took the ACL, and 57 of the students to& the Raskin-Hall MJImentioned earlier.
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
DEVELOPNMNR'OF SCALES Construction of the two narcissism scales was based on preliminary rational selection of CPI and E W I items, followed by internal consistency analyses and checks for unwanted correlations with other scales such as Si and Ma on the MMPI, and Self-control and Intellectual Efficiency on the CM. Using the Sour previously mentioned criteria for narcissism, each author independently reviewed all CPI and MMM items and selected those believed to be characteristic of narcissism. Items on which both agreed were retained for the first version of each scale. Next, all of the MMPI and CPI items were correlated with the two scales we developed. Items initially selected that now had correlations below .20 were dropped; new items with correlations of .25 or more were considered as possible additions. This process was repeated 13 times, gradually pruning items from the ~ r e l i m i n a rscales ~ and adding new items exhibiting strong correlations. Simultaneously, items at each stage were reviewed far their correlations with scales for which we wanted to keep relations moderate to low. For instance, the first four preliminary versions of the narcissism scales had very high correlations with MMPI Pd and Ma and with CPI Self-Control and Sociability scales. Items correlating more with these scales than with the narcissism scales were dropped. This itemmetric technique for maximizing internal consistency while minimizing unwanted correlations with other variables has been used by others in the past, for instance by Gough (1957/1%2) in the development of his Differential Reaction Schedule for components of the creative personality and by Jackson (1967)in the development of scales for his IPersonality Research Form. In addition to these psychometric requirements, all items had to be clearly related in content to the concept of narcissism. As just stated, 13 such analyses were carried out before acceptable versions of each narcissism scale were developed. The MMPI scale contained 39 items, and the CM scale had 49. Because approximately 200 MMPI items were used in the original construction of the CM, it turned out that there were 14 overlapping or common items between the two scales. The MMPI item numbers for the new Narcissism scale and their scoring are as
452
WINK AND GOUGH
follows-True: 73,75,89, 109, 112, 117, 124, 165,208,233,248,271, 277,299, 348,355,380,400,406,410,426,434,438,440,447,452,456,469,504,520,529; and False: 4,82, 111, 261, 276,444,463, 503. The item numbers for the 49-item CPI scale are reported here for the old 480-item version of the CPI; on the two items with different location in the current 462-item version (Gough, 19871, the new numbers are enclosed in parentheses, The items and their scoring are as follows: True: 4,32, 39, 53,60, 78,80,81, 102, 112, 128, 129, 130, 142, 146, 171, 179, 206,209,225, 231,250, 262,267,275,293,2%,3b7,320,327,329,379,376,397,399,403,412,4dKT, 476 (407); and False: 7, 217,230,286,304,348, 380,385,443,478 (427).
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
RESULTS Tentative norms for the 49-item CPI and the 39-item MMPI Narcissism scales are provided in Table 1 for the samples in which scale development occurred, for other adults and college samples, and for the basic normative samples for the CPI. College students scored higher on both scales than did adults. Adult males scored higher than adult females on both the CPI (t = 2.58, p < .05) and the MMPI (t = 4.06, p < .01) scales. Male college studenrs scored significantly higher than females on the MME'I scale (t = 2.15, p < .05), but not on the CPI scale. For the 350 subjects used in the development of the scales, the alpha internal consistency coefficients were -80 for the CPI Narcissism scale and .72 for the MMPI Narcissism scale. Test-retest reliability of the CPI scale only was evaluated on a sample of 86 women tested at ages 21 and 27 (Helson, 19671, giving rise to a coefficient of .71. Further, in a sample of 237 high school students, the test-retest reliability of the CPI scale at ages 16 and 17 was .69 (.65 for the 108 men and .71 for the 129 women). Correlation between the full CPI and MMPI TABLE 1 Norms for the New CPI and W
I Narcissism Scales MMPI Scale
CPI Scale kple
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
76 99 1000
25.92 26.83 24.21
6.89 7.12 6.47
76 99
20.50 21.03
4.88 5.16
76 99 1000
23.09 25.53 21.72
6.66 6.91 6.51
76 99
17.30 19.39
5.16 4.88 -
Males Adults College students CPI norm groups Females Adults College Students CPI norm groups
-
-
-
-
-
NEW NARCISSISM SCALES
453
Narcissism scales was .81; when the 14 common items were deleted from both scales, the correlation dropped to .71. In regard to response sets, the CPI Narcissism scale correlated .15 (P < .01) with Dicken's (1963) scale for social desirability and .M ( p < .01) with his scale for acquiescence in a sample of 350 subjects. The MMPI Narcissism scale correlated .05 (ns) with Edwards's (1957) Social Desirability scale and .36 (P < .01) with Edwards's Acquiescence scale (Edwards, Gocka, & Holloway, 1964) in a sample of 350 subjects. Table 2 gives correlations of the CPI and MMPI Narcissism scales with standard scales on the revised form of the CPI. The two arrays of correlations are very similar in pattern, as indicated by an intercolumnar product-momlent correlation of .98. As expected, the CPI Narcissism scale correlated more strongly with other CPI scales than did the MMP[ Narcissism scale, due to item
-
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
-
TABLE 2
Correlations of the CPI and MMPI Narcissism Scales With the Standard Scales of the California Psychological Inventory
-
CPI Scales Dominance Capacity for Status Sociability Social Presence Self-Acceptance Independence Empathy Responsibility Socialization Self-control Good Impression Communality Well-Being Tolerance Achievement via Conformance Achievement via Independence Intellectual Efficiency Psychological-Mindedness Flexibility Femininity-Masculinity Internality (Vector 1) Norm-Favoring (Vector 2) Self-Realization (Vector 3) Note. N = 350.
Common ltems
4 1 6 2 3 2 0 4 5 13 4 6
CPI Narcissism
r
- .04
-.19** - .38** - 16** - .08 .02 - .06 - .03 -.39** - .70** - .09 -.31**
.
MMPI Nar&i_m r
- .04 - .22** - .45** - .23** - .20**
- .08 - .14**
- .06 - .42** - SO** - .09 -.38**
-
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
454
WINK AND GOUGH
overlap. The number of common items between each CPI standard scale and the CPI Narcissism scale varied from 0 for Psychological-Mindedness to 13 for the Internality Vector scale. For both Narcissism scales, the two largest correlations were with CPI Self-Control and the Internality Vector scale. Persons scoring high on either narcissism measure will thus tend toward undercantrol of aggtessive and erotic drives and will pursue interactive, participatory modes oftelating to athem. Moderately positive correlations for both narcissism acales w m noted for Social Presence, Sie!lffAcceptance,and bninaEICe. A m m o n theme in these scales is an awertivq, selfmferenced, ofien manipulative solcial style. Table 3 presents camlatima between the two Narcissism scales and the standard scales of the MEvlPI, The two arrays bf correlations are again $imilar in pattern, a5 indicated by an iht~rccrlummarceinrrdation,of +99 for 12 af the variables (Mfwas omitted because af its differentscaring for males and females). For both Narcissism scales, the strongest relationships in Table 2 are with Ma. Persons high on either Narcissism scde will itland to manifest the high energy level, expressive motionztlity, and impati~ncr:aesociated with hi&& i.sc3wres on I
Ma.
TABLE 3 Correlations of the New CPI and MMPI Narcissism Scales With the Standard Scales of the MMPI
common Items
MMPI Scales
L F K
2 3 3 0 5 3 2 6 6 6 0 2 6 8
+ .5K
Hs D
HY
+
Pd .4K Mf" Mf Pa
Pt
+K
+K + .2K
Sc Ma Si
MMPI Narcissism
CPI Narcisinn
r
r
- .37** .22** - .34** - .12* - .21** -.22** .11*
- .04 - .22** .02 - .07 .12* .57** - .20**
-.28** .19**
- .29** -.12* - .22** -.16** .13* .07 -.16** .O 1 -.11* .07 .50** - .23**
(a,
Note. Scale abbreviations are as follows: Lie (L),Fake Bad (F), Defensiveness Hypochondriasis (Hs), Depression (D), Hysteria (Hy), Psychopathic Deviate (Pd), Masculinity-Femininity (Mf), Paranoia (Pa), Psychasthenia (Pt), Schizophrenia (Sc), Hypomania (Ma), and Social Introversion (Si). an = 175 men. bn = 175 women.
*p c .05. **p
< .01.
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
NEW NARCISSISM SCALES
455
An interesting finding in regard to self-presentational style is the pair of negative correlations with the Lie (L) scale. High scorers on our narcissism scales tended not to give the self-aggrandizing,unsophisticated, positive answers that lead to elevated scores on L. The same negative finding occurred for the more subtle Defensiveness (K) scale. Whatever the reason may be for the manipulativeness and self-deception associated with higher scores on the Narcissism scales, they do not appear to draw on the conformist exaggeration of virtue and coping strengths indexed by L and, to a lesser extent, by K. To examine the relation between our two new narcissism scales and prior measures of narcissism, we correlated them with the scales of Ashby et al. (1979), Pepper and Strong (1958), Serkownek (1975), Ii4orey et al. (1985), the NPI (Raskin & Hall, 1979), and with P A R staff ratings of narcissism. As shown in Table 4, substantial positive correlations were found among the first three narcissism scales, but these three neither related strongly to the next four nor to the rating of narcissism. If the observers' rating of narcissism is accepted as a tentative criterion, it appears that our two new scales, the NPI, and that developed by Molrey and her colleagues are more valid than the other three.
Elaboration of Meaning Another source of information concerning the meaning of a scale is its relation to other well-known variables; Tables 2,3, and 4 present this type of information. Both of the new narcissism measures were associated with scales indicative of impulsiveness, doubt concerning the good intentions of others, antinormative feelings, assertiveness, alienation, impatience, and easy irritability; all of these implications are consonant with conceptions of the narcissistic personality. The meaning of a scale may also be inferred to a certain extent from its content. To explore this domain, the items in the two new scales were subjected to principal components factor analyses. O n the basis of an inspection of the scree plot of eigenvalues, five orthogonal factors were extracted for each of the scales. The five factors for the CPI Narcissism scale accounted for 28% of the cumulative variance, whereas those for the MMPI Narcissism scale accounted for 29%. Aker rearrangement for sequence, the five factors for each scale appeared to be concordant. The following inferred themes are listed, with CPI and MMPI factor numbers cited, along with representative items.
1. Cathexis of Power and Ego Expansiveness (CPI Factor 1, MMPI Factor 4). Representative items: "I wodd be willing to describe myself as a pretty strong personality," and "I'm not the type to be a political leader" (false; CPI). "If given the chance I could do some things that would be of great benefit to the world'' (true), and 'I1 think that I feel more intensely than most people do" (true; MMPI). 2. Risk-Seeking Propensity (CPI Factor 4, MMPI Factor 1)- Representative
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
TABLE 4 Intercorrelations Among Seven Scales for Narcissism and Observers' Ratings of Narcissism
Dedptive Statistics Intercovelatiom Among Variables 2
Variables
1. Ashby, Lee, & Duke (1979) MMPI Narcissism scak 2. Pepper & Strong (1958) MMPI Narcissism scale 3. Serkownek (1975) MMPI Narcissism scale
.54**
3
4
5
6
Females
Mates
7
8
M
SD
M
SD
.57**
-.26**
.15**
.17**
-.26**
-.03
6.05
2.71
5.86
2.49
.87**
-.28**
.07
.06
-.27*
-.I7
7.45
2.95
8.74
2.50
-.I+**
.26**
.28**
-.02
-.I1
7.35
3.48
8.33
3.05
.54**
.54**
.71**
.36**
18.03
3.84
17.17
4.13
.81**
.72**
.49**
26.43
7.00
24.47
6.89
.67**
30* .47**
21.24 19.71
5.10 832
18.33 19.13
5.03 9.43
50.21
10.78
49.79
9.47
4. Morey, Waugh, & Blashfield (1985) MMPI Narcissism scale 5. Wink & Cough 49-item CPI Narcissism scale
6. Wink b Gough 39-item MMPI Narcissism scale
7. Raskin-Ha11 (1979) NPI Narcissism scale 8. Observers' standardized
~
ratings of narcissism -
&%
-
--
*p s .05. **p 5 .Ol.
(28 males, ZST females) for the NPI a d observers' ratings.
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
NEW NAKCISSISM SCALES
$57
items: "Seomtimes I rather enjoy going against the rules and doing things I'm not supposed to do" (true), and uIthink I would like to drive a racing car" (true; CPI). Y have never done anything dangerous for the thrill of it" (false), and 9 used to like hopscotch" (false; MMPI). 3. Need for Attention (CPI Factor 2, MMPI Factor 3). Representative items: "I like to be the center of attention" (true), and "Iam apt to show off in some way if I get the chance" (true; CPI). *I like to know some important people because it makes me feel important" (true), and Y like to flirt" (true; MMPI). 4. Disesteem for Others (CPI Factor 3, MMPI Factor 2). Representative items: "People pretend to care more about cane another than they really do" (true), and "It takes a lot of argument to convince most people of the truth" (true; CPI). "Most people are honest chiefly through fear of being caught" (true), and 4 tend to be on my guard with people who are somewhat more friendly than I had expected (true; MMPI). 5. Willfulness and Impatience (CPI Factor 5, MMPI Factor 5). Representative items: "I would rather be a steady and dependable worker than a brilliant but unstable one" (false), and "1usually try to do what is expected of me, and to avoid criticism" (false; CPI). "I strongly defend my own opinions as a rule" (true), and uI do not try to correct people who express an ignorant belief' (false; MMPI). A third source of information concerning the meaning of a variable is its relationship to observer-based data (Gough, 1965).For such data we turn first to descriptions by observers on Block's (1961) CAQ-set. These descriptions were obtained by compositing the ratings of a panel of from two to seven IPAR staff observers into a single observer-data array. Then each of the 100 CAQset items was correlated with scores on the two Narcissism scales in the sample of 350 subjects. To avoid an oversupply of such information, only the 8 items with largest positive correlations and the 8 with largest negative correlations are presented here. The coefficients after each item are for the CPI scale and the MMPI scale, in that order. 1. Observers; CAR-set descriptions associated with higher scores on the Narcissism scales: a. Characteristically pushes and tries to stretch limits; sees what he can get away with (.31, .35). b. Is power oriented; values power in self and others (30, .31). c. Behaves in an assertive fashion (.24, .34). d. Values own independence and autonomy (.24, .30). e. Various needs tend toward relatively direct and uncontrolled expression; unable to delay gratification (.25, .27). f. Expresses hostile feelings directly (-25, .26). g. Tends to be rebellious and nonconforming (.23, .28). h. Is self-indulgent (.24, .24).
458
WINK AND GOUGH
2. Observers' CAQ-set descriptions associated with lower scores on the Narcissism scales: a. Genuinely submissive; accepts domination comfortably ( .3 1, .42). b. Behaves in a sympathetic or considerate manner (- .27, .34). c. Tends toward overcontrol of needs and impulses; binds tensions excess.ively; delays graci.fics:tion unnecessarily (- -26, -.33). d. Ekhaves in a giving way toward others (- .24, -..32). e. Arousltlls numrant feelings in others (- -22, .30}. f. Behaves in an athicsully c~nsistentmanner; i s emwistent with own personal standards (- ,20, .26). g. Reluctant to commit self to any definite course of action ( .l9, - .3 1). h. Seeks reassurance fram others ( .l9, .25).
-
-
-
-
-
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
-
-
-
Also in the domain of observer-based data, we examined ACL descriptions provided by the 76 Bay Area couples. Each man was described on the 300 ACL items by his female partner, and likewise each woman was described on the ACL by her male partner. Dummy weights of 1 were used for an item that was checked and 0 for an item left blank; in the total sample of 152 ptrsons, these weights were correlated with scores on each scale. The 10 adjectives with largest positive correlations with the CPI and MMPI Narcissism scales were: bossy (.35, .34), cruel (.32, .28), egotistical 633, .23), oursp~ken(.32, .25), conceited (27, .32), demmding ( 31, ,25), aggressive (.SO, .24), intoletant (,29, .29), forceful (-28, .27), and hard-headed (-27, .25), The 10 adjectives with largest negative clorrerlatian~were: feminin~I-.21, .30), h a d s t ( .26, .28), kind ( -25, .M),mild ( ,241, .IT), modest (-.23, -,21),conten:te$(-.21, -,14),matu~e(-.18, -.18),organizd(-.17, -.14), sinate (--14, -.17), and cheetful (-.I>, -.14). The 16 CAQ-set descriptions and the 20 adjectival dwriptions of persons wiah hiher wr lower; scares on the two Narcissbjx scale$ seem to be quite consonant with what would be expected for a meaxrura of rhk syndrome.
-
-
-
- -
-
-
DISCUSSION The new 49-item CM and the 39-item MMPI Narcissism scales appear to meet the reliability and validity requirements expected of self-report scales. Internal reliabilities were .72 (MMPI) and .82 (CPI),and a 5-year test-retest correlation of .7 1 was obtained for the CPI scale. The two scales are quite similar to each other, as evidenced by a correlation of .81 between them, and by similarity in their correlations with other measures and shared relations to observers' descriptions. Also, both scales correlated significantly (P < .01) with observers' ratings of narcissism in a sample of 57 college undergraduaks. Early in this article we proposed four themes as being central to the concept
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
NEW NARCISSISM SCALES
459
of narcissism. Do these themes appear in the two scales! The first (inflated self-esteem and fantasies of power and brilliance) was detectable in item factors that are indicative of Power and Ego Expansiveness. This element of grandiose fantasies and inflated self-esteem was also documented in the adjectival descrip tions egotistical and conceited. The second theme (devaluation of others, competitiveness, and envy) was incorporated in the Disesteem for Others itern factor, and the adjectival description intolerant. The third theme (entitlement and feelings of being above and beyond the dictates of ordinary social conventions) was reflected first in the Willfulness and Impatience item factor, and seconfdin the CAQ-set descriptions "pushes and tries to stretch limits" and "unable to deley gratification." Finally, the fourth theme of dissatisfaction with current status and feelings of underappreciation was detectable in the negative correlations of both scales with CPI Well-Being and in the negative correlations with the adjectival descriptions contented and cheerful. In general, the syrnptomatology associated with higher scores on the new CPI and MMPI Narcissism scaIes corresponds reasonably well to the syndrome of phallic narcissism as formulated by W. Reich (1949), who asserted that: The typical phallic-narcissistic character i s self-assured, somerimes arrogant, elastic, energetic and often impressive in his bearing [hidher] narcissism ib expressed not in an infantile but in a blatantly self.confident way, with flagrant display of superiority and dignity. (pp. 217-218)
...
One of the issues not fully explored in this article is that of gender-related differences between the two Narcissism scales. We did note that men tend to score higher than women on both scales, but we did not pursue other differentiations. This is a topic that merits further study. As measures of narcissism or of narcissistic tendencies, the two new scales appear to be equal in validity to the prior measures of Morey et al. (1985) and the NPI of Raskin and Hall (1979). In c~nclusion,the empirical study of narcissism is a complex enterprise. Like the Roman god, Janus, the narcissist presents a two-faced image of overt grandiosity and covert feelings of inferiority. It is not an easy task to measure by self-reports these two seemingly contradictory attitudes toward the self. But it does seem to be possible to identify via self-report items those persons in whom the critical components of narcissism are present.
REFERENCES Adler, A. (1917). The neurotic constitution: Outlines of a compmative individualistic psychology and psychotherapy (B. Glueck 6. J. E. Lind, Trans.). New York: Moffat, Yard. (Original work published 1912)
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
460
WINK AND GOUGH
Akhtar, S., 6r Thomson, J. A. (1982).Overview: Narcissitic disorder. American ] w d of Psychurrcy, 139, 12-20. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd Ad.). Washington, DC: Author. Ansbacher, H. L. (1985). The significance of Alfred Adler for the concept of narcissism. American Journal ofpsychiatyy, 142,203-207, Ashby, H. U., Lee, R. R., &Duke, E. H. (1979,August). Anarcissistic personalftydisorder MMPI scale. Paper presmted at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Mew York. Auerbach, J, S, (1984)* Validation of two scales for narcissistic personality disorder. Journal of P m d t y b e s m t , 48,649-653. Blbck, J. (1961). The Qsm method in p r s o d i t y assessment and @ y h r i c research, SprirrgBeZd, lL? Thomas. Brenner, C.(1955). An elementmy textbook ofpsychaanaly&. New York: International Unitt@iWes Press. Burmn, B. (1973). Some narcissistic personality types. International Jouml of Psycho-Analysis, 54, 28?-300. Dicken, C. F. (1963). Good impression, social desirability,and acquiescence as suppressor mtiables. Educational and Psydalogical Measurement, 23,699-720. Dyrud, (1983). Narcissus and nemesis. Psychttq, 46, 106-112. Edwards, A. L. (1957). Tne social desirability variable in permw1it.y assessment and research. New York: Diyden. Edwards, A. L., Gocka, E. F., & Holloway, H. (1964).The development of an MMPI acquiescence scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20, 148-150. Emmodsi R.A. (1981).Relatiomhip between narcissism and sensation seeking. Psychologid Reports, 4 4 37-250. Emoz~s,R. A. (1964). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic Personality Imventory. J w m t of P e r s d i t y Assessment, 48, 291-300, Exner, J. E. (1969). Rorschach responses as an index of narcissism. Journal of Personality Assessment, 3& 324-330. Freud, 3,(1953). On narcissism: An introduction. In J. Strachey (Ed.). The s t a n M didon of the c&n$Eety: pqchological worb of Sigmund Freud OJol. 14, pp. 69-102). London: Hogarth. (Original mtk publithed 1914) Cou& k.G, (1957). Manual for the Califomia Psychologiurl Inventory. Pdo Alto, CA: Consulting hpdxa1ILlgists Press, Cough, W. 0.(1962). Imagination-Undeveloped resource. In S. J. Parnes & H. F. Hardirrg (Eds.), A $ o ~ book w for creative thinking (pp. 217-1261. New York: Scribner's. (Original work published 119571 -.- ., Couqh, E#. G. (1965). The conceptual analysis of psychological test scores and other diagnostic vwbles. Joicrnal of Abnormal Psychology, 70,294-302. C W & ~8.G. (1987). California Psychological Inventmy Administrator's guide. Pa10 Alto, CA. Qb&ing P$ychologists Press. GOQ& H. G., & Heilbnm, A. B. (1983). The Adjective Check List manuaE. Palo Alto, CA: Cohddting Psychologists Press. Grabat, J. R., Schroeder, H. E., & Lilly, R. S. (1971). Factbr analysis of items on the Social ~ m ~ o v m i oand n Masculinity-Femininity scales of the MMPI. Journal of Cliniurl Psychology, 27, 367-370. Harder, D. W. (1979).The assessment of ambitious narcissistic character style with three projective t ~ t sThe : Early Memories, TAT, and Rorschach. l w m l of P e r s d i t y Assessment, 43,23-43. Hathbway, S, R, & McKinley, 1. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality inventory (Minnesota): I. C~h~truction of the schedule. J o u d of Psychology, 10,249-254. Helsan, R. (1967). Personality characteristics and developmental history of creative college women. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 76, 205-256. Jd
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
NEW NARCISSISM SCALES
,461
Jackson, D. N. (1967). Personality Research Form manual. Goshen, NY: Research Psychologists Press. Kernberg, 0. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological mzrcissism. New York: Aronson. Kernberg, 0. F. (1986). Narcissistic personality disorder. In A. M. Cooper, A. J. Frances, & M. H. Sachs (Eds.), The personality disorder and neuroses (Vol. 1, pp. 219-231). New York: Basic Books. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International Universities Press. Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press. Lasch, C. (1978). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing expectations. New York: Norton. Macoby, M. (1977). The gamesman: The new corporae kaders. New York: Simon & Schuster. Miller, A. (1981). The drama of the gifted child. New York: Basic Books. Millon, T. (1981). Disurders of personality: DSM-111: Axis 11. New Yorlc: Wiley. Millon, T. (1982). Millon Clinic$ Multiaxial Ynuentoy manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. Morey, L. C., Waugh, M. H., & Blashfield, R. K. (1985). WIMP1 scales for DSM-111 personality disorders: Their derivation and correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49,245-251. O'Brien, L. L. (1987). Examining the dimensionality of pathological narcissism: Factor analysis and construct validity of the O'Brien Multiphasic Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Reports, 61, 499-510. Patton, M. J., Connor, E. E., & Scott, K. J. (1982). Kohut's psychology of the self: Theory and measures of counseling outcome. Journal of Counseling Psychology,29, 268-282. Pepper, L. J., &Strong, P. PJ. (1958). Judgmental subscales for the Mf scale ofthe MMPI. Unpublished manuscript, Hawaii Department of Health, Honolulu. Philipson, I. (1985). Gender and narcissism. Psychdogy of Women Quarterly, 9, 213-228. Prifitera, A., & Ryan, J. 1. (1984). Validation of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory in a psychiatric sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 140-142. Pulver, S. (1970). Narcissism: The term and the concept. Journal of American Psychoanalytic Association, 18,319-341. Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S . (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590. Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1981). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Alternate form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. Jot~rnalof Personality Assessment, 45, 159-162. Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal components analysis of the Narcissistic Persondim Inventory and further evkience of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,890-902. Reich, A. (1953). Narcissistic object choice in women. Journal of American Psychoanalytic Association, 1, 22-44. Reich, W. (1949). Character analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. Ronningstam, E. (1985). Narcissistic personality disorder: A cum@risun of three diagnostic systems (Monograph No. 633). Reports from the Department of Psychology, The University of Stockholm. Rosenfeld, H. (1964). On the psychopathology of narcissism. A clinical approach. lntemational Jarmd of Psychoanalysis, 45,332-337. Serkowruek, K. (1975). Subscales for Scale 5 and 0 of the MMPI. Unpublished materials. (Available from K. Serkownek, 3134 Whitehorn Road, Cleveland Heights, OH 44118) Solomon, R. S. (1982). Validity of the MMPI narcissistic personality disorder scale. Psychdogid Reports, 50,463-466. Zuckennan, M., 6r Link, K. (1968). Construct validity for the Sensation Seeking Scale. J m l of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32,420-426.
Paul Wink Institute of Personality Assessment and Research
462
WINK AND GOUGH
Oxford Court Building, Room 2C 2 1SO Kittredge Street Berkeley, CA 94720
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
Received September 27, 1988 Revised March 6, 1989
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
New Narcissism Scales for the California Psychological Inventory and MMPI Paul Wink & Harrison G. Gough Published online: 22 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: Paul Wink & Harrison G. Gough (1990) New Narcissism Scales for the California Psychological Inventory and MMPI, Journal of Personality Assessment, 54:3-4, 446-462, DOI: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674010 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9674010
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 1990, 54(3&4), 446-462 Copyright CD 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
New Narcissism Scales for the California Psychological Inventory and MMPI Paul Wink and Harrison G . Gough
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
Institute of Personality Assessment and Research University of California, Berkeley
New Narcissism scales for the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and the Minnesota Multiphasic PersonalityInventory (MMPI)were developed on the basis of DSM-111 criteria and the writings of Akhtar and Thomson (1982), Kernberg (1975) and Kohut (1971, 1977). Self-report protocols from 152 adults and 198 college students were utilized. Rationally selected preliminary items were retained or discarded according to their alignment with the total score on these items. The resulting 49-item CPI and 39-item MMPI scales correlated .81 with each other, and significantly so at p < .O1 with ratings of narcissism, the Raskin-Hall Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI)and the MMPI Narcissism scale of Morey, Waugh, and Blashfield. Personological implications of the two new scales were examined in relation to other measures and to observers' adjectival and Q-sort descriptions. Intrascale factor analyses identified five common themes: Cathexis of Power, Risk-SeekingPropensity, Need for Attention, Disesteem for Others, and Impatient Willfulness.
The last 25 years has witnessed a burgeoning interest in narcissism. A tangible expression of this interest has been the inclusion of narcissism as one of the personality disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed. [DSM-1111; American Psychiatric Association, 1980). However, research on narcissism has not been confined within the boundaries of clinical psychiatry. The concept has been used to analyze core aspects of contemporary American culture (Lasch, 1978); the personality of American corporate leaders (Macoby, 1977); and characteristics such as creativity, wisdom, and humor (Kohut, 1971). Although narcissism has received particular attention from psychoanalysis (Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971,1977; Rosenfeld, 1964), other theoretical avenues
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
NEW NARCISSISM SCALES
447
have also been scrutinized. For example, Millon (1981) presented a social learning theory of narcissism. Also, DSM-I11 lists diagnostic criteria for the disorder that are independent of any specific theloretical orientation. The reason for current interest in narcissism is not obvious. It might be argwed that this interest reflects the increase in narcissism in contemporary Western society (Kohut, 1977; Lasch, 1978); or it could be related to the developmer~tof new and more effective treatment methods (Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971); or it could indicate a greater sensitivity of contemporary clinicians and researchers to narcissistic phenomena. The definition of narcissism has been slow in achieving consensus among clinicians. One reason is the multiplicity of uses to which the concept of narcissism has been applied (Pulver, 1970). For instance, narcissism has variously been used to denote a sexual perversion (Freud, 1914/1953), a developmental stage (Freud, 1914/1953; Kohut, 1971), a mode of relating to others (Breniner, 1955; Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971), and a cllinical syndrome (Akhtar & Thomson, 1982; Kernberg, 1975). Lack of consensus also stems from the fact that some writers refer to narcissistic phenomena without use of the term narcissism. Adler's (1912/1917) concept of neurotic character, for example, was in many ways similar to Freud's formulations of narcissism (Ansbacher, 1985). With the appearance of DSM-111, however, convergence of meaninp seemed to be within reach. The joint occurrence of ambivalent self-esteem (see Adler, 1912/ 1917) and pathological grandiosity seems to be key elen~cntsin narcissism. Other symptoms such as exhibitionism, lack of empathy, entitlement, exploitativeness, and rage in response to criticism may be seen as secondary manifestations of the key elements. The convergence in formulations of the syndrome, however, does not preclude differences among the various classificatory schema (Akhtar & Thomson, 1982; Ronningstam, 1985). For example, Kernberg (1975, 1986) listed excessive overwhelming envy, both on a conscious and unconscious level, as a primary index of pathological, narcissistic object love. In contrast, DSM-IlI(1980) does not mention envy in its criteria of narcissistic personality disorder, and Akhtar and Thomson (19821 cited envy only as a covert, ego-syntonic feature of interpersonal relations. It should also be noted that not all contemporary clinicians welcome or even accept the concept of inarcissism. Dyrud (1983), for example, commented on the confusion generated by attempts to distinguish between 'primary" and 'secoindary" narcissism, and o n the questionable relevance of the concept of narcissism to psychotherapeutic concerns. The existence of an agreed-upon definition of narcissistic syndrome, in addition, does not rule out the possibility of atypical instances of the phenc~menon. Atypical cases can be divided into two groups: (a) one including individuals who present themselves in an anxious, timid, and insecure manner, but
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
448
WINK AND GOUGH
whose fantasies and daydreams are replete with grandiosity; and (b) the other group of individuals whose grandiosity is openly projected onto a partner (e.g., in an intimate relationship) or onto a political, ideological, or religious idea, movement, or group (Kernberg, 1986). An example of this second category is the seemingly humble guru who espouses love for mankind in the abstract, bur who is totally uninterested in concrete personal relations (Kemberg, 1986). Contemporary formulations of narcissism do not differentiate on tha basis of gender (DSM-111, 1980; Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 19711, wheteas Freud (1914/1953) believed that narcissism was more common in women than men, His argument was based on the assumption that women are more prcsxoccupied with their own physical beauty and that they tend to make object choicm in reference to qualities desired for the self. Nonerheless, it nay be that gender differenaes in narcissism are not reflected in varying prwaksrce rates af the disordet among men and women but rather relatti to dif&rences in he manikstatitm. The!once common notion of phallic narcissism (Bursten, 1979; W, &eich, flpgrant disphy of 1949), with its strem on self-assurance, arrogance, ~@@r@bsiusn,~ superiority, and ebullient enekgy, seems more &pplicable?to men than women. On the other hand, women seem to be mare Ziblg to sngzqe In saraksiscl conflicts over self-ax#eem, resulting in a patmm of relatianships ichaxr~ct&kdby idealikatirbn, merger, and atrachmmt to an inoimatltr pamm i)r an emaithqlly charged cause @hilipson, 1985; A. Reich, 19531, The grdwth~dfntare~ltin narcissism has rcsulmd in a v a r i ~ gof memares for asrresdng the c~n~ma. For oxample, Exnm (1969) d e ~ e l o p da hxslchach scoring system fm narcissism, and Harder (1979) propos~dcnitmia for domkting the syqdrome &am early memories, the Thmatic Apperception Test VAT), and the Rorschach. An observer's rating scale to measure Xohut's concepaualizatim of narcissism was publishd by Pawon, Qanmior, qad Scott (1982). Q'grien (1987) developed a 75-itern se&report solille d<p&%Ito Measwre p81trholtrgin;aln&r@dlsmg defined itr D&'M-IIX afid in the & d ~ gof MiUw (l98l). The Mikm Clidrd Midtiaxial hvemtory { M m :h$l&m,1982), ccslmMins a naicis&m ptur~dn&ty &brdw male, 1 of 11 measures em Ca~ss& ~ S r l - f l petsor;~4litydhrd@s+ The niost: rhorovghly researched scale for nardssism appear$ to be the Raskin-Hall 54-item NM (Raskin & Wall, 1979, 1941). Rqmleseihtarive validaqianal studies include that by Prifimra and R y w (1984) on the (l9M) disc&dmpt validiq of the NPI within a patient popuhion; i%u@rbadh!k; srudy af the NPI and the MCMT swle for pwcis&iing ariarid Ekamon~b(1981) analysis of the relation hetween the NPJ and disi&ibitia'~-r,lexp&#ima~ @e~king, and boredom suacegtibility-these latter notions am il&xc&by @heZuck~rman Sensati~ln&keki$g&ale (Zuckermaa &tLink, 19626$. A faator adalysb d the NPI by Emmo& (1ullM)idenrifled four major themes: Expkbi'tlkt$~y~n@sd6hti,t~eusly:~~, Led~r$hip/Aatbori.ty,S'qv@ht&ydAdgance, A Isicer factor analysl by RcaaYia and and S~~&Ahrption/S~11F-Artmi1:ationh
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
NEW NARCISSISM SCALES
449
Terry (1988) identified seven dimensions: Authority, Exhibitionism, Superiority, Vanity, Exploitativeness, Entitlement, and Self-Sufficiency. Raskin and Terry also reported two second-level factors: Control of Others, and SelfAdmiration. Several narcissism scales have been developed for the MMPI. The first seems to be a Masculinity-Femininity (Mj) Ego-Sensitivity subscale by Pepper and Strong (1958). Graham, Schroeder, and Lilly (1971) identified a similar narcissistic sensitivity theme in their factor analysis of the Mfand Social Introversion (Si) scale items. Serkownek (1975) also proposed a Naucissism-Hypersensitivity subscale within the MMPI Mf scale. A different approach to the MMPI was taken by Ashby, Lee, and Duke (1979), who studied responses of 20 patients diagnosed as narcissistic. They selected items that differentiated the criterion group from a sample of nonnarcissistic psychotherapy patients and also from individuals not in treatment. Solomon (1982) evaluated the Ashby, Lee, and Duke's measure of narcissism, finding a negative correlation with the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, a negative correlation with self-reported involvement in a satisfying love relationship and a positive correlation with frequency of nightmares; the findings were interpreted as supportive of hypotheses derived from Kohut's formulation of narcissism. A n MMPI narcissism scale was also developed by Morey, Waugh, and Blashfield (1985) as 1 of 11 measures to assess each of the personality disorders included in the DSM-111, These authors asked four experienced clinicians to assign MMPI items to the 11 categories. If two agreed, the item was placed in that preliminary scale. Then the 11 tentative scales were analyzed in a sample of 475 patients, for which item endorsement rates of high-scoring versus low-scoring patients on each scale were contrasted. This internal consistency strategy led to the retention of 3 1 items for the Narcissism scale, of which 14 did not appear on any of the other 10 scales. Largest cotrelations between the Narcissism scale and standard MMPI scales were - .62 with Si, - .58 with Depression (D) and .44 with Hypomania (Ma).
NEW MEASURES We now turn to the development of two new narcissism scales, one for the CPI (see Gough, 1957, 1987), and one for the MMPI (see Hathaway & McKinley, 1940). Development of complementary narcissism scales for the CPI and the MMPI should facilitate research on data pools such as those at the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research (PAR) where both inventories are routinely used. The absence up to now of a measure of narcissism for the CPI is another reason for our work. Narcissism was conceptualized in regard to four baeic themes drawn from the
450
WINK AND GOUGH
,
criteria of Akhtar and Thomson (1982), Kernberg (1975), Kohut (1971, 1977) and DSM-111. The first is exaggerated self-esteem associated with fantasies of power and brilliance. The second is devaluation of others, with intense competitiveness and envy of other's attainments. The third is feelings of entitlement, that is, being above and beyond the dictates of ordinary social conventions. The fourth is dissatisfmtion with cuwent statws or feelings of underappreciation.
METHOD
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
Participants Participants were 350 individuals (175 men, 175 women) who had taken part in studies at IPAR between 1972 and 1984. Subjects included 152 San Francisco Bay Area residents (76 couples) and 198college sophomores at Berkeley (99men, 99 women). Eighty-two of the Bay Area residents were seen in weekend assessments dealing with issues in population psychology; the other 70 were interviewed by two staff psychologists and were administered a 6-hr battery of questionnaires pertaining to personal history, coping methods, and interpersonal dependency. The Berkeley students all participated in weekend assessments at IPAR. The 76 Bay Area men ranged in age from 21 to 59 pars (M = 37.09, SD = 10.22); the 76 Bay Area women ranged in age from 20 to 57 years (M = 34.54, SD = 10.22). Nearly all of the college students were between 18 and 21 years of age, with a strong mode at 19.
Assessment Procedures The 280 assessed subjects came to PAR in groups of 10 or 12 and took part in a variety of activities including two or three personal interviews, observational methods (e.g., a game of charades or leaderless group discussions), laboratory tasks in perception, informal contacts with the PAR staff, and monitored testing. Each of the 280 assessees was described by a panel of from five to seven observers on Block's (1961) California Q-set (CAQ-set).The 70 adults seen only in interviews were described by two observers on the CAQ-set items. The CAQ-set formulations of each subject were composited and made comparable to each other by rearranging the items into the prescribed frequencies. &o, within the 76 couples, each man was described on the Adjective Check List (ACL; Gough & Heilbrun, 1983) by his female partner, and each woman was described on the ACL by her male partner. For the college students only, assessment staff ratings of narcissisfn were assigned to 57 students; the other 141 students were not rated for narcissism. The definition of narcissism used by the raters was "self-admiration that is
NEW NARCISSISM SCALES
451
characterized by tendencies toward grandiose ideas, fantasized talents, exhibitionism, and defensiveness in response to criticism; and by interpersonal relations that are characterized by feelings of entitlement, exploitativeness, and lack of empathy."
Self-Report Measures All of the 350 subjects took the CPI a d the MIWZ; in addition, all took the ACL, and 57 of the students to& the Raskin-Hall MJImentioned earlier.
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
DEVELOPNMNR'OF SCALES Construction of the two narcissism scales was based on preliminary rational selection of CPI and E W I items, followed by internal consistency analyses and checks for unwanted correlations with other scales such as Si and Ma on the MMPI, and Self-control and Intellectual Efficiency on the CM. Using the Sour previously mentioned criteria for narcissism, each author independently reviewed all CPI and MMM items and selected those believed to be characteristic of narcissism. Items on which both agreed were retained for the first version of each scale. Next, all of the MMPI and CPI items were correlated with the two scales we developed. Items initially selected that now had correlations below .20 were dropped; new items with correlations of .25 or more were considered as possible additions. This process was repeated 13 times, gradually pruning items from the ~ r e l i m i n a rscales ~ and adding new items exhibiting strong correlations. Simultaneously, items at each stage were reviewed far their correlations with scales for which we wanted to keep relations moderate to low. For instance, the first four preliminary versions of the narcissism scales had very high correlations with MMPI Pd and Ma and with CPI Self-Control and Sociability scales. Items correlating more with these scales than with the narcissism scales were dropped. This itemmetric technique for maximizing internal consistency while minimizing unwanted correlations with other variables has been used by others in the past, for instance by Gough (1957/1%2) in the development of his Differential Reaction Schedule for components of the creative personality and by Jackson (1967)in the development of scales for his IPersonality Research Form. In addition to these psychometric requirements, all items had to be clearly related in content to the concept of narcissism. As just stated, 13 such analyses were carried out before acceptable versions of each narcissism scale were developed. The MMPI scale contained 39 items, and the CM scale had 49. Because approximately 200 MMPI items were used in the original construction of the CM, it turned out that there were 14 overlapping or common items between the two scales. The MMPI item numbers for the new Narcissism scale and their scoring are as
452
WINK AND GOUGH
follows-True: 73,75,89, 109, 112, 117, 124, 165,208,233,248,271, 277,299, 348,355,380,400,406,410,426,434,438,440,447,452,456,469,504,520,529; and False: 4,82, 111, 261, 276,444,463, 503. The item numbers for the 49-item CPI scale are reported here for the old 480-item version of the CPI; on the two items with different location in the current 462-item version (Gough, 19871, the new numbers are enclosed in parentheses, The items and their scoring are as follows: True: 4,32, 39, 53,60, 78,80,81, 102, 112, 128, 129, 130, 142, 146, 171, 179, 206,209,225, 231,250, 262,267,275,293,2%,3b7,320,327,329,379,376,397,399,403,412,4dKT, 476 (407); and False: 7, 217,230,286,304,348, 380,385,443,478 (427).
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
RESULTS Tentative norms for the 49-item CPI and the 39-item MMPI Narcissism scales are provided in Table 1 for the samples in which scale development occurred, for other adults and college samples, and for the basic normative samples for the CPI. College students scored higher on both scales than did adults. Adult males scored higher than adult females on both the CPI (t = 2.58, p < .05) and the MMPI (t = 4.06, p < .01) scales. Male college studenrs scored significantly higher than females on the MME'I scale (t = 2.15, p < .05), but not on the CPI scale. For the 350 subjects used in the development of the scales, the alpha internal consistency coefficients were -80 for the CPI Narcissism scale and .72 for the MMPI Narcissism scale. Test-retest reliability of the CPI scale only was evaluated on a sample of 86 women tested at ages 21 and 27 (Helson, 19671, giving rise to a coefficient of .71. Further, in a sample of 237 high school students, the test-retest reliability of the CPI scale at ages 16 and 17 was .69 (.65 for the 108 men and .71 for the 129 women). Correlation between the full CPI and MMPI TABLE 1 Norms for the New CPI and W
I Narcissism Scales MMPI Scale
CPI Scale kple
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
76 99 1000
25.92 26.83 24.21
6.89 7.12 6.47
76 99
20.50 21.03
4.88 5.16
76 99 1000
23.09 25.53 21.72
6.66 6.91 6.51
76 99
17.30 19.39
5.16 4.88 -
Males Adults College students CPI norm groups Females Adults College Students CPI norm groups
-
-
-
-
-
NEW NARCISSISM SCALES
453
Narcissism scales was .81; when the 14 common items were deleted from both scales, the correlation dropped to .71. In regard to response sets, the CPI Narcissism scale correlated .15 (P < .01) with Dicken's (1963) scale for social desirability and .M ( p < .01) with his scale for acquiescence in a sample of 350 subjects. The MMPI Narcissism scale correlated .05 (ns) with Edwards's (1957) Social Desirability scale and .36 (P < .01) with Edwards's Acquiescence scale (Edwards, Gocka, & Holloway, 1964) in a sample of 350 subjects. Table 2 gives correlations of the CPI and MMPI Narcissism scales with standard scales on the revised form of the CPI. The two arrays of correlations are very similar in pattern, as indicated by an intercolumnar product-momlent correlation of .98. As expected, the CPI Narcissism scale correlated more strongly with other CPI scales than did the MMP[ Narcissism scale, due to item
-
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
-
TABLE 2
Correlations of the CPI and MMPI Narcissism Scales With the Standard Scales of the California Psychological Inventory
-
CPI Scales Dominance Capacity for Status Sociability Social Presence Self-Acceptance Independence Empathy Responsibility Socialization Self-control Good Impression Communality Well-Being Tolerance Achievement via Conformance Achievement via Independence Intellectual Efficiency Psychological-Mindedness Flexibility Femininity-Masculinity Internality (Vector 1) Norm-Favoring (Vector 2) Self-Realization (Vector 3) Note. N = 350.
Common ltems
4 1 6 2 3 2 0 4 5 13 4 6
CPI Narcissism
r
- .04
-.19** - .38** - 16** - .08 .02 - .06 - .03 -.39** - .70** - .09 -.31**
.
MMPI Nar&i_m r
- .04 - .22** - .45** - .23** - .20**
- .08 - .14**
- .06 - .42** - SO** - .09 -.38**
-
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
454
WINK AND GOUGH
overlap. The number of common items between each CPI standard scale and the CPI Narcissism scale varied from 0 for Psychological-Mindedness to 13 for the Internality Vector scale. For both Narcissism scales, the two largest correlations were with CPI Self-Control and the Internality Vector scale. Persons scoring high on either narcissism measure will thus tend toward undercantrol of aggtessive and erotic drives and will pursue interactive, participatory modes oftelating to athem. Moderately positive correlations for both narcissism acales w m noted for Social Presence, Sie!lffAcceptance,and bninaEICe. A m m o n theme in these scales is an awertivq, selfmferenced, ofien manipulative solcial style. Table 3 presents camlatima between the two Narcissism scales and the standard scales of the MEvlPI, The two arrays bf correlations are again $imilar in pattern, a5 indicated by an iht~rccrlummarceinrrdation,of +99 for 12 af the variables (Mfwas omitted because af its differentscaring for males and females). For both Narcissism scales, the strongest relationships in Table 2 are with Ma. Persons high on either Narcissism scde will itland to manifest the high energy level, expressive motionztlity, and impati~ncr:aesociated with hi&& i.sc3wres on I
Ma.
TABLE 3 Correlations of the New CPI and MMPI Narcissism Scales With the Standard Scales of the MMPI
common Items
MMPI Scales
L F K
2 3 3 0 5 3 2 6 6 6 0 2 6 8
+ .5K
Hs D
HY
+
Pd .4K Mf" Mf Pa
Pt
+K
+K + .2K
Sc Ma Si
MMPI Narcissism
CPI Narcisinn
r
r
- .37** .22** - .34** - .12* - .21** -.22** .11*
- .04 - .22** .02 - .07 .12* .57** - .20**
-.28** .19**
- .29** -.12* - .22** -.16** .13* .07 -.16** .O 1 -.11* .07 .50** - .23**
(a,
Note. Scale abbreviations are as follows: Lie (L),Fake Bad (F), Defensiveness Hypochondriasis (Hs), Depression (D), Hysteria (Hy), Psychopathic Deviate (Pd), Masculinity-Femininity (Mf), Paranoia (Pa), Psychasthenia (Pt), Schizophrenia (Sc), Hypomania (Ma), and Social Introversion (Si). an = 175 men. bn = 175 women.
*p c .05. **p
< .01.
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
NEW NARCISSISM SCALES
455
An interesting finding in regard to self-presentational style is the pair of negative correlations with the Lie (L) scale. High scorers on our narcissism scales tended not to give the self-aggrandizing,unsophisticated, positive answers that lead to elevated scores on L. The same negative finding occurred for the more subtle Defensiveness (K) scale. Whatever the reason may be for the manipulativeness and self-deception associated with higher scores on the Narcissism scales, they do not appear to draw on the conformist exaggeration of virtue and coping strengths indexed by L and, to a lesser extent, by K. To examine the relation between our two new narcissism scales and prior measures of narcissism, we correlated them with the scales of Ashby et al. (1979), Pepper and Strong (1958), Serkownek (1975), Ii4orey et al. (1985), the NPI (Raskin & Hall, 1979), and with P A R staff ratings of narcissism. As shown in Table 4, substantial positive correlations were found among the first three narcissism scales, but these three neither related strongly to the next four nor to the rating of narcissism. If the observers' rating of narcissism is accepted as a tentative criterion, it appears that our two new scales, the NPI, and that developed by Molrey and her colleagues are more valid than the other three.
Elaboration of Meaning Another source of information concerning the meaning of a scale is its relation to other well-known variables; Tables 2,3, and 4 present this type of information. Both of the new narcissism measures were associated with scales indicative of impulsiveness, doubt concerning the good intentions of others, antinormative feelings, assertiveness, alienation, impatience, and easy irritability; all of these implications are consonant with conceptions of the narcissistic personality. The meaning of a scale may also be inferred to a certain extent from its content. To explore this domain, the items in the two new scales were subjected to principal components factor analyses. O n the basis of an inspection of the scree plot of eigenvalues, five orthogonal factors were extracted for each of the scales. The five factors for the CPI Narcissism scale accounted for 28% of the cumulative variance, whereas those for the MMPI Narcissism scale accounted for 29%. Aker rearrangement for sequence, the five factors for each scale appeared to be concordant. The following inferred themes are listed, with CPI and MMPI factor numbers cited, along with representative items.
1. Cathexis of Power and Ego Expansiveness (CPI Factor 1, MMPI Factor 4). Representative items: "I wodd be willing to describe myself as a pretty strong personality," and "I'm not the type to be a political leader" (false; CPI). "If given the chance I could do some things that would be of great benefit to the world'' (true), and 'I1 think that I feel more intensely than most people do" (true; MMPI). 2. Risk-Seeking Propensity (CPI Factor 4, MMPI Factor 1)- Representative
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
TABLE 4 Intercorrelations Among Seven Scales for Narcissism and Observers' Ratings of Narcissism
Dedptive Statistics Intercovelatiom Among Variables 2
Variables
1. Ashby, Lee, & Duke (1979) MMPI Narcissism scak 2. Pepper & Strong (1958) MMPI Narcissism scale 3. Serkownek (1975) MMPI Narcissism scale
.54**
3
4
5
6
Females
Mates
7
8
M
SD
M
SD
.57**
-.26**
.15**
.17**
-.26**
-.03
6.05
2.71
5.86
2.49
.87**
-.28**
.07
.06
-.27*
-.I7
7.45
2.95
8.74
2.50
-.I+**
.26**
.28**
-.02
-.I1
7.35
3.48
8.33
3.05
.54**
.54**
.71**
.36**
18.03
3.84
17.17
4.13
.81**
.72**
.49**
26.43
7.00
24.47
6.89
.67**
30* .47**
21.24 19.71
5.10 832
18.33 19.13
5.03 9.43
50.21
10.78
49.79
9.47
4. Morey, Waugh, & Blashfield (1985) MMPI Narcissism scale 5. Wink & Cough 49-item CPI Narcissism scale
6. Wink b Gough 39-item MMPI Narcissism scale
7. Raskin-Ha11 (1979) NPI Narcissism scale 8. Observers' standardized
~
ratings of narcissism -
&%
-
--
*p s .05. **p 5 .Ol.
(28 males, ZST females) for the NPI a d observers' ratings.
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
NEW NAKCISSISM SCALES
$57
items: "Seomtimes I rather enjoy going against the rules and doing things I'm not supposed to do" (true), and uIthink I would like to drive a racing car" (true; CPI). Y have never done anything dangerous for the thrill of it" (false), and 9 used to like hopscotch" (false; MMPI). 3. Need for Attention (CPI Factor 2, MMPI Factor 3). Representative items: "I like to be the center of attention" (true), and "Iam apt to show off in some way if I get the chance" (true; CPI). *I like to know some important people because it makes me feel important" (true), and Y like to flirt" (true; MMPI). 4. Disesteem for Others (CPI Factor 3, MMPI Factor 2). Representative items: "People pretend to care more about cane another than they really do" (true), and "It takes a lot of argument to convince most people of the truth" (true; CPI). "Most people are honest chiefly through fear of being caught" (true), and 4 tend to be on my guard with people who are somewhat more friendly than I had expected (true; MMPI). 5. Willfulness and Impatience (CPI Factor 5, MMPI Factor 5). Representative items: "I would rather be a steady and dependable worker than a brilliant but unstable one" (false), and "1usually try to do what is expected of me, and to avoid criticism" (false; CPI). "I strongly defend my own opinions as a rule" (true), and uI do not try to correct people who express an ignorant belief' (false; MMPI). A third source of information concerning the meaning of a variable is its relationship to observer-based data (Gough, 1965).For such data we turn first to descriptions by observers on Block's (1961) CAQ-set. These descriptions were obtained by compositing the ratings of a panel of from two to seven IPAR staff observers into a single observer-data array. Then each of the 100 CAQset items was correlated with scores on the two Narcissism scales in the sample of 350 subjects. To avoid an oversupply of such information, only the 8 items with largest positive correlations and the 8 with largest negative correlations are presented here. The coefficients after each item are for the CPI scale and the MMPI scale, in that order. 1. Observers; CAR-set descriptions associated with higher scores on the Narcissism scales: a. Characteristically pushes and tries to stretch limits; sees what he can get away with (.31, .35). b. Is power oriented; values power in self and others (30, .31). c. Behaves in an assertive fashion (.24, .34). d. Values own independence and autonomy (.24, .30). e. Various needs tend toward relatively direct and uncontrolled expression; unable to delay gratification (.25, .27). f. Expresses hostile feelings directly (-25, .26). g. Tends to be rebellious and nonconforming (.23, .28). h. Is self-indulgent (.24, .24).
458
WINK AND GOUGH
2. Observers' CAQ-set descriptions associated with lower scores on the Narcissism scales: a. Genuinely submissive; accepts domination comfortably ( .3 1, .42). b. Behaves in a sympathetic or considerate manner (- .27, .34). c. Tends toward overcontrol of needs and impulses; binds tensions excess.ively; delays graci.fics:tion unnecessarily (- -26, -.33). d. Ekhaves in a giving way toward others (- .24, -..32). e. Arousltlls numrant feelings in others (- -22, .30}. f. Behaves in an athicsully c~nsistentmanner; i s emwistent with own personal standards (- ,20, .26). g. Reluctant to commit self to any definite course of action ( .l9, - .3 1). h. Seeks reassurance fram others ( .l9, .25).
-
-
-
-
-
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
-
-
-
Also in the domain of observer-based data, we examined ACL descriptions provided by the 76 Bay Area couples. Each man was described on the 300 ACL items by his female partner, and likewise each woman was described on the ACL by her male partner. Dummy weights of 1 were used for an item that was checked and 0 for an item left blank; in the total sample of 152 ptrsons, these weights were correlated with scores on each scale. The 10 adjectives with largest positive correlations with the CPI and MMPI Narcissism scales were: bossy (.35, .34), cruel (.32, .28), egotistical 633, .23), oursp~ken(.32, .25), conceited (27, .32), demmding ( 31, ,25), aggressive (.SO, .24), intoletant (,29, .29), forceful (-28, .27), and hard-headed (-27, .25), The 10 adjectives with largest negative clorrerlatian~were: feminin~I-.21, .30), h a d s t ( .26, .28), kind ( -25, .M),mild ( ,241, .IT), modest (-.23, -,21),conten:te$(-.21, -,14),matu~e(-.18, -.18),organizd(-.17, -.14), sinate (--14, -.17), and cheetful (-.I>, -.14). The 16 CAQ-set descriptions and the 20 adjectival dwriptions of persons wiah hiher wr lower; scares on the two Narcissbjx scale$ seem to be quite consonant with what would be expected for a meaxrura of rhk syndrome.
-
-
-
- -
-
-
DISCUSSION The new 49-item CM and the 39-item MMPI Narcissism scales appear to meet the reliability and validity requirements expected of self-report scales. Internal reliabilities were .72 (MMPI) and .82 (CPI),and a 5-year test-retest correlation of .7 1 was obtained for the CPI scale. The two scales are quite similar to each other, as evidenced by a correlation of .81 between them, and by similarity in their correlations with other measures and shared relations to observers' descriptions. Also, both scales correlated significantly (P < .01) with observers' ratings of narcissism in a sample of 57 college undergraduaks. Early in this article we proposed four themes as being central to the concept
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
NEW NARCISSISM SCALES
459
of narcissism. Do these themes appear in the two scales! The first (inflated self-esteem and fantasies of power and brilliance) was detectable in item factors that are indicative of Power and Ego Expansiveness. This element of grandiose fantasies and inflated self-esteem was also documented in the adjectival descrip tions egotistical and conceited. The second theme (devaluation of others, competitiveness, and envy) was incorporated in the Disesteem for Others itern factor, and the adjectival description intolerant. The third theme (entitlement and feelings of being above and beyond the dictates of ordinary social conventions) was reflected first in the Willfulness and Impatience item factor, and seconfdin the CAQ-set descriptions "pushes and tries to stretch limits" and "unable to deley gratification." Finally, the fourth theme of dissatisfaction with current status and feelings of underappreciation was detectable in the negative correlations of both scales with CPI Well-Being and in the negative correlations with the adjectival descriptions contented and cheerful. In general, the syrnptomatology associated with higher scores on the new CPI and MMPI Narcissism scaIes corresponds reasonably well to the syndrome of phallic narcissism as formulated by W. Reich (1949), who asserted that: The typical phallic-narcissistic character i s self-assured, somerimes arrogant, elastic, energetic and often impressive in his bearing [hidher] narcissism ib expressed not in an infantile but in a blatantly self.confident way, with flagrant display of superiority and dignity. (pp. 217-218)
...
One of the issues not fully explored in this article is that of gender-related differences between the two Narcissism scales. We did note that men tend to score higher than women on both scales, but we did not pursue other differentiations. This is a topic that merits further study. As measures of narcissism or of narcissistic tendencies, the two new scales appear to be equal in validity to the prior measures of Morey et al. (1985) and the NPI of Raskin and Hall (1979). In c~nclusion,the empirical study of narcissism is a complex enterprise. Like the Roman god, Janus, the narcissist presents a two-faced image of overt grandiosity and covert feelings of inferiority. It is not an easy task to measure by self-reports these two seemingly contradictory attitudes toward the self. But it does seem to be possible to identify via self-report items those persons in whom the critical components of narcissism are present.
REFERENCES Adler, A. (1917). The neurotic constitution: Outlines of a compmative individualistic psychology and psychotherapy (B. Glueck 6. J. E. Lind, Trans.). New York: Moffat, Yard. (Original work published 1912)
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
460
WINK AND GOUGH
Akhtar, S., 6r Thomson, J. A. (1982).Overview: Narcissitic disorder. American ] w d of Psychurrcy, 139, 12-20. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd Ad.). Washington, DC: Author. Ansbacher, H. L. (1985). The significance of Alfred Adler for the concept of narcissism. American Journal ofpsychiatyy, 142,203-207, Ashby, H. U., Lee, R. R., &Duke, E. H. (1979,August). Anarcissistic personalftydisorder MMPI scale. Paper presmted at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Mew York. Auerbach, J, S, (1984)* Validation of two scales for narcissistic personality disorder. Journal of P m d t y b e s m t , 48,649-653. Blbck, J. (1961). The Qsm method in p r s o d i t y assessment and @ y h r i c research, SprirrgBeZd, lL? Thomas. Brenner, C.(1955). An elementmy textbook ofpsychaanaly&. New York: International Unitt@iWes Press. Burmn, B. (1973). Some narcissistic personality types. International Jouml of Psycho-Analysis, 54, 28?-300. Dicken, C. F. (1963). Good impression, social desirability,and acquiescence as suppressor mtiables. Educational and Psydalogical Measurement, 23,699-720. Dyrud, (1983). Narcissus and nemesis. Psychttq, 46, 106-112. Edwards, A. L. (1957). Tne social desirability variable in permw1it.y assessment and research. New York: Diyden. Edwards, A. L., Gocka, E. F., & Holloway, H. (1964).The development of an MMPI acquiescence scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20, 148-150. Emmodsi R.A. (1981).Relatiomhip between narcissism and sensation seeking. Psychologid Reports, 4 4 37-250. Emoz~s,R. A. (1964). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic Personality Imventory. J w m t of P e r s d i t y Assessment, 48, 291-300, Exner, J. E. (1969). Rorschach responses as an index of narcissism. Journal of Personality Assessment, 3& 324-330. Freud, 3,(1953). On narcissism: An introduction. In J. Strachey (Ed.). The s t a n M didon of the c&n$Eety: pqchological worb of Sigmund Freud OJol. 14, pp. 69-102). London: Hogarth. (Original mtk publithed 1914) Cou& k.G, (1957). Manual for the Califomia Psychologiurl Inventory. Pdo Alto, CA: Consulting hpdxa1ILlgists Press, Cough, W. 0.(1962). Imagination-Undeveloped resource. In S. J. Parnes & H. F. Hardirrg (Eds.), A $ o ~ book w for creative thinking (pp. 217-1261. New York: Scribner's. (Original work published 119571 -.- ., Couqh, E#. G. (1965). The conceptual analysis of psychological test scores and other diagnostic vwbles. Joicrnal of Abnormal Psychology, 70,294-302. C W & ~8.G. (1987). California Psychological Inventmy Administrator's guide. Pa10 Alto, CA. Qb&ing P$ychologists Press. GOQ& H. G., & Heilbnm, A. B. (1983). The Adjective Check List manuaE. Palo Alto, CA: Cohddting Psychologists Press. Grabat, J. R., Schroeder, H. E., & Lilly, R. S. (1971). Factbr analysis of items on the Social ~ m ~ o v m i oand n Masculinity-Femininity scales of the MMPI. Journal of Cliniurl Psychology, 27, 367-370. Harder, D. W. (1979).The assessment of ambitious narcissistic character style with three projective t ~ t sThe : Early Memories, TAT, and Rorschach. l w m l of P e r s d i t y Assessment, 43,23-43. Hathbway, S, R, & McKinley, 1. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality inventory (Minnesota): I. C~h~truction of the schedule. J o u d of Psychology, 10,249-254. Helsan, R. (1967). Personality characteristics and developmental history of creative college women. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 76, 205-256. Jd
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
NEW NARCISSISM SCALES
,461
Jackson, D. N. (1967). Personality Research Form manual. Goshen, NY: Research Psychologists Press. Kernberg, 0. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological mzrcissism. New York: Aronson. Kernberg, 0. F. (1986). Narcissistic personality disorder. In A. M. Cooper, A. J. Frances, & M. H. Sachs (Eds.), The personality disorder and neuroses (Vol. 1, pp. 219-231). New York: Basic Books. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International Universities Press. Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press. Lasch, C. (1978). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing expectations. New York: Norton. Macoby, M. (1977). The gamesman: The new corporae kaders. New York: Simon & Schuster. Miller, A. (1981). The drama of the gifted child. New York: Basic Books. Millon, T. (1981). Disurders of personality: DSM-111: Axis 11. New Yorlc: Wiley. Millon, T. (1982). Millon Clinic$ Multiaxial Ynuentoy manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. Morey, L. C., Waugh, M. H., & Blashfield, R. K. (1985). WIMP1 scales for DSM-111 personality disorders: Their derivation and correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49,245-251. O'Brien, L. L. (1987). Examining the dimensionality of pathological narcissism: Factor analysis and construct validity of the O'Brien Multiphasic Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Reports, 61, 499-510. Patton, M. J., Connor, E. E., & Scott, K. J. (1982). Kohut's psychology of the self: Theory and measures of counseling outcome. Journal of Counseling Psychology,29, 268-282. Pepper, L. J., &Strong, P. PJ. (1958). Judgmental subscales for the Mf scale ofthe MMPI. Unpublished manuscript, Hawaii Department of Health, Honolulu. Philipson, I. (1985). Gender and narcissism. Psychdogy of Women Quarterly, 9, 213-228. Prifitera, A., & Ryan, J. 1. (1984). Validation of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory in a psychiatric sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 140-142. Pulver, S. (1970). Narcissism: The term and the concept. Journal of American Psychoanalytic Association, 18,319-341. Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S . (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590. Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1981). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Alternate form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. Jot~rnalof Personality Assessment, 45, 159-162. Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal components analysis of the Narcissistic Persondim Inventory and further evkience of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,890-902. Reich, A. (1953). Narcissistic object choice in women. Journal of American Psychoanalytic Association, 1, 22-44. Reich, W. (1949). Character analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. Ronningstam, E. (1985). Narcissistic personality disorder: A cum@risun of three diagnostic systems (Monograph No. 633). Reports from the Department of Psychology, The University of Stockholm. Rosenfeld, H. (1964). On the psychopathology of narcissism. A clinical approach. lntemational Jarmd of Psychoanalysis, 45,332-337. Serkowruek, K. (1975). Subscales for Scale 5 and 0 of the MMPI. Unpublished materials. (Available from K. Serkownek, 3134 Whitehorn Road, Cleveland Heights, OH 44118) Solomon, R. S. (1982). Validity of the MMPI narcissistic personality disorder scale. Psychdogid Reports, 50,463-466. Zuckennan, M., 6r Link, K. (1968). Construct validity for the Sensation Seeking Scale. J m l of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32,420-426.
Paul Wink Institute of Personality Assessment and Research
462
WINK AND GOUGH
Oxford Court Building, Room 2C 2 1SO Kittredge Street Berkeley, CA 94720
Downloaded by [ECU Libraries] at 07:23 26 April 2015
Received September 27, 1988 Revised March 6, 1989
