Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and the Positivity of Self-Views: Two Portraits of Self-Love

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Campbell et al. / NARCISSISM AND SELF-ESTEEM

W. Keith Campbell University of Georgia Eric A. Rudich University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Constantine Sedikides University of Southampton

The authors hypothesized that both narcissism and high self- considered to be a curse, whereas high self-esteem is esteem are associated with positive self-views but each is associ- regarded as a boon. ated with positivity in different domains of the self. Narcissists Our objective in the present research is to explore the perceive themselves as better than average on traits reflecting an bases of the positive self-views that narcissists and high- agentic orientation (e.g., intellectual skills, extraversion) but self-esteem (HSE) individuals have. In particular, we not on those reflecting a communal orientation (e.g., agreeable- wish to uncover those aspects of the self in which narcis- ness, morality). In contrast, high-self-esteem individuals per- sists and HSE individuals hold themselves in the highest ceive themselves as better than average both on agentic and com- (and lowest) regard. To presage our hypotheses: We pre- munal traits. Three studies confirmed the hypothesis. In Study dict that even though both narcissists and HSE individu- 1, narcissists rated themselves as extraverted and open to experi- als have positive self-views, these groups hold self-views ence but not as more agreeable or emotionally stable. High-self- that are distinct in theoretically meaningful ways. Spe- esteem individuals rated themselves highly on all of these traits cifically, narcissists’ self-conceptions reflect agentic (but except openness. In Study 2, narcissists (but not high-self-esteem not communal) concerns and HSE individuals’ self-con- individuals) rated themselves as better than their romantic part- ceptions reflect both agentic and communal concerns. ners. In Study 3, narcissists rated themselves as more intelligent, That is, narcissists manifest an egoistic bias, whereas HSE but not more moral, than the average person. In contrast, high- individuals display both an egoistic and a moralistic bias. self-esteem individuals viewed themselves as more moral and Narcissists perceive themselves as intelligent and outgo- more intelligent. ing but not as caring or conscientious. HSE individuals perceive themselves as both intelligent and caring. Our research paradigm is derived primarily from work Two constructs that continue to command the atten- on the better-than-average effect (Alicke, 1985; Alicke, tion of social and personality psychologists are narcis- Klotz, Breitenbecher, Yurak, & Vredenberg, 1995). We sism and self-esteem. These two constructs are partially ask participants to compare themselves to the average overlapping. First and foremost, both narcissists and other on a range of theoretically relevant traits. We rely high-self-esteem individuals have a high self-opinion: on two widely used personality instruments, the Narcis- They are said to like—and even love—themselves. Indeed, sistic Personality Inventory (NPI) (Raskin & Hall, 1979) this similarity may explain why the two variables correlate positively, as a recent meta-analysis indicated (r = .29, Authors’ Note: We would like to thank Ahmie Polak for assistance in k = 11, n = 2,963, p < .001) (Campbell, 2001). However, conducting these studies. We would also like to thank Roy Baumeister, Dawn Dhavale, and Katie Vohs for helpful comments. Correspondence narcissism and high self-esteem also have critical differ- concerning this article should be addressed to W. Keith Campbell, De- ences. Of particular note are the interpersonal implica- partment of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602- tions of these traits. Narcissism is rather detrimental to 3013; e-mail: [email protected]. interpersonal relationships, whereas self-esteem may be PSPB, Vol. 28 No. 3, March 2002 358-368 beneficial. Perhaps this is why in our culture narcissism is © 2002 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 358

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at University of Southampton on March 7, 2016 Campbell et al. / NARCISSISM AND SELF-ESTEEM 359 and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) (Rosenberg, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991a). They also manifest a some- 1965). Before presenting our methodological proce- what unstable self-esteem (Rhodewalt, Madrian, & Cheney, dures in detail, we will review briefly the relevant litera- 1998). Furthermore, narcissists score highly on the Self- ture on self-concept biases, narcissism, and self-esteem. Attributes Questionnaire (SAQ) (Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995), although this measure makes it difficult to distin- Self-Concept Biases guish egoistic and moralistic biases. This pattern of self- Researchers have identified two primary types of self- aggrandizement also can be observed in experiments deceptive biases, an egoistic bias and a moralistic bias that involve interdependent (i.e., joint outcomes) tasks (Paulhus & John, 1998). These two biases reflect either and experimenter-provided feedback on agentic traits an agentic or a communal value system—loosely speak- (e.g., creativity) (Sedikides, Campbell, Reeder, & Elliot, ing, a concern either with social dominance or social 1998). On such tasks, narcissists report that their perfor- connection. An egoistic bias is part of an agentic value mance is superior to that of their partners, regardless of system and includes inflated self-views in the domains of whether they work in dyads (Campbell et al., 2000; extraversion, openness, and intelligence. A moralistic Farwell & Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998) or small groups (Gos- bias is part of a communal value system and includes ling, John, Craik, & Robins, 1998; John & Robins, 1994). inflated self-views in the domains of agreeableness, con- Finally, in the self-deception literature, narcissism has scientiousness, and morality. Paulhus and John (1998) been linked to an egoistic bias and, specifically, the FFM described these two patterns of value systems and biases traits of extraversion and openness (Paulhus & John, at a more general level as alpha and gamma constella- 1998). In summary, the key theme underlying these find- tions. The present research is an extension of this theo- ings is an agency orientation on that part of narcissists. retical approach for the comparison of narcissists and HSE individuals. The interpersonal dimension. The relation between narcissism and variables associated with interpersonal relat- Narcissism edness is negative. Narcissists express a relatively low Characterization. The personality dimension of narcis- desire for many aspects of interpersonal relatedness. sism is derived from the clinical criteria for narcissistic This is evident in a lower need for intimacy (Carroll, personality disorder, but as applied to a normal popula- 1987) and succorance (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Narcissists tion (for reviews, see Emmons, 1987; Morf & Rhodewalt, are also less empathetic in their relationships (Watson, in press; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995). Narcissists are char- Grisham, Trotter, & Biderman, 1984). Likewise, narcis- acterized by a highly positive or inflated self-concept. sists report enhanced levels of agency (Bradlee & Emmons, Narcissists use a range of intrapersonal and interper- 1992), dominance (Bradlee & Emmons, 1992; Emmons, sonal strategies for maintaining positive self-views. For 1984; Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991b; Raskin & Terry, example, narcissists fantasize about fame or power (Raskin 1988), power (e.g., Carroll, 1987), machiavellianism & Novacek, 1991), respond to critical feedback with (McHoskey, 1995), and competitiveness (Raskin & Terry, anger and self-enhancing attributions (Campbell, Reeder, 1988). Clearly, narcissists are unlikely to desire relation- Sedikides, & Elliot, 2000; Farwell & Wohlwend-Lloyd, ships as a source of intimacy (Sedikides, Campbell, Reeder, 1998; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1996), and derogate those who Elliot, & Gregg, in press). Indeed, narcissists are low on provide threatening feedback (Kernis & Sun, 1994). In communal orientation, a pattern that reflects less self- addition, narcissists have interpersonal relationships that deception on such traits as agreeableness, conscientious- lack in commitment and caring (Campbell, 1999; Camp- ness, and morality (Paulhus & John, 1998). bell & Foster, 2001). On the Five Factor Model (FFM) of Does this mean that narcissists are loners or recluses? personality, narcissism is related most consistently to This is likely not the case. Narcissists do desire contact extraversion. However, there is also some evidence that with others; however, the purpose behind this contact is narcissism is related positively to openness/intellectance largely the enhancement of the narcissists’ self via admi- and negatively to neuroticism and agreeableness (Bradlee ration, dominance, and competitiveness (Sedikides et & Emmons, 1992; Costa & Widiger, 1994; Hendin & al., in press). Narcissists are judged as sociable (e.g., Cheek, 1997; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995). “entertaining” and “not boring;” Paulhus, 1998, Study 2, Self-concept positivity. As noted above, narcissists’ self- Time 1) and energetic (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Also, nar- views should reflect high agency and low communion. cissists report relatively low levels of social anxiety (Wat- Past research is largely consistent with this view. Narcis- son & Biderman, 1994) and they do not differ reliably sists perceive themselves to be more intelligent (Gabriel, from nonnarcissists on loneliness (Rudich & Sedikides, Critelli, & Ee, 1994) and creative (Raskin & Shaw, 1988) 2001). In addition, narcissists are high in sensation-seek- than nonnarcissists. They exhibit defensive self-esteem ing (Emmons, 1991) and report (and are judged to such that they seek admiration but not acceptance (Raskin, have) elevated levels of exhibitionism and attention-

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at University of Southampton on March 7, 2016 360 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN seeking (Buss & Chiodo, 1991; Raskin & Terry, 1988; esteem (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995). Individ- Rudich, 1999). uals with low self-esteem also may be more socially needy This approach to interpersonal relationships is well than HSE individuals (Rudich & Vallacher, 1999). illustrated in narcissists’ romantic relationships. Narcis- When examining romantic relationships, the influ- sists are attracted to admiring and highly positive individ- ence of self-esteem is complex (Campbell & Baumeister, uals who will enhance the narcissists’ sense of self-worth 2001). HSE individuals typically have positive evalua- either directly via praise or indirectly via identification tions of their romantic partners that may, in turn, result (e.g., a “trophy spouse”). Narcissists are less attracted to in relationship satisfaction (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, caring individuals (Campbell, 1999). Once in a romantic 1996a, 1996b). HSE individuals also report less mania or relationship, a similar self-serving pattern can be observed. “lovesickness” in their romantic relationships (Camp- Relative to nonnarcissists, narcissists report less commit- bell et al., 2001; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). In con- ment in ongoing romantic relationships. This is largely a trast, low-self-esteem individuals engage in reassurance- result of narcissists’ increased attention to alternative seeking behaviors in romantic relationships, especially dating partners (Campbell & Foster, 2001). Likewise, when they are depressed (Joiner, Alfano, & Metalsky, narcissists’ love styles reflect greater game-playing and 1992). In short, HSE is related to some positive relation- more selfishness (Campbell, Foster, & Finkel, 2001). ship-oriented outcomes and HSE individuals are not as These particular patterns of behavior in romantic rela- socially needy as low-self-esteem individuals. tionships are not characteristic of HSE individuals. To summarize, we anticipate that HSE individuals will To summarize, we anticipate that narcissists will have have positive self-views in domains reflecting agency positive self-views in domains reflecting agency (e.g., (e.g., extraversion, openness, intellectance) as well as extraversion, openness, intellectance). In contrast, nar- those reflecting a communal orientation (e.g., agree- cissists will not report inflated self-views in domains ableness, conscientiousness, morality). This pattern will reflecting a communal orientation (e.g., agreeableness, be evident in HSE individuals’ romantic relationships. conscientiousness, and morality). This pattern will be Specifically, HSE individuals are likely to refrain from evident in narcissists’ romantic relationships. Specifically, rating themselves as better than their romantic partners. they are likely to rate themselves as better than their romantic partners. The Present Research Self-Esteem The primary goal of the present research is to distinguish between the self-concepts of narcissists and HSE Characterization and self-concept positivity. By definition, individuals. It is clear from the research literature that HSE individuals evaluate themselves positively. Further- both narcissists and HSE individuals have positive self- more, this positive self-evaluation will be reflected in views. However, we propose that the two groups differ in both agentic and communal domains. HSE individuals the specific self-views that they deem to be positive. are generally confident, gravitating toward leadership If there are differences in the positivity of narcissists’ positions (Rosenberg, 1965). In contrast, low-self-esteem and HSE individuals’ self-concepts, where would these individuals have a lesser (although not necessarily highly differences likely be found? We hypothesize that narcis- negative) opinion of themselves (Baumeister, Tice, & sists view themselves positively primarily in domains reflect- Hutton, 1989). In fact, low-self-esteem individuals have ing agency (e.g., extraversion, openness, intelligence). certain areas in which they believe that they excel but are That is, they will manifest an egoistic bias. However, nar- otherwise somewhat lacking in confidence (Pelham, cissists will not display inflated self-views in the domain of 1993). On the FFM, self-esteem is correlated positively communion (e.g., agreeableness, conscientiousness, moral- with the factors of extraversion, conscientiousness, and ity). That is, they will not manifest a moralistic bias. In openness/intellectance. Self-esteem also correlates neg- contrast, HSE individuals perceive themselves to be posi- atively with neuroticism (Jackson & Gerard, 1996). Fur- tive on a range of traits. These will include both agentic thermore, self-esteem has been linked to a general self- and communal traits. Stated otherwise, these individuals enhancement bias derived from self-ratings on traits rep- will display both an egoistic and a moralistic bias. resenting the FFM (Sinha & Krueger, 1998). Interest- In the present research, we relied on a standard and a ingly, narcissism did not correlate with this self-enhance- modified better-than-average effect procedure. This pro- ment bias in the Sinha and Krueger (1998) study when cedure requires individuals to describe their self- self-esteem was controlled. concept by comparing themselves to others on a range of The interpersonal dimension. High self-esteem is linked trait terms. We used converging methods to examine to several positive relational outcomes. For example, the self-concept positivity on agentic and communal traits. positive link between self-esteem and interpersonal relat- In Study 1A, we examined the better-than-average effect edness is a central tenet of the sociometer model of self- on a list of positive and negative trait terms taken from

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at University of Southampton on March 7, 2016 Campbell et al. / NARCISSISM AND SELF-ESTEEM 361 past research (Alicke, 1985) as well as trait terms derived directly from Alicke (1985), with 20 traits expressing posi- from the FFM (John, 1990). An agentic bias will be tive characteristics (e.g., intelligent, dependable) and reflected in elevated extraversion and openness to expe- another 20 traits expressing negative characteristics (e.g., rience/intellectance ratings. A communal bias will be insecure, complaining). We derived an additional 40 reflected in elevated agreeableness and conscientious- traits from the FFM (John, 1990) factors of extraversion ness ratings. In Study 1B, we replicated these findings (e.g., energetic, assertive), agreeableness (e.g., cold and also examined the positivity attached to these trait [reverse-scored], cooperative), conscientiousness (e.g., words. In Study 2, we examined self-concept positivity efficient, organized), neuroticism (e.g., tense, nervous), directly in the interpersonal realm. Individuals rated and openness to experience/intellectance (e.g., clever, their views of themselves, their romantic partner, and intelligent). themselves relative to their romantic partner. An agentic In Study 1B, participants completed the same mea- bias will be reflected in an inflated view of self compared sures and trait ratings as in Study 1A. In addition, Study to the romantic partner. In Study 3, we adopted a proce- 1B participants rated the positivity of each of these traits dure associated with the “Muhammad Ali effect” (Allison, using a 9-point scale with anchors at 0 (very negative) and Messick, & Goethals, 1989). Participants described their 8(very positive). We hypothesized that the traits on which self-views regarding intelligence and morality. An agentic narcissists and HSE individuals rate themselves as better bias will be reflected in enhanced intelligence ratings, than average also will be the traits that they deem to be whereas a communal bias will be reflected in enhanced positive (Alicke, 1985; Sedikides, 1993; Sedikides & Green, morality ratings. To summarize our hypotheses, narcis- 2000). sists’ better-than-average self-views will fall squarely in the domain of agency (i.e., egoistic bias), whereas HSE Results individuals’ self-views will extend into both agency and Descriptive statistics. In Study 1A, means and standard communal domains (i.e., egoistic and moralistic biases). deviations for the variables of interest were as follows: RSE (M = 69.38, SD = 13.82, α = .89), NPI (M = 15.30, SD = STUDY 1 6.67, α = .84), positive traits (M = 5.81, SD = .81, α = .90), Do narcissists and HSE individuals report having posi- negative traits (M = 2.93, SD = .94, α = .80), extraversion tive yet distinct self-views? In what aspects of the self- (M = 4.71, SD = 1.17, α = .87), agreeableness (M = 5.40, concept, agency or communion, do these positive self- SD = 1.86, α = .90), conscientiousness (M = 4.99, SD = .92, views reside? We approached these questions by examin- α = .70), neuroticism (M = 3.58, SD = 1.03, α = .81), and ing traits relevant to aspects of the FFM. openness (M = 5.07, SD = .78, α = .79). The RSE and the NPI were correlated, r = .22, p < .05. Method In Study 1B, means and standard deviations for the Participants. In Study 1A, 113 undergraduate students variables of interest were as follows: RSE (M = 73.52, SD = (27 men, 86 women) from the University of North Carolina 13.05, α = .88), NPI (M = 16.72, SD = 6.59, α = .83), posi- at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) participated. In Study 1B, par- tive traits (M = 5.93, SD = .93, α = .89), negative traits (M = ticipants were 85 UNC-CH undergraduate students. Due 2.71, SD = 1.05, α = .90), extraversion (M = 4.85, SD = to an error in data collection, participant gender was not 1.23, α = .87), agreeableness (M = 5.85, SD = .96, α = .78), recorded in Study 1B and Study 3. In all studies, volun- conscientiousness (M = 5.18, SD = 1.03, α = .80), teers received Introductory Psychology course credit neuroticism (M = 3.40, SD = 1.16, α = .84), and openness and were thoroughly debriefed at the end of the experi- (M = 5.26, SD = .88, α = .83). The RSE and the NPI were mental session. correlated, r = .24, p < .05. Materials and procedure. After arriving at the experi- Positive and negative traits. We present all results in mental room, participants in Study 1A completed the Table 1. This table also contains a combined correlation RSE scale and the NPI. The form of the RSE that we used representing the results from both Study 1A and 1B. As contained 10 items that were responded to on a 9-point hypothesized, both narcissism and HSE were related sig- scale (potential range 10-90). The NPI contained 40 nificantly to perceiving the self as above average on posi- forced-choice items with a potential range of 0 to 40. tive trait terms across both samples. Likewise, self-esteem Next, participants reported the extent to which they pos- was related inversely to perceiving the self as above aver- sessed certain traits relative to the average person. Partic- age on negative trait terms (as expected), whereas there ipants rated themselves on 80 traits using a 9-point scale was no relation between narcissism and negative trait with endpoints at 0 (much less than the average person) and terms. Thus, both constructs predicted the better-than- 8(much more than the average person). We adapted this pro- average effect on positive traits, but only HSE predicted cedure from Alicke (1985). We took 40 of these traits the better-than-average effect on negative traits. (These

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at University of Southampton on March 7, 2016 362 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

TABLE 1: Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and the Better-Than-Average openness to experience. Both of these factors reflect an Effect: Study 1, Samples A and B agency orientation. Likewise, there was no relation between More Agency/ narcissism and the factors representing communal ori- NPI RSE t Value Enhancing Communion entation (i.e., agreeableness and conscientiousness). Nar- cissists did not think that they were better than average Positive items on these traits. Finally, there was only a small negative Rating A .28* .37** Rating B .15 .40** correlation between narcissism and reported better- Combined .22** .38** –1.97* RSE Both than- average neuroticism. This overall pattern of results Positivity B .29** .42** was consistent across the two samples. Finally, the trait Negative items positivity rating paralleled the better-than-average rat- Rating A –.01 –.40** Rating B .08 –.48** ings in all but one instance. Combined .03 –.43** 5.80** RSE Both Also in line with the hypotheses, correlations revealed Positivity B –.06 –.26* that self-esteem was related positively to perceiving the Extraversion self as (a) better than average on the two communal fac- Rating A .46** .34** Rating B .58** .35** tors (i.e., agreeableness and conscientiousness) and one Combined .51** .34** 2.31* NPI Agency of the two agency factors (i.e., extraversion) and (b) Positivity B .43** .17 below average on neuroticism. HSE individuals consid- Agreeableness ered themselves better than average on both communal Rating A –.04 .47** and agentic traits. Rating B –.17 .47** Combined –.10 .47** –7.49** RSE Communion Next, we compared the self-views of narcissists and Positivity B –.11 .29** HSE individuals (Table 1). Narcissists, relative to HSE Conscientiousness individuals, displayed a better-than-average effect on Rating A .13 .30** agentic traits. In contrast, HSE individuals, relative to Rating B .10 .33** narcissists, showed a better-than-average effect on com- Combined .12 .31** –2.25* RSE Communion Positivity B .17 .31** munal traits. Neuroticism Rating A –.13 –.48** Discussion Rating B –.17 –.65** Combined –.15* –.56** 5.57** RSE Both Both narcissists and HSE individuals have positive— Positivity B –.14 –.30** yet distinct—self-views. When measured with a list of Openness unspecified traits, HSE individuals appear to have more Rating A .44** .14 positive self-concepts than narcissists. The reasons for Rating B .37** .10 this difference become clear when a researcher exam- Combined .41** .12 3.38** NPI Agency Positivity B .44** .18 ines the better-than-average effect on traits that reflect the FFM. Narcissists’ self-superiority beliefs were limited NOTE: RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, NPI = Narcissistic Person- primarily to those traits that reflect agency, specifically ality Inventory. Combined refers to the combined r across samples A and B. More enhancing is the group (narcissists, high-self-esteem indi- extraversion and openness. On these traits, narcissists viduals) that exhibited more self-enhancement. Agency/communion displayed a larger better-than-average effect than HSE refers to the type of trait. individuals. In contrast, HSE individuals’ self-superiority *p < .05. **p < .01. beliefs expanded on the complete range of traits: agentic, communal, and in between (i.e., neuroticism). findings were not qualified by gender, with the exception Indeed, HSE individuals reported a larger better-than- that the link between self-esteem and positive traits and average effect than narcissists on all but the two agentic neuroticism was stronger for women than for men.) traits. Two findings were unexpected. Narcissism was unre- Next, we compared the correlations involving narcis- lated to the better-than-average effect on general nega- sism and self-esteem both for positive and negative traits tive traits. Perhaps this finding is an artifact of the com- (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). In both cases, HSE individuals position of the word list. In particular, the positive traits reported a more positive self-concept than narcissists. contained several items regarding intelligence (i.e., agentic Finally, the trait positivity rating paralleled the better- traits), whereas the negative traits were more communal. than-average ratings. Also unexpected was the lack of correlation between FFM traits. We display the FFM results also in Table 1. HSE and self-rating on traits that denoted openness to As hypothesized, narcissism was associated significantly experience. Nevertheless, this correlation was in the with the better-than-average effect for extraversion and expected positive direction. A replication is needed.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at University of Southampton on March 7, 2016 Campbell et al. / NARCISSISM AND SELF-ESTEEM 363

STUDY 2 traits (M = –1.19, SD = .96, α = .63), and self versus roman- α In Study 2, we examined the self-views of narcissists tic partner on positive traits (M = .63, SD = .80, = .69) α and HSE individuals using a different approach. Spe- and on negative traits (M = –.00, SD = .61, = .46). The cifically, we examined the degree to which narcissists and RSE and the NPI were correlated, r = .22, p < .05. These HSE individuals in ongoing romantic relationships were values are consistent with those of Study 1. willing to (a) rate their current romantic partner as Self versus average other. We display the results in Table better than average and (b) rate themselves as better 2. The comparisons of the self to the average other repli- than their current romantic partner. We hypothesized cated those of Study 1. Both narcissists and HSE individ- that narcissists will express a positive view of themselves uals reported positive self-views, with HSE individuals compared to the average other and, more important, being more positive on the negative traits. that they will perceive the self as superior to their current Romantic partner versus average other. How positively do romantic partner. In contrast, we hypothesized that HSE narcissists and HSE individuals view their romantic part- individuals will express a positive view of themselves ners? Narcissists did not view their romantic partners as compared to average others but that they will not rate better than average on either the positive or the negative the self as superior to their romantic partner. These traits. In contrast, HSE individuals did view their roman- hypotheses reflect the difference in orientations between tic partners in a positive light, although only when respond- narcissists and HSE individuals. If narcissists have an ing to the negative traits. That is, they rated their part- agentic but noncommunal orientation, their positive ners as being below average on negative traits. self-views will not be attenuated when the comparison is a romantic partner. In contrast, if HSE individuals have Self versus romantic other. We asked participants to rate both agentic and communal self-views, they will be will- themselves in relation to their romantic partners. For ing to temper their positive self-views when the compari- narcissists, changing the comparison had little effect. son is a close other. Narcissists perceived themselves as better than their romantic partners on positive traits (r = .48 vs. .41 for self Method better-than-average other). In contrast, HSE individuals’ Participants. One hundred undergraduate students better-than-average effect disappeared when the target (50 men, 50 women) from Case Western Reserve Univer- was their romantic partner rather than an average other. sity volunteered for the study. (None of the results was In summary, this examination of self-views in roman- qualified by gender.) All participants were currently tic relationships reveals an interesting theme. Befitting a involved in a romantic relationship. We collected these primarily agentic orientation, narcissists hold positive data as part of a larger study of narcissism and romantic self-views in limited areas (i.e., those represented by the relationships. positive trait terms) and are willing to maintain these self-views even at the cost of derogating their own roman- Procedure. First, participants completed the RSE and tic partners. In contrast, consistently with a less agentic NPI. Next, they rated themselves compared to the aver- and a more communal orientation, HSE individuals’ age person on 10 positive and 10 negative personality positive self-views are shared with a romantic partner. We traits, which represented a subset of those that we used in should note that these findings, although in line with Studies 1 and 2. Participants also compared their roman- much empirical work on “normal” narcissists, may coun- tic partner to the average person on these 20 traits. ter some clinical research that has noted romantic ideal- Finally, participants rated themselves in comparison to ization on the part of narcissists (e.g., Kernberg, 1974). their romantic partner on the 20 traits. Unlike Study 1, Assuming that the clinical insights are valid, there are at the 9-point rating scale in Study 2 ranged from –4 to +4, least two resolutions to this discrepancy. First, it is possi- with 0 as the midpoint. We modified the range of the ble that that there is an early and highly transitory ideal- scale to make salient the comparison between the self ization stage on the part of narcissists that our measures and the partner. did not detect. Second, narcissists’ idealized beliefs about Results and Discussion romantic partners may be evident in only a small subgroup of narcissists or in a subgroup of relationships. Descriptive statistics. Means and standard deviations for The presence of such subgroups may not have been suffi- the variables of interest were as follows: RSE (M = 73.95, cient in our sample to affect our results. SD= 11.73, α = .86), NPI (M = 17.55, SD = 7.73, α = .88), self versus average person on positive traits (M = 1.65, SD = 1.10, α = .73) and on negative traits (M = –1.02, SD = STUDY 3 1.04, α = .72), romantic partner versus average person on In Study 3, we attempted to gain another perspective positive traits (M = 1.65, SD = .94, α = .82) and on negative on the self-views of narcissists and HSE individuals by

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at University of Southampton on March 7, 2016 364 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

TABLE 2: Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and the Better-Than-Average Results and Discussion Effect in Romantic Relationships: Study 2 Descriptive statistics. Means and standard deviations for More the variables of interest were as follows: RSE (M = 74.00, NPI RSE t Value Enhancing SD = 10.01, α = .81), NPI (M = 16.05, SD = 6.31, α = .82), Self versus average other intelligence traits (M = 6.07, SD = 1.04, α = .90), and Positive items .41** .27** 1.24 — moral traits (M = 6.85, SD = .77, α = .84). The RSE and the Negative items –.05 –.45** 3.54* RSE NPI were correlated, r = .36, p < .05. Romantic partner versus average other Better-than-average intelligence. We display all relevant Positive items –.03 .12 –1.19 — correlations in Table 3. As hypothesized, both narcissism Negative items –.03 –.35** 2.70* RSE and self-esteem were associated positively with better- Self versus romantic partner Positive items .48** .06 3.78** NPI than-average intelligence. This latter result suggests that Negative items –.06 –.18 .96 — the lack of significance found in the correlation between self-esteem and openness to experience/intellectance NOTE: RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, NPI = Narcissistic Person- ality Inventory. More enhancing is the group (narcissists, high-self- in Study 1 may reflect a small effect size and lack of statis- esteem individuals) that exhibited more self-enhancement. tical power. A statistical test showed that narcissism, *p < .05. **p < .01. when compared to self-esteem, was related to a margin- ally larger better-than-average effect on intelligence traits. examining the “Muhammad Ali effect.” According to Better-than-average morality. We observed a different this effect, people believe that they are more moral, but pattern of findings on the morality items (Table 3). not more intelligent, than the average person (Van There was no significant relation between narcissism Lange, 1991; Van Lange & Sedikides, 1998; Sedikides & and better-than-average morality. This pattern is consis- Strube, 1997). For the purpose of the present investiga- tent with the hypothesis that narcissists will not report tion, this effect serves as a technique to pit directly being better than average on communal traits. In con- agentic (i.e., intelligence) against communal (i.e., moral- trast, there was a significant positive relation between ity) aspects of the self. self-esteem and self-reported morality. Individuals high Indeed, the Muhammad Ali effect is particularly appro- on self-esteem believed that they were more moral than priate for examining agentic and communal self-views. the average person. When we compared the narcissism Consistently with Paulhus and John’s (1998) theorizing, and self-esteem correlations, we found that HSE individ- intelligence will clearly reflect an egoistic bias, whereas uals reported a significantly higher better-than-average morality will by definition reflect a moralistic bias. As effect on morality. such, we hypothesize that narcissists will rate themselves In summary, the results of Study 3 supported the as better than average on intelligence (an agentic trait) hypotheses. Narcissists perceive themselves as being more but not on morality (a communal trait). In contrast, HSE intelligent (an agentic trait) but not as more moral (a individuals will rate themselves as better than average on communal trait) than the average person. HSE individu- both traits. als tend to see themselves as both more intelligent (although not to the degree that narcissists do) and Method more moral than the average person.

Materials and procedure. Participants were 109 UNC- CH undergraduates who completed the RSE and NPI and GENERAL DISCUSSION then reported the degree to which they thought they Both narcissists and HSE individuals have positive were better than average on traits that described intelli- self-views, as our investigation confirms. More impor- gence and morality. The response format was the same as tant, it is now clear that the particular self-views on which the one used in Studies 1 and 2. We assessed the degree narcissists and HSE individuals perceive themselves as to which participants reported that they possessed being better than average differ reliably. To communi- better-than-average intelligence by using 11 traits, such cate this notion statistically, we meta-analyzed the results as intelligent, smart, and bright. We assessed the degree of our three studies (Table 4). For each sample, we pres- to which participants reported that they possessed ent the average correlation between narcissism and the better-than-average morality by using 17 traits, such as agency and communion variables as well as for self- moral, honest, and deceptive (reverse scored). We com- esteem and the agency and communion variables. We bined scores from these scales to form indices of better- operationalize agency in terms of extraversion and open- than-average intelligence and morality. We also asked ness (Study 1A and 1B), self versus romantic partner participants to rate the positivity of these traits. (Study 2), and intelligence (Study 3). We operationalize

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at University of Southampton on March 7, 2016 Campbell et al. / NARCISSISM AND SELF-ESTEEM 365

TABLE 3: Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and the Muhammad Ali Effect: gests that narcissists’ better-than-average views on agency Study 3 traits (combined r = .41) are higher than those of HSE More Agency/ individuals (combined r = .21). Likewise, narcissists’ self- NPI RSE t Value Enhancing Communion views on communal traits (combined r = –.06) are lower than those of HSE individuals (combined r = .33). Intelligence Put more simply, narcissists’ positive self-opinions rest Rating .41** .23** 1.80† NPI Agency squarely and strongly in the agency domain, whereas Positivity .27** .02 Morality HSE individuals allocate their positive self-opinions equally Rating –.17 .21* –3.67** RSE Communion to the agency and communion domains. Positivity –.06 –.08 Implications NOTE: RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, NPI = Narcissistic Person- ality Inventory. More enhancing is the group (narcissists, high-self-es- What do these findings tell us about the relation teem individuals) that exhibited more self-enhancement. Agency/ communion refers to the type of trait. between narcissism and HSE? First, narcissism does not †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. appear simply to reflect exceptionally high self-esteem. Indeed, HSE individuals viewed themselves equally to or in a more positive light than did narcissists. Rather, the TABLE 4: Synthesis of Agency and Communion Results Across key differences between these two groups are the facets Studies of the self that each group holds in high regard. Narcis- sists view themselves as highly outgoing and competent Study Study Study Study Combined, 1A 1B 2 3 ci 95% on certain cognitive skills (i.e., agency). These positive beliefs do not transfer to their romantic partners. Also, Narcissism (NPI) narcissists are relatively unconcerned with being nice or Agency .45** .48** .28** .41** .41 moral (i.e., communion); that is, they display an exten- (.33, sive egoistic bias but not a moralistic bias. In contrast, .49) Communion .04 –.04 –.17 –.06 HSE individuals view themselves as highly positive on (–.16, communal traits, such as nice, considerate, conscien- .04) tious, well-adjusted, and moral. Also, they hold positive High self-esteem views of their romantic partners. In addition, they per- (RSE) Agency .24** .23* .12 .23** .21 ceive themselves as more intelligent than others but not (.11, to the same extent as do narcissists. In summary, HSE .30) individuals display both an egoistic and a moralistic bias. Communion .39** .40** .21* .33 These differences in self-conceptions have implica- (.24, tions for the interpersonal self-regulatory strategies that .41) the two groups use. Narcissists’ positive agentic self-views NOTE: RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, NPI = Narcissistic Person- are expressed through efforts to win admiration and ality Inventory. Combined n = 407; ci refers to 95% confidence interval. attention from others, often by comparing and compet- Agency is represented by extraversion and openness (Study 1A and 1B), self versus romantic partner (Study 2), and intelligence (Study 3). ing with others; narcissists see themselves as willing to Communion is represented by agreeableness and conscientiousness assert and defend their competence interpersonally. For (Study 1A and 1B) and morality (Study 3). example, a narcissist who believes that he is intelligent *p < .05. **p < .01. may actively maintain this self-view by publicly exclaim- ing his own superior skills, derogating the success of oth- communion in terms of agreeableness and conscien- ers (including even a close other), and seeking situations tiousness (Study 1A and 1B) and morality (Study 3). in which he can compete intellectually with others. Why (Across the three studies, the average correlation between are narcissists willing to derogate others in the pursuit of narcissism and self-esteem was .26.) individual self-enhancement? Probably because narcis- The pattern of results is remarkably consistent across sists are not burdened by communal concerns (Sedikides studies. Narcissists perceive themselves as better than et al., in press). average on traits reflecting agency but do not perceive In contrast, HSE individuals report both egoistic and themselves as better than average on traits reflecting moralistic biases. Self-regulatory efforts on the part of communion. In contrast, HSE individuals perceive them- HSE individuals will thus be aimed at enhancing both selves as better than average on both agency and commu- agentic and communal traits. This will make it problem- nion traits. Furthermore, an inspection of the confi- atic to enhance the self by, for example, comparing the dence intervals around the combined correlations sug- self positively to close others (e.g., Study 2). HSE individ-

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at University of Southampton on March 7, 2016 366 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN uals would like refrain from self-regulatory strategies replicated with specific traits. For example, do narcissists that inflate egoistic biases at the expense of moralistic use idiosyncratic definitions of agentic traits? biases. Finally, our work would have benefited from a more This self-regulatory quandary that is faced by HSE “pure” measure of communal bias. We relied on several individuals but not by narcissists may be why society traits (e.g., morality, agreeableness) as proxies for com- smiles on the former and frowns on the latter. Narcissists munal self-beliefs. Future research will need to examine like themselves in unlikable ways and HSE individuals the link between narcissism, self-esteem, and self-beliefs like themselves in likable ways. One may dislike the nar- on communion. cissist for placing importance on outdoing others and Conclusion not placing importance on interpersonal caring or morality. In contrast, the HSE individual may be admired for There are different ways to love oneself. By compar- placing importance on prosocial traits. The one domain ing the self-views of narcissists and HSE individuals, two in which society may admire narcissists is achievement. of these differences become clear. Seeing the self as Individuals may not mind a narcissist on the team if he or extremely outgoing and clever (but not as moral or nice) she is focused on gaining praise by performing well. portrays a very different individual than seeing the self as nice and moral as well as somewhat clever or intelligent. Unfortunately, narcissism is problematic even in this Those who adopt the former view are narcissists, whereas domain because the narcissist may view success where those who adopt the latter view have high self-esteem. there is none or even steal success from his or her col- leagues (Farwell & Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998; John & Robins, 1994; Sedikides & Gregg, 2001). Perhaps another way to REFERENCES distill the difference between narcissists and HSE indi- Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluations as determined by the viduals is that narcissists want to be admired, whereas desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 49, 1621-1630. HSE individuals want to be popular. The latter is less tax- Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., & ing from an interpersonal or societal perspective. Vredenberg, D. S. (1995). Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Caveats chology, 68, 804-825. Allison, S. T., Messick, D. M., & Goethals, G. R. (1989). On being better but not smarter than others: The Muhammad Ali effect. There are several caveats that we must note when dis- Social Cognition, 7, 275-295. cussing the implications of the present research. First, Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Hutton, D. G. (1989). Self-presenta- before reaching too far into the behavioral realm, it is tional motivations and personality differences in self-esteem. Jour- nal of Personality, 57, 547-579. important to restate that the focus of the present article Bradlee, P. M., & Emmons, R. A. (1992). Locating narcissism within is on self-views, not behaviors. Although the self certainly the interpersonal circumplex and the five-factor model. Personal- ity and Individual Differences, 13, 821-830. is linked to behavior (Fleury, Sedikides, & Lunsford, Buss, D. M., & Chiodo, L. M. (1991). Narcissistic acts in everyday life. 2001; Sedikides & Gregg, in press), the self-views of inter- Journal of Personality, 59, 179-215. est may or may not be born out in actual behaviors. Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1254-1279. Future research may examine behavioral differences Campbell, W. K. (2001). A meta-analysis of the narcissism–self-esteem link. between narcissists and HSE individuals on various agentic Unpublished manuscript, University of Georgia. and communal behavioral self-enhancement strategies. Campbell, W. K., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Is loving the self neces- sary for loving another? An examination of identity and intimacy. Likewise, we should note that our use of the better- In M. Clark & G. Fletcher (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychol- than-average effect has limitations. Foremost, it was not ogy: Vol. 2. Interpersonal processes (pp. 437-456). London: Blackwell. Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (in press). Narcissism and commit- possible to distinguish clearly between accurate and illu- ment in romantic relationships: An investment model analysis. sory self-beliefs. In the past, researchers have confirmed Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. self-inflation on certain beliefs by comparing self-reports Campbell, W. K., Foster, C. A., & Finkel, E. (2001). Does self-love lead to love for others? A story of narcissistic game-playing. Unpublished manu- to objective measures (e.g., Farwell & Wohlwend-Lloyd, script, University of Georgia. 1998). Similar approaches would be useful in further Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., Sedikides, C., & Elliot, A. T. (2000). clarifying accuracy versus inflation in the self-views of Narcissism and comparative self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 329-347. narcissists and HSE individuals. Carroll, L. (1987). A study of narcissism, affiliation, intimacy, and The degree of self-enhancement that participants power motives among students in business administration. Psycho- report on the better-than-average effect paradigm depends logical Reports, 61, 355-358. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation on the ambiguity versus specificity of the traits measured analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence (Dunning & McElwee, 1995). We used a high proportion Erlbaum. Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (1994). Personality disorders and the five- of ambiguous traits in the present research, and it would factor model of personality. Washington, DC: American Psychological be useful to know the extent to which our findings are Association.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at University of Southampton on March 7, 2016 Campbell et al. / NARCISSISM AND SELF-ESTEEM 367

Dunning, D., & McElwee, R. O. (1995). Idiosyncratic trait definitions: Pelham, B. W. (1993). On the highly positive thoughts of the highly Implications for self-description and social judgment. Journal of depressed. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 936-946. self-regard (pp. 183-200). New York: Plenum. Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979) A narcissistic personality inventory. narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, Psychological Reports, 45, 590. 48, 291-300. Raskin, R. N., & Novacek, J. (1991). Narcissism and the use of fantasy. Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 490-499. of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 11-17. Raskin, R. N., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991a). Narcissistic, self- Emmons, R. A. (1991). Relationship between narcissism and sensa- esteem and defensive self-enhancement. Journal of Personality, 59, tion seeking. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 943-954. 19-38. Farwell, L., & Wohlwend-Lloyd, R. (1998). Narcissistic processes: Raskin, R. N., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991b). Narcissistic self- Optimistic expectations, favorable self-evaluations, and self- esteem management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, enhancing attribution. Journal of Personality, 66, 65-83. 911-918. Fleury, J., Sedikides, C., & Lunsford, V. (2001). Women’s experience Raskin, R. N., & Shaw, R. (1988). Narcissism and the use of personal following a cardiac event: The role of the self in healing. Journal of pronouns. Journal of Personality, 56, 393-404. Raskin, R. N., & Terry, H. (1988). A principle components analysis of Cardiovascular Nursing, 15, 71-82. the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994). Narcissistic illusions in construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, self-evaluations of intelligence and attractiveness. Journal of Person- 890-902. ality, 62, 143-155. Rhodewalt, F., Madrian, J. C., & Cheney, S. (1998). Narcissism, self- Gosling, S. D., John, O. P., Craik, K. H., & Robins, R. W. (1998). Do knowledge organization, and emotional reactivity: The effect of people know how they behave? Self-reported act frequencies com- daily experiences on self-esteem and affect. Personality and Social pared with on-line codings by observers. Journal of Personality and Psychology Bulletin, 24, 75-87. Social Psychology, 112, 107-118. Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1995). Self and interpersonal correlates Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcis- of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Research in Per- sism: A reexamination of Murray’s Narcism Scale. Journal of Research sonality, 29, 1-23. in Personality, 31, 588-599. Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1996). On self-aggrandizement and Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. anger: A temporal analysis of narcissism and affective reactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 672-685. Jackson, L. A., & Gerard, D. A. (1996). Diurnal types, the “big five” Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, personality factors, and other personal characteristics. Journal of NJ: Princeton University Press. Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 273-283. Rudich, E. A. (1999). The Need for Attention Scale. Unpublished manu- John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of script, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Rudich, E. A., & Vallacher, R. R. (1999). To belong or to self-enhance? Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66- Motivational bases for choosing interaction partners. Personality 100). New York: Guilford. and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1389-1406. John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-percep- Sedikides, C. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, and verification tion: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of determinants of the self-evaluation process. Journal of Personality narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 206-219. and Social Psychology, 65, 317-338. Joiner, T. E., Alfano, M. S., & Metalsky, G. I., (1992). When depression Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). The breeds contempt: Reassurance seeking, self-esteem, and rejection self-serving bias in relational context. Journal of Personality and of depressed college students and their roommates. Journal of Social Psychology, 74, 378-386. Abnormal Psychology, 101, 165-173. Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G., Elliot, A. J., & Gregg, A. P. Kernberg, O. (1974). Barriers to falling and remaining in love. Jour- (in press). Do others bring out the worst in narcissists? The “Oth- nal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 22, 486-511. ers Exist for Me” illusion. In Y. Kashima, M. Foddy, & M. Platow Kernis, M. H., & Sun, C. (1994). Narcissism and reactions to interper- (Eds.), Self and identity: Personal, social, and symbolic. Mahwah, NJ: sonal feedback. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 4-13. Lawrence Erlbaum. Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self- Sedikides, C., & Green, J. D. (2000). On the self-protective nature of esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. inconsistency/negativity management: Using the person memory Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518-530. paradigm to examine self-referent memory. Journal of Personality McHoskey, J. (1995). Narcissism and machiavellianism. Psychological and Social Psychology, 79, 906-922. Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P.(2001). Narcissists and feedback: Motiva- Reports, 77, 755-759. tional surfeits and motivational deficits. Psychological Inquiry, 12, Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcis- 237-239. sism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P.(in press). Self matters. In M. A. Hogg & Inquiry, 12,177-196. J. Cooper (Eds.), Sage handbook of social psychology. London: Sage Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996a). The benefit of Ltd. positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction Sedikides, C., & Rudich, E. A. (2001). It’s a matter of self-esteem: Narcis- in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, sism as predictor of mental health. Unpublished manuscript, Univer- 79-98. sity of Southampton, England, UK. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996b). The self-fulfill- Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own ing nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and to thine own self be better. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in 71, 1155-1180. experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 209-269). New York: Aca- Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of demic Press. trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Sinha, R. R., & Krueger, J. (1998). Ideographic self-evaluation and Social Psychology, 74, 1197-1208. bias. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 131-155. Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in Van Lange, P.A.M. (1991). Being better but not smarter than others: self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic The Muhammad Ali effect at work in interpersonal situations. Per- traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66, 1025-1060. sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 689-693.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at University of Southampton on March 7, 2016 368 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

Van Lange, P.A.M.,& Sedikides, C. (1998). Being more honest but not Watson, P.J., Grisham, S. O., Trotter, M. V., & Biderman, M. D. (1984). necessarily more intelligent than others: Generality and explana- Narcissism and empathy: Validity evidence for the narcissistic per- tions for the Muhammad Ali effect. European Journal of Social Psy- sonality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 159-162. chology, 28, 675-680. Watson, P.J., & Biderman, M. D. (1994). Narcissistic traits scale: Valid- Received September 6, 2000 ity evidence and sex differences in narcissism. Personality and Indi- Revision accepted June 1, 2001 vidual Differences, 16, 501-504.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at University of Southampton on March 7, 2016