Narcissistic Illusions in Self-Evaluations of Intelligence and Attractiveness

Narcissistic Illusions In Self-Evaluations of Intelligence and Attractiveness

Marsha T. Gabriel, Joseph W. Crltelll, and Juliana S. Ee University of North Texas

ABSTRACT In this study we compared the ability of narcissism and self- esteem to predict positive illusions in self-evaluations of intelligence and physical attractiveness in a sample of 146 college students. Narcissism predicted both types of illusion for males and females; self-esteem predicted intelligence self-illusion for males. Both males and females overestimated their own intelligence, with males, but not females, also overestimating their attractiveness. Positive illusions for intelligence and attractiveness were correlated. Males showed greater positive illusions than females, with this effect at least partly attributable to observed gender differences in narcissism.

Clinical theories (Kernberg, 1970; Kohut, 1971) argue that the purpose of narcissistic mental activity is to maintain a positive view of self. The clinical literature, based on unquantified observation, claims that narcissists distort reality to protect their fragile view of self. Narcissists purportedly see themselves as special and unique, possessing extraor- dinary abilities (Russell, 1985; Tobacyk & Mitchell, 1987). They exag- gerate their accomplishments, deny their faults, and adopt an attitude of superiority toward others (Lax, 1975). Thus narcissists are thought to possess a grandiose view of self that ranges across a number of life areas (Akhtar & Thomson, 1982). While an inflated, grandiose view of self is central to diagnoses of narcissistic pathology, this characteristic has not been verified empirically. Previous research (Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991), however, has suggested a link between narcissism and measures relevant to gran- Send requests for reprints to Joseph W. Critelli, Department of Psychology, PO Box 13587, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203. Journal of Personality 62:1, March 1994. Copyright © 1994 by Duke University Press. CCC 0022-3506/94/51.50 144 Gabriel et al. diosity. These authors employed three such measures: the Grandiosity scale (Watson & Klett, 1972), consisting of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) items such as "I am a special agent of God"; composite observer ratings of the traits "condescending," "ego- tistical," and "conceited"; and the fit between self and ideal self, with personal adjustment partialled out. Although this research goes a long way toward establishing an empirical linkage between narcissism and grandiose self-perception, it does not compare subjects' views of self to an objective criterion to determine whether the self-perceptions of narcissists are, in fact, inflated or otherwise distorted. The present study extends this line of research by examining whether narcissistic individuals show positive illusions in self-perception as compared to an objective criterion. We selected two major life areas for exploring these effects: cognitive ability and physical attractiveness. In each domain, self-evaluations of those high in narcissism were compared to objective measures, providing an empirical test of distorted self-perception. For purposes of discriminant validation, we also con- trasted narcissism with self-esteem. Both narcissism and self-esteem share the characteristic of positive self-evaluation, and self-esteem has been related to self-enhancing illusions (Raskin et al., 1991; Taylor & Brown, 1988). Nevertheless, both theoretical and empirical descrip- tions of narcissism indicate that unrealistic self-perception should be a more central feature of narcissism than of high self-esteem (Buss & Chiodo, 1991).

Subjects Participants were 146 volunteers (84 females, 62 males) who received course credit in utidergraduate psychology classes. Ages ranged from 17 to 45 years, with a mean of 21.6 {SD = 0.4). Racial composition of the sample was 82% Caucasian, 9% African-American, 6% Hispanic, and 3% other.

Measures Narcissism was measured with the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988). This scale shows good internal consistency (alpha = .86; Auerbach, 1984) and appropriate correlations with other measures of narcissism (Prifitera & Ryan, 1984). The NPI has showti positive correlations with dominance and exhibition (Emmons, 1984) and negative correlations with Narcissistic Illusions 145 social interest (Jourbert, 1986). The NPI has also been used successfully to diagnose narcissism in clinical samples (Prifitera & Ryan, 1984). Self-esteem was measured by the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale Total P score (TSCS; Roid & Fitts, 1988). The TSCS is a widely used measure of self- esteem (Stanwyck & Garrison, 1982) with good test-retest reliability (r = .92, two-week interval) atid intemal consistency (r = .91; Roid & Fitts, 1988). It has been used to discriminate psychiatric groups from normals (Crites, 1965) and to predict treatment outcome in substance abuse patients (O'Leary, Chaney, & Hudgins, 1978). A global, rather than domain-specific, measure of self-esteem was selected to make this variable comparable in generality to the NPI. Intelligence was measured by the Shipley Institute of Living Scale (Zachary, 1986). This scale contains two subtests. Vocabulary and Abstraction, with a combined split-half reliability of .92, and a test-retest reliability over 12 weeks of .78. The test has been correlated .74 with the WAIS-R (Zachary & Gorsuch, 1985) and is considered a valid estimation of general intelligence (Zachary, Crumpton, & Spiegel, 1985). Scores on the Shipley Scale were transformed into WAIS-R equivalents according to the Shipley manual (Zachary, 1986) and then transformed into percentile scores for college students according to norms for college students from the WAIS-R standardization sample (Rey- nolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987). Self-rated intelligence was obtained by having subjects rate their own intelligence on a percentile scale as compared to the average college student. Intelligence self-illusion was defined as self-rated intelligence independent of actual intelligence, i.e., the residual after actual intelligence was statistically removed from self-rated intelligence. Physical attractiveness was measured by comparing photographs of subjects against a set of selected yearbook photos. Three hundred photos of each sex were randomly selected from the university yearbook. Five male and five female undergraduates independently sorted photos into categories approxi- mating a normal distribution of attractiveness for each gender. Raters were given seven categories ranging from "extremely low attractiveness" to "extremely high attractiveness," along with the number of pictures to be sorted into each category to approximate a normal distribution (Geiselman, Haight, & Kimata, 1984). Fifty pictures of each gender were selected based on main- taining a normal distribution and on consistency of ratings across raters. Separate sets of male and female pictures were randomly ordered on charts to be used as comparisons for rating pictures of subjects during the experiment. Physical attractiveness scores were obtained by comparing the subject's picture with each standard picture of the same sex (Mueser, Graw, Sussman, & Rosen, 1984). This type of direct picture-to-picture comparison provides a relatively objective basis for quantifying physical attractiveness. A subject's percentile attractiveness score was twice the average of the number of pictures for which the subject was rated "more attractive" by the two independent 146 Gabriel et al. raters. The two female experimenters, who were blind as to subjects' levels of narcissism and self-esteem, served as raters after having achieved acceptable reliability with pilot subjects (r = .80). Self-rated attractiveness was obtained by having subjects rate their own attractiveness on a percentile scale as compared to the average college student. Attractiveness self-illusion was measured by the residual remaining when actual attractiveness was statistically removed from self-rated attractiveness.

Procedure Subjects completed demographic items and rated their own intelligence and attractiveness. This material was returned to the experimenters in a folder to prevent them from inadvertently seeing subjects' self-ratings. Shoulder-level pictures were taken of each subject against a standardized background with an automatically developing camera. Subjects were then given the intelligence measure. Following this, the NPI and TSCS were given in random order. While these measures were being completed, each of the two female experimenters independently rated pictures of the subject in a separate room. Details of this procedure can be found in Gabriel (1990). All procedures complied with ethical standards of the American Psychological Association.

RESULTS Coefficient alphas for narcissism and self-esteem were .86 and .90, re- spectively. Attractiveness ratings reached acceptable levels of interrater reliabiUty (intraclass r = .58, p < .001; Bartko, 1976). Means and standard deviations for the major variables appear in Table 1. For males, self-rated intelligence was greater than actual intelligence, t{6l) for paired samples = 5.03, p < .01, and self-rated attractiveness was greater than actual attractiveness, r(61) for paired samples == 5.57, p < .01. For females, self-rated intelligence was greater than actual intelligence, r(83) for paired samples = 6.97, p < .01, but self-rated and actual attractiveness did not differ, f(83) for paired samples = — 1.76, p > .05. Males scored higher than females on narcissism, f(144) = 2.99, p < .01, but not on self-esteem, r(144) = .01, p> .05. Males scored higher than females on actual intelligence, f(144) = 2.68, p < .01, and females scored higher than males on actual physical attractiveness, f(144) = 4.28, p < .01. Since intelligence and attractiveness self-illusions were correlated (r = .59, p < .01), a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare males and females on the two Narcissistic Illusions

Tabl* 1 Means and Standaid Deviations of Major Variables

Males {N = 62) Females (/Vf=84) Variable M SD M SD Self-rated intelligence^ 68.27 15.96 61.30 15.44 Actual intelligence" 53.81 20.83 44.33 21.38 Intelligence self-illusion 0.0 15.38 0.0 14.73 Self-rated attractiveness'' 63.87 17.05 54.43 17.71 Actual attractiveness" 48.92 14.96 58.62 12.40 Attractiveness self-illusion 0.0 16.90 0.0 17.71 Narcissism 18.29 6.25 15.08 6.50 Self-esteem 341.58 38.72 341.50 32.95

types of self-illusion. The multivariate F was significant, F{2, 143) = 4.60, p = .01, indicating higher self-illusion for males than females. Univariate tests suggested that this effect was stronger on attractiveness self-illusion, F(l, 144) = 9.24, p < .01, than on intelligence self-illusion, F(l, 144) = 3.55, p = .06. Further analyses were conducted to determine whether gender differences in self-illusion could be accounted for by existing gender differences in narcissism. With narcissism held constant, the multivariate F was not significant, F{2, 143) = 2.11, p > .05, suggesting that self-illusion differences between males and females in the present sample were at least partly attributable to narcissism. Table 2 presents the zero-order correlations. For males, narcissism and self-esteem were not significantly correlated. Intelligence self- illusion and attractiveness self-illusion were moderately correlated (r = .56, p < .01). Narcissism was correlated with intelligence self-illusion (r = .35, p < .01) and with attractiveness self-illusion (r = .29, p < .05). Self-esteem was correlated with intelligence self-illusion {r = .38, jT< .^i^tiattmCmxA attractiveness seft-ilTusibn. Females showed a pattem of zero-order correlations similar to that for males. For females, narcissism and self-esteem were modestly correlated (r = .26, p < .05), and the two types of self-illusion were moderately correlated (r = .63, p < .01). Narcissism was correlated with intelligence self-illusion (r = .23, p < .05) and with attractiveness self-illusion (r = .30, p < .01). Self-esteem was not correlated with N Q Q O ^ ; O O f

8 ^ s Narcissistic Illusions 149 either measure of self-illusion. A comparison of the male and female zero-order correlations using r to z transformations indicated that the only difference occurred on the correlation between self-esteem and intelligence self-illusion, which was greater for males than for females (z = 2.40, p< .05). For both sexes, self-rated intelligence and actual intelligence were significantly correlated (males: r = .27, p < .05; females: r = .30, p < .01), but self-rated attractiveness and actual attractiveness were not. Thus self-rated attractiveness was already empirically independent of actual attractiveness before statistical procedures for ensuring independence were implemented. Nevertheless, to maintain comparability of the two self-illusion measures, the same residualization techniques were employed for each. It should be noted that self-illusion could also have been measured by taking the difference between self-rated and actual measures of intelligence or attractiveness. The residualization method was preferred because of its lower standard error of measurement and consequent ability to generate slightly higher multiple Rs. Correlations between intelligence self-illusion and self-rated minus actual intelligence were appropriately substantial (males: r = .68; females: r = .66, ps < .01), as were correlations between attractiveness self-illusion and self-rated minus actual attractiveness (males: r = .80; females: r = .81, ps < .01). In addition, for the regression analyses reported below, the residuals and difference score measures yielded the same pattern of findings. Multiple regression analyses were used to examine the ability of narcissism and self-esteem to predict self-illusion. Hierarchical regression analyses, with interaction effects entered after the theoretically indicated narcissism, self-esteem, and gender main effects, indicated no interaction between narcissism and self-esteem in this or any of the other findings. The hierarchical regression, however, did reveal a significant Gender x Self-Esteem interaction on intelligence self-illusion. Because of this and the gender multivariate main effect on self-illusion, re- gressions using narcissism and self-esteem to predict self-illusion were computed separately for males and females. For males, with both predictors entered simultaneously, narcissism and self-esteem accounted for 24% of the variance in intelligence self-illusion, R = .49, F(2, 59) = 9.18, p < .01. Inspection of individual predictors indicated that both narcissism {t = 2.65, p < .01) and self-esteem {t = 2.97, p < .01) made significant contributions to prediction. Narcissism and self-esteem together accounted for 12% of the variance in attractive- 150 Gabriel et al. ness self-illusion, R = .35, F(2, 59) = 4.18, p < .05. Inspection of individual predictors indicated that only narcissism made a significant contribution to prediction (t = 2.18, p < .05). For females, narcissism and self-esteem together did not result in a significant prediction of intelligence self-illusion, R = .25, F(2, 81) = 2.62, p > .05, but using narcissism as the sole predictor did result in a significant regression, R = .23, F(l, 82) = 4.11, p < .05. Narcissism and self-esteem together accounted for 9% of the variance in attractiveness self-illusion, R = .30, F(2, 81) = 4.10, p < .05. Inspection of individual predictors indicated that only narcissism made a significant contribution to prediction {t = 2.84, p < .01). Because females as a whole did not overestimate attractiveness, further analyses were conducted to determine whether high narcissistic females overestimated their attractiveness. Females who scored 22 or above on the NPI {N = 15) were identified. For these females, self-rated and actual attractiveness were compared (self-rated attractiveness: M = 67.00, SD = 19.16; actual attractiveness: M = 57.93, SD = 12.40). Self-rated attractiveness was marginally higher than actual attractiveness, t{H) for paired samples = 1.65, p = .06, one-tailed, as opposed to the underestimation trend found in the sample of females as a whole. As expected from previous analyses, high narcissistic females also overestimated their intelligence—self-rated intelligence: M = 68.67, SD = 14.33; actual intelligence: M = 50.87, SD = 18.28; one-tailed t{{4) for paired samples = 3.49, p < .01. Similarly, high narcissistic males (NPI > 23) overestimated their intelligence—self-rated intelligence: M = 72.08, SD = 13.56; actual intelligence: M = 52.92, SD = 22.01; one-tailed r(ll) for paired samples = 3.15, p < .001. High narcissistic males also overestimated their attractiveness—self-rated attractiveness: M = 73.58, SD = 13.64; actual attractiveness: M = 44.75, SD = 19.18; one-tailed t{\\) for paired samples = 3.49, p < .001. Exploratory analyses on difference scores (estimated value minus actual value) were also conducted to clarify whether high narcissists overestimated their intelligence and attractiveness more than low narcissists did. For males, the high narcissists gave greater overestimates of intelligence (M = 19.17, SD = 21.10) than low narcissists—M = -3.15, SD = 19.52; f(23) = 2.75, p = .01. High narcissists also gave greater overestimates of attractiveness (Af = 28.83, SD = 28.61) than low narcissists-tM = 1.31, SD = 15.59; f(23) = 3.02, p < .01. For females, the difference between high {M = 17.80, SD = 19.78) and low Narcissistic Illusions 151 narcissists (M = 10.50, SD = 19.19) on overestimations of intelligence did not reach statistical significance, although it was in the expected direction. High narcissists gave greater overestimates of attractiveness (M = 9.07, SD = 21.31) than low narcissists—M = -13.00, SD = 18.78; t{27) = 2.95, p < .01, who underestimated their attractiveness.

DISCUSSION The present study suggests that, as compared to relatively objective as- sessments, those high in narcissism possess an inflated and sometimes grandiose view of their intelligence and attractiveness. For example, males high in narcissism overestimated their attractiveness by a mean of nearly 30 percentile points. This is the first empirical validation for the widely reported chnical phenomenon of narcissistic grandiosity (Russell, 1985). In demonstrating the presence of self-illusion in a non- cUnical sample of narcissists, we would expect pathological narcissists to show equivalent or higher levels of self-illusion. This empirical validation of distortion across major life areas for college students high in narcissism lends some indirect support to the inclusion of grandiosity in the DSM-III-R diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder. Of course, empirical extension of the present methodology to a clinical sample is advisable. Overall, narcissism showed stronger and more pervasive ties to self- illusion than did self-esteem. This is an important validation of the NPI, especially since self-esteem has been linked in previous research to other self-enhancing illusions (e.g., Tennen & Herzberger, 1987). This finding also has theoretical importance, since self-esteem and narcissism differ in regard to healthy functioning. Although both narcissism and self-esteem include positive self-evaluation, narcissism has not been viewed as a component of a healthy personality, whereas positive self-esteem is considered a sign, if not a criterion, of psychological health. The only variable on which self-esteem did contribute to self- illusion was with male subjects' evaluations of their own intelligence. Here, self-esteem showed contributions to self-illusion that were independent of and equal to those of narcissism. It may be that evaluations of their intellectual competence are so central to males' sense of self that self-esteem cannot be maintained without a positive evaluation. It is important to note that self-illusions cannot be documented without some relatively objective basis for determining accurate perception or belief. With regard to intelligence, the present study used an objective 152 Gabriel etal. and well-standardized measure of actual performance to determine deviations from accuracy. With regard to physical attractiveness, claims of objectivity must be somewhat softened. This is clearly a variable which is culture-bound, dependent on one's relationship to the person rated, and subject to idiosyncratic preferences. Nevertheless, within a given culture, physical attractiveness can be measured by impartial judges at a level of agreement that would generally be considered acceptable for scientific investigation. In addition to predicting self-illusion within male and female sub- samples, narcissism also accounted for self-illusion differences between the sexes. Males scored higher in self-illusion than did females, but this effect disappeared when narcissism was held constant. Males and females showed no difference or trend on self-esteem. It should be noted, however, that several other studies have not found narcissism differences between males and females (Gerson, 1984; Raskin & Hall, 1981). Thus it is not clear whether males are generally more grandiose than females or whether this occurs only when narcissism differences between the groups are observed. In addition, the present study found unexpected gender differences in intelligence and attractiveness, and correlations between narcissism and self-esteem were lower than several of those previously reported (although the r for females was comparable to that found by Raskin et al., 1991, using the same measures). As it is possible that the present results could be influenced by the magnitude of the relationship between narcissism and self-esteem, some caution should be used in generalizing the present findings. In addition to self-illusions among those high in narcissism, the present study found substantial self-illusions within the sample as a whole. This supports the notion (Snyder, 1989; Taylor & Brown, 1988; Wolfe & Grosch, 1990) that positive self-illusions are a normal, and perhaps often adaptive, feature of social adjustment within our culture. As grandiosity has been called the prototype of narcissistic behaviors (Buss & Chiodo, 1991), North America has been labeled a culture of narcissists (Lasch, 1979). Consistent with these views, the present results indicated substantial correspondence in self-illusion across the life areas of intelligence and attractiveness self-evaluation. Both males and females in the present sample overestimated their intelligence, with males also overestimating attractiveness. As a group, females did not overestimate their attractiveness, but those high in narcissism did. It is of some interest that females as a group did not overestimate their own attractiveness, despite, and perhaps because of, the salience of Narcissistic Illusions 153 physical attractiveness in social evaluations of females (Franzoi, Kesse- nich, & Sayrae, 1988). Some researchers have noted that the way in which feminine ideals of physical beauty are portrayed in the media leads many women to compare themselves to unrealistic standards of perfection (Rodin, Silberstein, & Streigel-Moore, 1985). This may result in self-critical behaviors that counteract cultural tendencies toward self-illusion. Nevertheless, for women high in narcissism, self-illusion appears to win out over self-doubt. For both males and females, self-rated attractiveness and actual attractiveness were independent of each other, while self-rated intelligence and actual intelligence were weakly correlated. Additionally, previous research has only found modest relationships between self-rated and actual attractiveness (Downs, 1990). Nevertheless, it does not appear to be commonly understood that individuals may have no idea how attractive or unattractive they actually are. This result cannot be attributed to indifference because physical attractiveness is highly valued in our culture, and it cannot be attributed to the inherent subjectivity of attractiveness because impartial observers typically show acceptable levels of agreement. In some ways, the finding of near-independence for self-rated and actual measures of intelligence is even more surpris- ing, since college students have repeatedly received objective feedback directly relevant to intellectual competency through school grades and quantified results of standardized tests. Together with the fairly substantial correlation between intelligence self-illusion and attractiveness self-illusion, the present results suggest, for many subjects, a high degree of selective ignorance in important areas of self-evaluation. It seems likely that some level of self-illusion may be culturally adaptive, with extreme illusions leading to faulty life decisions and problems in adjustment. It is not clear at this time, however, where the line between adaptive and maladaptive illusions would be drawn. One hypothesis, as suggested by the unfavorable connotation of "narcissism" in the general population, is that the high narcissists in the present study have already crossed this line. In sum, showing a specific linkage of narcissism to self-illusion, beyond the contributions to self-illusion of self-esteem, provides valu- able discriminant validation for the NPI. In addition, it is important in future research on self-illusion to include measures employing an objective criterion of evaluation; otherwise self-illusion cannot be distin- guished from positive self-evaluations that are accurate. Future research should also be aimed at pursuing the distinction between narcissism and 154 Gabriel et al. self-esteem. It seems quite interesting that two constructs which share the central theme of positive self-evaluation can separately contribute to self-illusion while having differing implications for psychological health. Perhaps the study of these two constructs will provide a basis for separating adaptive from maladaptive levels of positive self-illusion.

REFERENCES

Akhtar, S., & Thomson, J. A. (1982). Overview: Narcissistic personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 12-20. Auerbach, J. S. (1984). Validation of two scales for narcissistic personality disorder. Journal cf Personality Assessment, 48, 649-653. Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 83, 762-765. Buss, D. M., & Chiodo, L. M. (1991). Narcissistic acts in everyday life. Journal of Personality, 59, 179-215. Crites, J.O. (1965). Review of the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. yoMrna/o/Co««.sWmg Psychology, 12,330-331. Downs, A. C. (1990). Objective and subjective physical attractiveness judgments among young adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 458. Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic Per- sonality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291-299. Franzoi, S. L., Kessenich, J. J., & Sayrae, P. A. (1988). Gender differences in the experience of body awareness: An experiential sampling study. Sex Roles, 21, 499- 515. Gabriel, M. T. (1990). Narcissism: Reality testing and the effect of negative feedback. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of North Texas, Denton. Geiselman, R. E., Haight, N. A., & Kimata, L. G. (1984). Context effects of the perceived physical attractiveness of faces. Journal of Experimental and Social Psy- chology, 20, 409-424. Gerson, M. J. (1984). Splitting: The development of a measure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 157-162. Jourbert, C. E. (1986). Social interest, loneliness, and narcissism. Psychological Re- ports, 58, 870. Kernberg, O. F. (1970). Factors in the psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic person- alities. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 18, 51-85. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self: A systematic approach to the psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personality disorders [Monograph]. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 4. Lasch, C. (1979). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing expectations. New York: Warner Books. Lax, R. F. (1975). Some comments on the narcissistic aspects of self-righteousness: Defensive and structural considerations. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 56, 283-292. Mueser, K., Graw, B., Sussman, S., & Rosen, A. (1984). You're only as pretty as you feel: FaciEil expression as a determinant of physical attractiveness. Journal cf Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 469-478. Narcissistic Illusions 155

O'Leary, M. R., Chaney, E. F., & Hudgins, W. (1978). Self-concept: Effects of alcoholism, hospitalization, and treatment. Psychological Reports, 42, 655-661. Prifitera, A., & Ryan, J. (1984).Validity of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) in a psychiatric sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 140-142. Raskin, R. A., & Hall, C. S. (1981). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Alternate form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. Journal cf Personality Assessment, 45, 159-162. Raskin, R. A., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissism, self-esteem, and defensive self-enhancement. Journal cf Personality, 59, 19-38. Raskin, R. A., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissis- tic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890-902. Reynolds, C. R., Chastain, R. L., Kaufman, A. S., & McLean, J. E. (1987). Demo- graphic characteristics and IQ among adults: Analysis of the WAIS-R standardization sample as a function of the stratification variables. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 323-342. Rodin, J., Silberstein, L.. & Streigel-Moore, R. (1985). Women and weight: A nor- mative discontent. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 32, pp. 267-307). Roid, G. H., & Fitts, W. H. (1988). Tennessee Self-Concept Scale: Revised manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Russell, G. A. (1985). Narcissism and the narcissistic personality disorder: A comparison of the theories of Kernberg and Kohut. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 587, 137-148. Snyder, C. R. (1989). Reality negotiation: From excuses to hope and beyond. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8, 130-157. Stanwyck, D. ]., & Garrison, W. M. (1982). Detection of faking on the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 426-431. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social-psychological perspective on mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 193-210. Tennen, H., & Herzberger, S. (1987). Depression, self-esteem, and the absence of self-protective attributional biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 72-80. Tobacyk, J. J., & Mitchell, T. E. (1987). Out-of-body experience status as a moderator of effects of narcissism on paranormal beliefs. Psychological Reports, 60, 440-442. Watson, C. G., & Klett, W. G. (1972). A validation of the Psychotic Inpatient Profile. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 102-109. Wolfe, R. N., & Grosch, J. W. (1990). Personality correlates of confidence in one's decisions. Journal of Personality, 58, 515-534. Zachary, R. A. (1986). Shipley Institute of Living Scale: Revised manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Zachary, R. A., Crumpton, E., & Spiegel, D. (1985). Estimating WAIS-R IQ from the Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 532-540. Zachary, R. A., & Gorsuch, R. (1985). Continuous norming implications for the WAIS-R. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 86-94.

Manuscript received May 11, 1992; revised December 8, 1992.

本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络，仅供学习交流使用。

学霸图书馆（www.xuebalib.com）是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源，

提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP 图书馆。图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研，提供最强文献下载服务。

图书馆导航：

图书馆首页文献云下载图书馆入口外文数据库大全疑难文献辅助工具