Narcissist Unmasked. Looking for the Narcissistic Decision-Making Mechanism: A Contribution from the Big Five

Forms of Narcissism

Narcissism is a puzzling construct full of apparent paradoxes (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001); in addition, different forms of narcissism are the subject of scientific interest. The most basic distinction is between vulnerable and grandiose narcissism (Wink, 1991). Vulnerable narcissism is related to defensiveness, insecurity, feelings of inadequacy and incompetence, and negative affect (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Miller et al., 2011), whereas grandiose narcissism is related to grandiosity, arrogance, self-absorption, and entitlement (Besser & Priel, 2010; Miller et al., 2011). Whereas vulnerable narcissism is related to more clinical outcomes, grandiose narcissism is related to normal narcissism (Miller, Lynam, Hyatt, & Campbell, 2017; Rogoza, Żemojtel-Piotrowska, Kwiatkowska, & Kwiatkowska, 2018). Although different forms of narcissism exist, the current paper focuses exclusively on grandiose narcissism; thus, each time we refer to narcissism, we mean grandiose narcissism.

Grandiose Narcissism

Studies of grandiose narcissism started to flourish alongside the development of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979). The NPI is a forced-choice measure in which a respondent must choose between narcissistic versus non-narcissistic items that were prepared based on DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980) diagnostic criteria. Ackerman et al. (2011) argued that the NPI has a hierarchical structure that measures two different aspects of narcissism: adaptive and maladaptive narcissism. Adaptive narcissism is synonymous with Leadership/Authority (LA), whereas maladaptive narcissism represents Exhibitionism/Entitlement, and it could be further differentiated into Grandiose Exhibitionism (GE) and Entitlement/Exploitativeness (EE). The adaptiveness of LA is expressed in the lack of associations with pathological narcissism and the positive correlation with high global self-esteem, extraversion, assertiveness, self-enhancement, social potency, and goal persistence. Despite the common presence of GE and EE within maladaptive narcissism and some common features between these two (e.g., entitlement rage), Ackerman et al. (2011) argued that it is EE that accounts for the most explicitly negative outcomes of narcissism (i.e., antisocial tendencies, exploitativeness, devaluing others, disagreeableness), whereas GE is rather associated with positive outcomes (e.g., social potency, extraversion, goal persistence). Ackerman et al.’s (2011) description of maladaptive narcissism also corresponds to concerns raised by Brown, Budzek, and Tamborski (2009), who argued that narcissistic characteristics fall into two clusters: grandiosity and entitlement. EE is oriented towards others; it reflects the interpersonal clusters, while self-oriented GE represents the intrapersonal cluster of narcissism.

Back et al. (2013) contributed to the understanding of grandiose narcissism by introducing the two-dimensional process model of narcissism, the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (NARC). The NARC model overcomes some of the difficulties associated with the NPI, such as the historical DSM-III-based operationalization; the predominant representation of dominant, assertive, and grandiose aspects of narcissism; and the narrow theoretical range of LA and EE (Back et al., 2013; Brown et al., 2009). Within the NARC model, the most basic goal of the narcissist is to maintain the grandiose self, which can be done in two separate but positively correlated ways: assertive, self-enhancing admiration or antagonistic, self-defensive rivalry (Back et al., 2013; Rogoza, Rogoza, & Wyszyńska, 2016). Each strategy comprises affective-motivational, cognitive, and behavioural facets. The motivation of the admiration strategy comes from striving for uniqueness, followed by cognitive grandiose fantasies, resulting in charming behaviour, whereas the motivation of the rivalry strategy comes from striving for supremacy followed by the cognitive devaluation of others, resulting in aggressive behaviour. In other words, the narcissist, to self-enhance, pursues confirmation that he is unique and special, fantasizes about being exceptional, and acts self-assuredly, which could result in socially desired outcomes. However, when the narcissist perceives something as a threat, he pursues supremacy over others, thinks of them as inferior, and acts aggressively, which could result in socially aversive outcomes. The NARC model integrates the idea of intra- and interpersonal aspects of narcissism (Brown et al., 2009) because both strategies comprise both aspects, i.e., narcissistic self-enhancement triggers not only intrapersonal grandiose fantasies but also interpersonal self-assured behaviour.

What is common between Ackerman et al. (2011) and Back et al. (2013) is the emphasis that the narcissist can wear two masks: one that is associated with positive social outcomes (LA and the admiration strategy) and a second that is associated with negative social outcomes (EE and the rivalry strategy). The understanding of narcissism that is adaptive on one hand and maladaptive on the other is also consistent with the long history of studies of narcissism (e.g., Emmons, 1984). However, neither of the existing models explains the process of how the narcissist chooses one mask over the other.

Weakness of the NARC Model: The Trigger Mechanism

Although the NARC model unravels some of the existing paradoxes related to narcissism (e.g., in regard to self-esteem, impulsivity, personality traits; Back et al., 2013) and explains the behavioural dynamics of two distinct narcissistic strategies, only a little emphasis is put on the trigger mechanism. We understand the trigger mechanism as the answer to the question of: Why is one strategy chosen over another? The existing trigger mechanism was excerpted from the self-regulatory process model of narcissism (Campbell & Campbell, 2009; Morf, Horvath, & Torchetti, 2011; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001), which relies on situational logic, i.e., IF an opportunity arises to promote the grandiose self/perceived threat to self, THEN self-enhance/strike back (Morf et al., 2011). Although such a description is intuitive and provides good insight into narcissistic functioning, it is plausible only for situations in which the promotion opportunity or threat is obvious. We support the idea that narcissists behave in a specific manner in regard to situational assessment and its potential impact on the grandiose self; however, in our opinion, the trigger mechanism, especially in the context of alternating or unclear situations, has been relatively unexplored. Narcissism is deeply rooted within personality and individual differences theory (Miller & Campbell, 2008), and because narcissistic admiration and rivalry are two distinct and coherent trait dimensions (Back et al., 2013), other trait theories may account for or explain the undiscovered trigger mechanism. We believe that the foundations and expansions of the Big Five Model of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1997) are vital for understanding the underlying motivational dynamics of narcissism; therefore, we present a review of this issue before proceeding to our explanation of the trigger mechanism.

Narcissism and the Big Five Model of Personality: A Review of the Existing Literature

Personality traits, described as a relatively stable pattern of behaviour, thoughts, and emotions (McCrae & Costa, 2003), serve as a useful predictor in almost any area of psychological research (John & Srivastava, 1999); however, in the context of narcissism, many ambiguities exist. Table 1 presents the relationship between personality traits from the Big Five Model of personality (i.e., extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness; McCrae & Costa, 1997) and narcissism. We searched the literature using three databases: PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES and Google Scholar for keywords narcissism and Big Five.

Most studies on the relationship between narcissism and Big Five personality traits have been conducted in university samples from English-speaking countries. Among all observed correlations, two traits in independently used methods of assessment constantly exhibited the highest associations with narcissism: extraversion and disagreeableness. Although some exceptions to this pattern exist, e.g., a lack of correlation with extraversion (Furnham, Hughes, & Marshall, 2013) or a positive correlation with agreeableness (Muris, Meesters, & Timmermans, 2013), the pattern of relationship is rather stable across different studies. The relationships between other Big Five personality traits and narcissism are visibly weaker; however, this does not imply that they do not exist. To investigate the role of the remaining Big Five personality traits in their relations to narcissism, we compared reported results to the existing meta-analyses and, moreover, we also computed the average effect size using the Hedges and Olkin (1985) method for calculating weighted summary correlation coefficient under fixed effects model. The average effect sizes, which are presented in Table 2, were estimated for all of the single construct measures (i.e., NPI, SD3, DTDD, NACE) in a joint analysis (k = 41), and separately for admiration and rivalry (k = 5).

The results from the current and previous meta-analyses confirmed that the role of extraversion and low agreeableness is superior to other Big Five personality traits in explaining narcissism. However, the average effect sizes of openness to experience and neuroticism were also relatively high. The current study is also the first to report the meta-analytic results regarding the dimensions of admiration and rivalry, suggesting that whereas an observed relation with openness is more typical for admiration, a relation with neuroticism is more typical for rivalry. Thus, although it might be claimed that extraversion and low agreeableness represent the core features of narcissism, other traits also contribute to its explanation, but in a more general context.

The Narcissist as Disagreeable Extravert

Paulhus (2001) in his minimalistic approach to narcissism, which was opposed to the more complex Morf and Rhodewalt’s (2001) dynamic self-regulatory processing model of narcissism, was the first to suggest that the combination of the two Big Five personality traits–namely extraversion and low agreeableness–are able to synthesize the emergent personality type equivalent for narcissism. This claim was based on the seminal works of Leary (1957) and Wiggins (1979), who, using personality trait adjectives, developed a circumplex model of interpersonal behaviour in which the vertical axis represents agency and the horizontal axis communion. In this vein, Leary (1957) was probably the first to notice that narcissism is marked by high agency and low communion. Within the space of the Big Five Model of personality, Costa and McCrae (1995) argued that between the agency and communion axes, two additional axes explaining interpersonal behaviour can be introduced: extraversion and agreeableness. Because narcissism can be perceived as a vector cutting between high agency and low communion (Wiggins & Pincus, 1994), Paulhus (2001) pointed out that in the Big Five space this description reflects extraversion and low agreeableness.

The circumplex model of interpersonal behaviour (Wiggins, 1979, 1980) was one of the fundamental inspirations for the Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex (Hofstee, De Raad, & Goldberg, 1992), which expanded on the Big Five traits. It is worth noting that Hofstee et al. (1992) developed ten circles that represent constellations of each of the Big Five traits with one another, but only the extraversion-agreeableness circumplex (presented in Figure 1) is of interest for the current manuscript.

Click to enlarge

Figure 1

Graphical representation of the extraversion-agreeableness circumplex. Designations ranging from I+/II- to II+/I- are from Goldberg (1999); the remaining designations were derived from the adjective lists in Hofstee et al. (1992).

Within this model, extraversion and agreeableness could be organized within a circumplex as two orthogonal axes. These axes represent pure facets of a given trait, with each pole representing its high or low intensity. Between these axes, four additional axes divide the circle into eight facets, with each facet representing a blend of the two basic Big Five traits (Goldberg, 1999). Because narcissism is associated with high extraversion and low agreeableness, we propose extracting the upper-left quadrant of the circle and interpreting it as the potential spectrum of interpersonal behaviours of narcissists. From this perspective, the narcissist could act in four different ways: purely disagreeable (antagonism), disagreeable but with a blend of extraversion (rivalization), extroversive with a blend of disagreeableness (provocativeness), and purely extroversive (gregariousness).

The Narcissist as Unstable Plastic

Although the definition of a narcissist as a disagreeable extravert is appealing due to its simplicity, it denies all the observed associations with other personality traits. Back et al. (2013) provided evidence that the observed associations between narcissism and extraversion and narcissism and disagreeableness are due to the existence of two distinct strategies: only admiration was related to extraversion, and only rivalry was related to disagreeableness. Rogoza, Wyszyńska, Maćkiewicz, and Cieciuch (2016) replicated these results but also noted the shared variance within the structural equation model. It turned out that all Big Five traits explained 39% and 30% of the variance of admiration and rivalry, respectively. Alongside the observed pattern of relationship between narcissism and other personality traits, one can conclude that the narcissist is more than simply a disagreeable extravert.

Rogoza, Żemojtel-Piotrowska, Rogoza, Piotrowski, and Wyszyńska (2016) considered all the observed relationships between narcissistic admiration and rivalry and Big Five personality traits within a joint factor analysis and argued that admiration is related mostly to high extraversion and openness to experience, whereas rivalry is related mostly to low agreeableness and conscientiousness and high neuroticism. Such a constellation of the Big Five traits, also known as the Two Factor model of personality (Cieciuch & Strus, 2017), was first described by Digman (1997), who argued that such a pattern of relationship is not accidental but rather is due to two complementary metatraits of personality. DeYoung, Peterson, and Higgins (2002) described these metatraits as Plasticity (high extraversion and openness to experience) and Stability (high agreeableness, high conscientiousness, and low neuroticism). The Plasticity metatrait is related to the general pattern of exploration—where extraversion represents behavioural exploration and openness to experience represents cognitive exploration—whereas the Stability metatrait is associated with stable functioning in social interactions, cooperativeness, and honesty (Cieciuch & Strus, 2017; DeYoung, 2015). The metatraits of Plasticity and Stability also represent the agentic and communal orientation respectively (Paulhus & John, 1998) and therefore there is a strong overlap between agency and Plasticity and communion and Stability (Gebauer, Paulhus, & Neberich, 2013). Metatraits corroborate to the Wiggins (1979) interpersonal circumplex, and therefore as in accordance to Paulhus (2001), it can be claimed that whereas the metatraits of personality provide a more general insight into the interpersonal functioning of narcissists, the core of narcissism is mostly focused on extraversion and low agreeableness.

In this proposition, the narcissist is interpreted as Unstable Plastic (Rogoza, Żemojtel-Piotrowska et al., 2016). The superior role of extraversion thus could be explained by a behavioural exploration of narcissists that is not followed by cognitive exploration—narcissists during zero acquaintance are perceived as agreeable, self-confident, and kind (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010; Paulhus, 1998). However, this effect is quickly reversed due to a poor and unstable pattern of socialization, and then narcissists need to look for new acquaintances (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). From this perspective, Plasticity plays an evolutionary adaptive role in the narcissist’s everyday functioning because it is a tool to address the costs of low Stability (Jonason, Li, & Czarna, 2013).

The Narcissist as Delta-Minus: A Contribution from the Circumplex of Personality Metatraits Model

Strus, Cieciuch, and Rowiński (2014) proposed a circumplex of personality metatraits (CPM) model that integrates current knowledge about the Big Five. The core of this model is two orthogonal metatraits, Plasticity (Beta) and Stability (Alpha), and two new metatraits: the Gamma metatrait, which is the reconceptualization of the general factor of personality (Musek, 2007), and the Delta metatrait, the presence of which was deduced based on the circular logic of the model. Each metatrait has two poles (i.e., Plus and Minus); however, a positive pole (i.e., Beta-Plus for Plasticity) is not the simple opposite of the negative pole (i.e., Beta-Minus for Passiveness) in the same manner that winter is not the simple opposite of summer. Both introduce new qualities (e.g., snow; Strus et al., 2014). The graphical representation of the model is presented in Figure 2.

Click to enlarge

Figure 2

Graphical representation of the circumplex of personality metatraits model (Strus et al., 2014). N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness to experience; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness.

The CPM is not only a theoretical model as it already demonstrated its utility in an empirical setting – the CPM integrates and predicts the relations with the Big Five traits of various psychological constructs such as mental health, affect, values, interpersonal traits and temperament (Strus & Cieciuch, 2017). Because narcissism is related to both Alpha-Minus and Beta-Plus, one can conclude that the origins of narcissism as a unidimensional construct are within the Delta-Minus metatrait (defined as broadly defined impulsiveness, high emotional liability, stimulation-seeking, provocativeness and expansiveness in interpersonal relations; Strus & Cieciuch, 2017) and not within the two orthogonal metatraits, which rather are more characteristic of the narcissistic strategies of admiration and rivalry.

The most basic goal of the narcissist is to maintain the grandiose self (Back et al., 2013), but in order to do so, the narcissist needs other people, a social mirror to underpin the role of interpersonal personality traits (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Realization of this most basic goal may be achieved by two distinct strategies: one, relying on extraversion, that is closer to the Beta-Plus metatrait (Plasticity) and the other, relying on disagreeableness, that is closer to the Alpha-Minus metatrait (Disinhibition). Thus, one can conclude that narcissism is associated with the Delta-Minus (Sensation Seeking), which motivates social stimulation, and, depending on the situation, the behavioural dynamics are close to either Alpha-Minus or Beta-Plus. In other words, the true face of narcissism is the Delta-Minus, but what is visible in interpersonal behaviours is the alternating mask of Plasticity or Disinhibition. To summarize, the Delta-Minus is a personality predisposition of developing narcissism, i.e., each narcissist is a Delta-Minus, but not all Delta-Minuses are narcissists.

Biological Explanation

Personality neuroscience offers a novel perspective for further reflections (DeYoung & Gray, 2009). The neural structure that may play an important role in explanation of the trigger mechanism is the amygdala, which is pivotal for processing emotional salience related to rewarding and threatening stimuli (Allen & DeYoung, 2016; Stillman, Van Bavel, & Cunningham, 2015). The amygdala is a subcortical structure (i.e., its activity cannot be consciously accessed and modified as, e.g., executive functions) that contributes to decision making (Bechara, 2005; Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, & Lee, 1999; Gupta, Koscik, Bechara, & Tranel, 2011; LeDoux, 2000). The role of the amygdala is especially important in fear-related processes (Gupta et al., 2011; LeDoux, 2000) owing to connections with each sensory processing area (e.g., auditory and visual) and with the cortex, which allows the amygdala to determine whether danger is present in the sensory world (LeDoux, 2000). The amygdala allows the brain to take a shortcut by omitting the cortical level of assessment so that the body is able to react before the threat is recognized by the cortex (LeDoux, 2000). For example, most people will step backwards (automatic defensive response) if they see a snake before they realize that the snake is really a snake. The connection with the cortex allows the amygdala to influence sensory processing in cortical areas, which could facilitate the processing of the stimuli (LeDoux & Armony, 1999; LeDoux, 2000).

In the context of narcissism, the amygdala may also play a vital role. The most basic goal of the narcissist is to maintain the grandiose self (Back et al., 2013), and in order to do so, he requires social stimulation (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). The constant need to protect the grandiose self may in turn result in a subconscious fear of other people (e.g., “What if others reject me?”). Thus, if the narcissist in order to maintain the grandiose self needs other people, and simultaneously he fears possible failure, then the role of the amygdala in the narcissist’s social decision making may help explain the trigger mechanism.

Theoretical Input: Expansion of the NARC Model

In regard to our theoretical and biological assumptions, we propose expanding the NARC model (Back et al., 2013) to explain the trigger mechanism. A graphical representation of our proposed modification of the model is presented in Figure 4.

Click to enlarge

Figure 4

Expansion of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept.

Our expansion of the NARC model regarded the underlying motivational dynamics (in which we introduced consecutive expressions as predicted by the narcissistic pendulum) and location of the metatraits of personality within the model. As the Delta-Minus is expected to represent the core features of narcissism, it was located at the very beginning of the model and the Beta-Plus (Plasticity) and Alpha-Minus (Disinhibition), according to the literature (Rogoza, Żemojtel-Piotrowska et al., 2016), were assigned to the admiration and rivalry respectively. The most basic goal remains the same as in Back et al.’s (2013) proposition: the narcissist must maintain the grandiose self. The Delta-Minus is presented here as the source of observed commonalities between two narcissistic strategies (Back et al., 2013; Rogoza, Rogoza et al., 2016), as the core motive of the narcissist, which serves this goal of maintaining the grandiose self. The character of the Delta-Minus within narcissism is captured by the narcissist’s entitled social expansiveness combined with low behavioural control, which is driven by the hedonistic urge to self-enhance (Morf et al., 2011). As such a pattern of behaviours is socially exploitative (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001), lacking empathy but full of arrogance and haughtiness, it results in an unstable pattern of relationships (Czarna, Leifeld, Śmieja, Dufner, & Salovey, 2016; Leckelt et al., 2015).

The affective-motivational component originating from the Delta-Minus is social stimulation seeking. We excluded any cognitive components from this part of the model because we believe that the initial assessment of perceived ego threat or ego boost is the result of amygdala activity. If the initial assessment threatens the grandiose self, the narcissist could behave more disagreeably to prevent the threat (rivalization), and if the initial assessment boosts the grandiose self, the narcissist could behave more extroversively to gain more attention (provocativeness). During the next step of the trigger mechanism, the information is reinterpreted at the cortex level, and if the initial assessment was inadequate, this results in reinterpretation and a change in the strategy, resulting in gregarious or antagonistic behaviour. If the situation is interpreted as ego boosting, the admiration strategy is triggered; if the situation is interpreted as ego threatening, the rivalry strategy is triggered. Although the admiration and rivalry strategies may be reminiscent of the Plasticity and Disinhibition metatraits, like someone wearing a mask at a banquet, they are only heading towards them; as the narcissistic pendulum comes back to the start, the core of the narcissism remains within the Delta-Minus.

Future Directions

The ideas discussed in the current paper offer a new perspective on the interpretation of narcissism; however, they should be empirically verified. The verification may focus on one hand on underlying motivational dynamics and on the other on the behavioural expressions of narcissism. Our question related to underlying motivational dynamics concerns whether the mechanism of the narcissistic pendulum could be empirically verified. Although this may be difficult to assess, we believe that it is the amygdala activity that would be associated with deciding which narcissistic strategy should be activated. To test this hypothesis, neurological techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, or the electroencephalogram may play a crucial role. Our question related to the behavioural expressions of narcissism concerns whether it is possible to observe within-person variability of the two narcissistic strategies. We believe that it is possible to observe within-person behaviour typical of both strategies (e.g., charm and aggression), depending on the person’s situational assessment. We hypothesize that the admiration strategy would more frequently be activated for narcissists; however, we also expect that the role of the rivalry strategy is more important than it seems because its role may be diminished within self-reported data, as admitting to socially aversive thoughts and behaviours in a questionnaire may threaten the grandiose self. A method that is suited for testing a hypothesis related to everyday behaviour is naturalistic observation. The Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR; Mehl, Pennebaker, Crow, Dabbs, & Price, 2001) is an example of direct measurement of everyday behaviour via recording of ambient sounds. The results from the EAR are more objective; since they are recorded automatically throughout the day (Mehl & Robbins, 2012), they are not influenced by the social need for approval. Because narcissists are trying to boost the grandiose self at the first opportunity, the self-reported results may be distorted; therefore, looking for an alternative to self-reported methods of assessment is a promising approach. Investigation of both discussed future directions may shed new light on narcissism itself, embed it within other psychological theories and help explain the fundamentals of narcissistic behaviour.