Do Mean Guys Always Finish First or Just Say That They Do? Narcissists’ Awareness of Their Social Status and Popularity Over Time

Abstract

Narcissists crave respect and admiration. Do they attain the status and popularity they crave, or do they just think that they do? In two studies (Ns = 133 and 94), participants completed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, described themselves on core personality traits (e.g., extraversion), and were described by an informant on those traits. Participants also provided self- and peer ratings of status and liking in small groups after an initial meeting and over the course of 4 months (Study 2). Relative to people lower, people higher in narcissism initially attained, but eventually lost status; yet, they were aware that they tended to lose status. Narcissists were not especially popular, although they tended to think they were more popular. These patterns differed among narcissism facets, providing further support for the idea that the mixed adaptiveness of narcissism may be due to the heterogeneity of the construct.

Keywords

narcissism self-knowledge status social judgment

Social status affords a host of desirable outcomes, such as access to valuable resources and better health, which is why many of us long for or actively pursue it (Buss, 1999; Ellis, 1994). Yet, some people may want status so badly that they do whatever it takes to get to the top without concern for the effect their actions may have on others. One such type of individual is someone high on grandiose narcissism, a dimensional form of subclinical narcissism (Miller & Campbell, 2008, 2010). For readability, we use the term narcissist to refer to people who are relatively higher than lower in grandiose narcissism.

Narcissists are preoccupied with obtaining status and care more about getting ahead than about getting along (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005; Miller & Maples, 2011; Paulhus, 2001; Ruiz, Smith, & Rhodewalt, 2001). For example, in commons dilemmas, narcissists employ strategies that yield beneficial outcomes for themselves at the expense of the group (Campbell, Bush, Brunell, & Shelton, 2005). Narcissists also believe that narcissistic attributes have positive consequences for the self (Carlson, 2013). Given that their narcissism can get them ahead in some situations, does it also get them ahead when it comes to obtaining status? The main goal of the current research is to determine if narcissists actually do attain and maintain the status they crave.

Narcissists are motivated to attain status, but they also want to be special in the eyes of others. One way narcissists might accomplish this goal is by attaining popularity. Indeed, “ . . . narcissists approach life as an arena for achieving status, success, and admiration, each of which leads to a positive self-concept” (Campbell et al., 2005, p. 1358). Attaining status and popularity may be a top priority for narcissists, especially in social contexts. Thus, in addition to status, we examine whether narcissists attain and maintain popularity among their peers.

A core motivation underlying narcissists’ desire to be special is their need to maintain an overly positive self-image (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Indeed, an unrealistically positive self-view is a defining feature of narcissism (John & Robins, 1994). One strategy narcissists might use to maintain self-esteem is to overestimate their social value. Thus, narcissists may not need to actually attain status or popularity to satisfy their need to be special; they may simply need to believe they are socially valued. A second goal of the current research is to reveal whether narcissists attain the social value they crave or whether they just think that they do.

Status, Popularity, and Narcissism

We first explain the differences between status and popularity, particularly how they are attained, and then describe the multifaceted nature of narcissism. Based on this overview, we outline predictions about whether narcissists attain social value (i.e., status and popularity) and whether they are aware of their social value.

Status and Popularity

Status and popularity can coincide (Cheng, Tracy, Foulsham, Kingstone, & Henrich, 2013), but they are distinct indices of social value that serve different functions and are often attained in different ways. Status is “the prominence, respect, and influence individuals enjoy in the eyes of others” (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006, p. 1094). A number of stable characteristics consistently predict status, such as extraversion, confidence, and attractiveness (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001; Anderson & Kilduff, 2009b). Status tends to be stable but it can change over time, as can the personality traits that predict status (Keltner, van Kleef, Chen, & Kraus, 2008). For example, extraversion assists in forming initial ties, but the maintenance of these ties may require agreeableness and empathy (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a). Likewise, the primary function of status hierarchies is to help the group achieve goals (Magee & Galinsky, 2008); thus, the person with the most status may be the person who effectively maintains group cohesion over time (Keltner et al., 2008; Van Vugt, 2006). Groups may also reevaluate status if some members are contributing more or less than what was initially expected of them, which may explain why, in some contexts, extraversion predicts status early on, whereas neuroticism predicts status later on (Bendersky & Shah, 2012). In sum, a combination of traits may be required to attain and maintain status.

Popularity, or being liked by others, facilitates the development of social ties and increases self-esteem (Back et al., 2009; Sunnafrank & Ramirez, 2004). Extraversion is also a robust predictor of popularity but, like status, predictors may change over time. Cross-sectional work suggests that in early acquaintanceship, people who are extraverted and self-centered are more popular (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2011), whereas among acquaintances, people higher on communal attributes (e.g., warm, cooperative) are more popular than are people who describe themselves as dominant or neurotic (Wortman & Wood, 2011). In sum, similar to findings for status, people who are extraverted tend to initially attain popularity, but people with more communal qualities may be the individuals who maintain popularity in the long run.

Dimensions of Narcissism

Grandiose narcissism embodies entitlement and need for admiration, vanity, a belief that one is special, and a tendency to manipulate others (Raskin & Terry, 1988). The mechanism underlying these tendencies is believed to be a self-regulatory system designed to maintain exceptionally high self-esteem, a goal that is accomplished by being special, or socially valued in the eyes of others (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). However, grandiose narcissism is a multifaceted construct comprised of positive and negative features. The current research measures narcissism with the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988), arguably the gold standard for assessing grandiose narcissism (Miller & Campbell, 2010). This 40-item scale provides an overall index of narcissism that can be decomposed into four facets that have their unique interpersonal signatures (Emmons, 1984, 1987). The Leadership/Authority (L/A) facet, which is the most adaptive facet, represents enjoyment of leadership and authority and is positively associated with extraversion, attractiveness, self-esteem, emotional stability, and peer perceptions of leadership ability (Brown, Budzek, & Tamborski, 2009; Emmons, 1984; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995; Ruiz et al., 2001; Vazire, Naumann, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2008). Self-Absorption/Self-Admiration (S/S) represents self-admiration of personality and appearance (i.e., vanity) and tends to be positively correlated with extraversion and attractiveness (Emmons, 1984; Ruiz et al., 2001; Vazire et al., 2008). Superiority/Arrogance (S/A) represents a general tendency to self-enhance and is positively associated with extraversion and confidence but negatively associated with affiliation (Emmons, 1984; Ruiz et al., 2001). Exploitative/Entitlement (E/E) represents entitlement and a willingness to take advantage of others (Emmons, 1987) and is negatively associated with affiliation and self-esteem. Unlike the other facets, E/E is not associated with extraversion and it is the only facet related to pathological narcissism, making it the least adaptive facet of narcissism (Brown et al., 2009; Emmons, 1984; Ruiz et al., 2001). Given the multifaceted nature of narcissism, we measure each facet to identify which aspects of narcissism garner (or hinder) status and popularity.

Theoretical Predictions: Three Patterns of Status and Popularity

To our knowledge, research has not explicitly examined whether narcissists attain and maintain status and popularity over time, but existent research provides evidence for at least three possible trajectories: (a) a Maintenance Pattern, whereby narcissists initially attain and maintain status and popularity; (b) a Waning Pattern, whereby narcissists initially attain but eventually lose status and popularity; and (c) a Null Pattern, whereby narcissists never attain status or popularity.

Maintenance pattern

Narcissists might initially attain and maintain social status or popularity because they possess many of the same qualities that are related to high status and popularity. Similar to people with high status and more popularity, narcissists are extraverted, attractive, and confident (Back et al., 2011; Carlson, Naumann, & Vazire, 2011; Carlson, Vazire, & Oltmanns, 2011; Gabriel, Critelli, & Ee, 1994; Holtzman, Vazire, & Mehl, 2010; John & Robins, 1994; Wortman & Wood, 2011). Narcissists’ extraversion and attractiveness likely draws others’ attention toward them, which helps them develop more social ties, and their confidence may be construed as competence, which may garner status (Anderson, Brion, Moore, & Kennedy, 2012; Anderson & Kilduff, 2009b). Narcissists also tend to use dominance strategies that lead to status, such as coercion and soft manipulation tactics (Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, 2012). Interestingly, these strategies can garner status independently of popularity (Cheng et al., 2013), meaning that narcissists can attain status without necessarily being popular. With respect to facets of narcissism, the Maintenance Pattern for status is likely for L/A, S/S, and S/A, because these facets are positively associated with extraversion and attractiveness. The Maintenance Pattern for popularity is likely for L/A and S/S because, unlike the other facets, they are not negatively associated with affiliation, which plays a role in popularity in the later stages of acquaintanceship.

Waning pattern

Narcissists might attain but eventually lose status or popularity because people eventually experience the darker side of narcissism. This prediction comes from the contextual reinforcement model of narcissism, which argues that people experience the positive aspects of narcissism (e.g., extraversion) in the initial phase of acquaintanceship (i.e., the emerging zone) and experience the costs of narcissism (e.g., hostility) later on (i.e., the enduring zone; Campbell & Campbell, 2009). Indeed, narcissists tend to make positive first impressions, but over time, people perceive narcissists in negative ways (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010; Brunell et al., 2008; Carlson, Vazire, & Oltmanns, 2011; Oltmanns, Friedman, Fiedler, & Turkheimer, 2004; Paulhus, 1998). With respect to facets, the Waning Pattern for status and popularity is likely for S/A and E/E, because these facets are negatively associated with affiliation.

Null pattern

Narcissists may never attain status or popularity because their negative qualities undermine their positive qualities. In general, narcissists tend to make fairly mixed impressions, such that, on one hand, they are seen as extraverted, charming, funny, and attractive (Back et al., 2010; Carlson, Vazire, & Oltmanns, 2011; Holtzman et al., 2010), but on the other hand, they can be seen as hostile, condescending, and disagreeable (Back et al., 2013; Carlson, Naumann, & Vazire, 2011; Carlson, Vazire, & Oltmanns, 2011; Paulhus, 1998). When it comes to status and popularity, a Null Pattern may be observed because the effects of narcissists’ positive attributes, which are typically associated with status and popularity, are attenuated by their negative attributes. Indeed, recent work suggests that in a first impression, narcissists are not especially liked or disliked because their positive qualities (dominance) and negative qualities (hostility) canceled each other out (Küfner, Nestler, & Back, 2013). This pattern may continue over time such that narcissists never become popular and may also apply to the domain of status. With respect to facets, a Null Pattern is likely for facets that are associated with both positive (e.g., extraversion) and negative attributes (e.g., hostility, vanity), such as S/S and S/A.

Narcissists’ Awareness of Their Status and Popularity

People lack self-knowledge about many attributes (Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004), but most people are keenly aware of their status (Anderson et al., 2006). Self-knowledge of status facilitates cohesiveness and garners social acceptance, which might be why people are motivated to know their place—They want to avoid conflict and rejection (Anderson, Ames, & Gosling, 2008). In contrast, people typically overestimate how much they are liked, suggesting that the typical person knows their status but tends to assume they are more popular than they really are (Anderson et al., 2006).

Do narcissists know their social status and popularity? On one hand, narcissists (accurately) describe their reputation as being narcissistic, and they have insight into the fact that the impression they make sours over time (Carlson, Vazire, & Oltmanns, 2011; Carlson, Naumann, & Vazire, 2011). Given narcissists’ understanding of their reputation, they may have insight into their social value. On the other hand, the dynamic self-regulatory processing model of narcissism argues that, to maintain their positive self-image, narcissists are motivated to process feedback in a self-serving manner (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Perhaps for this reason, narcissists tend to have positive illusions about their abilities and may have similar, inflated perceptions of their social value (Farwell & Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998; Gabriel et al., 1994; Robins & John, 1997). Indeed, narcissists tend to overreport their leadership behaviors relative to peers’ perceptions (Judge, Lepine, & Rich, 2006) and overestimate the number and quality of their friendships (Clifton, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, 2009). The current research will reveal if narcissists are aware of their reputation for attributes directly tied to their feelings of self-worth or if they tend to overestimate their social value.

Research Overview

In two ecologically valid studies of social interactions, we explore whether narcissists initially attain and maintain status and popularity and whether they are aware of their social value. To better understand which aspects of narcissism affect status and popularity, we measure the four facets of the NPI. Our analyses also control for traits associated with narcissism, specifically extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability, attractiveness, and self-esteem. Extraversion and agreeableness are core dimensions of narcissism that often underlie the confusing mix of positive and negative outcomes associated with the construct, and they are both implicated in status and popularity. We also control for emotional stability, given its links to facets of narcissism and to status and popularity in later stages of acquaintanceship (Bendersky & Shah, 2012; Wortman & Wood, 2011). Going further, narcissists’ attractiveness and self-esteem explain some of their positive outcomes (e.g., dating popularity, well-being; Dufner, Rauthmann, Czarna, & Denissen, 2013; Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004), and these attributes are also linked to status and popularity (Anderson et al., 2001; Back et al., 2010). Controlling for these core features of narcissism will aid in isolating potential factors that influence narcissists’ social value.

Study 1: Narcissists’ Initial Status and Popularity

Method

Participants (N = 133; M_age = 20.32, SD = 3.05; 66% female; 53.6% Caucasian, 26.8% Asian, 15.2% Black, 3.6% Hispanic, 0.7% mixed) were undergraduates from a private Midwest institution who participated as part of a larger study. Five participants were excluded in analyses that included covariates due to missing data. Participants were awarded either $50 or received course credit. This study was sufficiently powered (β = .80) to detect medium effect size correlations (r = .25).

Participants nominated up to 8 friends to describe their personality. A total of 648 replied, the average number of informants per participant was 2.97, and the average length of acquaintanceship between targets and informants was 2.00 years. Informants were not compensated for their participation.

Procedures

Unacquainted participants came to the lab in groups of four or five people (k = 31 groups, M size = 4.45, range = 4-5). After completing a demographic questionnaire on individual computers, participants were escorted to a room where they were told that they had about 10 min to talk about whatever topics they wished to discuss. Afterward, they were escorted back to individual computers where they rated each member’s status, indicated how much they liked each group member, rated their own status, and guessed how much their group liked them. They also described their general personality and nominated up to eight informants who would later describe their personalities. Individuals came back to the lab 4 to 6 days later to complete the narcissism scale along with other measures unrelated to the current study.

Measures

Narcissism

Participants completed the NPI, which is a 40-item forced choice, self-report measure of subclinical, grandiose narcissism. Participants’ responses were scored for the overall NPI (M = 14.60, SD = 6.45, α = .82) as well as for Leadership/Authority (L/A; M = 4.12, SD = 2.60, α = .82), Self-Absorption/Self-Admiration (S/S; M = 3.61, SD = 2.03, α = .65), Superiority/Arrogance (S/A; M = 2.20, SD = 1.69, α = .55), and Exploitativeness/Entitlement (E/E; M = 1.44, SD = 1.35, α = .44). Notably, the reliabilities of S/A and E/E were low. The average correlation among the facets was moderate (r = .35) and ranged from .31 to .47.

Status and popularity

Using a 1 (strongly disagree) to 15 (strongly agree) scale, participants rated each member’s status (M = 9.09, SD = 1.72) including their own status (M = 8.39, SD = 2.62) on the single item “has high status: influence or respect,” which is similar to past work (Anderson et al., 2001). Using the same scale, participants rated how much they liked each group member (M = 10.89, SD = 1.88) and rated how much they thought their group members, in general, liked them (M = 10.47, SD = 2.43; that is, generalized metaperceptions; Carlson & Kenny, 2012). Status and popularity (r = .53, p < .01) and self-perceived status and popularity (r = .47, p < .01) were positively associated.

Covariates

Participants and informants described the target on the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003) and physical attractiveness on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 15 (strongly agree) scale. We computed an aggregate of self- and peer reports, restricting the mean to include a minimum of self-reports and one informant report for extraversion (M = 9.92, SD = 3.01), agreeableness (M = 11.08, SD = 2.30), emotional stability (M = 10.51, SD = 3.17), and attractiveness (M = 10.59, SD = 2.38). Given that self-esteem is an attribute defined by one’s own self-views, participants, but not their informants, completed a single-item measure of self-esteem (“has high self-esteem” M = 10.59, SD = 2.38) on the same scale (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001).

Analyses

Peer and self-ratings of status as well as peer ratings of popularity were round-robin ratings, meaning everyone in the group rated everyone else. Round-robin ratings were analyzed with the TripleR package in R (Schönbrodt, Back, & Schmukle, 2012), which computes social relations model (SRM) effects that control for group dependencies in ratings. Effects can be group-centered or include group means. Results were similar for group-centered and uncentered scores; thus, we report effects that include the group mean to aid in interpretation.¹ We also used TripleR to obtain an index of status self-enhancement based on Kwan, John, Kenny, Bond, and Robins (2004; Equation 3) method, which provides an unbiased estimate of how accurately a particular person perceives his or her status. This index is computed by subtracting the target effect (i.e., an individual’s status, as rated by his or her group members), perceiver effect (i.e., how the individual tends to rate others’ status), and the group mean of self-reported status from the individual’s self-report of his or her own status. To assess popularity self-enhancement, we centered generalized liking metaperceptions within groups and saved the residuals when regressing centered metaperceptions of liking on target effects of popularity.

Regression models were used to examine whether narcissism predicted actual, self-rated, or self-enhancement of status or popularity perceptions. In Model 1, status (or popularity) was regressed on the NPI (or one of its facets) to reveal the relationship between narcissism and status (or popularity). Effects from this model are Pearson correlations and are reported as such in the text and in Table 1. The same analyses were repeated with self-perceptions and self-enhancement of status or popularity. Model 2 was designed to identify aspects of narcissism that might drive the relationship between actual status and actual popularity. Thus, only target effects of status (or popularity) were regressed onto the NPI (or a facet of the NPI) with one of the following attributes as a covariate: extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability, physical attractiveness, or self-esteem. Model 3, which represents the most stringent model, includes all five covariates.

Table 1.

Correlations Between Narcissism and Perceptions of Status and Popularity for Study 1.

	NPI	Leadership/authority	Self-absorption/self-admiration	Superiority/arrogance	Exploitative/entitlement
Status
Actual status	.19*	.25*	.13	.14	.00
Self-perception	.16^†	.14	.24*	.14	.02
Self-enhancement	.06	.01	.14	.09	−.01
Popularity
Actual popularity	.11	.18*	.04	.18*	−.09
Metaperception	.19*	.18*	.19*	.21*	−.05
Self-enhancement	.17^†	.14	.18*	.17^†	−.03

Note. NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; Actual = target effects of status or popularity; self-perception = self-views of status; metaperception = beliefs about one’s own popularity; self-enhancement = over or underestimation of status or popularity.

†

p < .10. *p < .05.

Results

To determine whether group members agreed about one another’s status and popularity, we examined the amount of variance attributable to the target relative to the total variance. For status, 15% of the variance was attributable to the target, and for popularity, 10% of the variance was attributable to the target. Thus, group members agreed about status and popularity, although target variance for status was slightly lower than what has been reported elsewhere.

Table 1 shows that, relative to people who scored lower, people who scored higher on the NPI attained higher status (r = .19, p = .04). There was some evidence that these individuals tended to believe they attained higher status (r = .16, p = .07), but they did not tend to self-enhance their status more (r = .06, p = .49). In contrast, relative to people lower, people higher in the NPI were not necessarily more popular (r = .11, p = .24), but they tended to believe they were more popular (r = .19, p = .04) and tended to be more positively biased about their popularity (r = .17, p = .06).

As shown in Table 1, relative to people lower, people higher in L/A attained higher status (r = .25, p = .01) and popularity (r = .18, p = .04). Although these individuals did not necessarily believe they attained higher status (r = .14, p = .13), they did tend to believe they were more popular (r = .18, p = .05); however, they did not necessarily tend to self-enhance their status (r = .01, p = .99) or their popularity (r = .14, p = .13). Relative to people lower, people higher in S/S did not necessarily have higher or lower status (r = .13, p = .13) and were not especially popular (r = .04, p = .67), but they tended to believe they had higher status (r = .24, p = .01) and more popularity (r = .19, p = .04). Although they did not tend to self-enhance their status more (r = .14, p = .13), they did tend to self-enhance their popularity more (r = .18, p = .04). Relative to people lower, people higher in S/A did not necessarily have higher or lower status (r = .14, p = .11), they did not tend to believe they had higher status (r = .14, p = .12), and they did not necessarily self-enhance their status (r = .09, p = .31). These individuals tended to be more popular (r = .17, p = .05) and believed they were more popular (r = .21, p = .02), but they also tended to self-enhance their popularity more (r = .17, p = .05). Unlike the other facets, E/E was not significantly associated with status (actual r = .00 = p = .99; self-perceived r = .02, p = .84, enhancement r = –.01 p = .84) or popularity (actual r = –.09, p = .31; metaperception r = –.05, p = .58, enhancement r = –.03 p = .75).²

Covariate analyses

Table 2 shows the correlations among the covariates, the NPI, status, and popularity. The NPI was positively associated with extraversion (r = .39, p < .001), emotional stability (r = .19, p = .04), attractiveness (r = .31, p < .001), and self-esteem (r = .42, p < .001), but was not associated with agreeableness (r = –.10, p = .25). However, as found in past work, S/A (r = –.15, p = .08) and E/E (r = –.24, p = .01) were negatively associated with agreeableness. Extraversion (r = .20, p = .02), attractiveness (r = .36, p < .001), and self-esteem (r = .20, p = .03) were positively associated with status, and extraversion (r = .16, p = .07) was associated with popularity.

Table 2.

Correlations Among Status, Popularity, Narcissism, and Personality Traits for Studies 1 and 2.

	Status			Popularity
		S2			S2		NPI		L/A		S/S		S/A		E/E
Personality traits	S1	First	Last	S1	First	Last	S1	S2	S1	S2	S1	S2	S1	S2	S1	S2
Extraversion	.20*	.47*	.48*	.16^†	.31*	.43*	.39*	.35*	.54*	.39*	.15^†	.32*	.35*	.23*	.09	.11
Agreeableness	.06	−.01	.09	.07	.19^†	.19	−.10	−.43*	−.04	−.23^†	−.05	−.24*	−.15^†	−.34*	−.24*	−.43*
Emotional stability	.11	.16	.16	.10	.01	.23*	.19*	.12	.25*	.07	.17^†	.19	.07	.11	−.09	−.05
Attractive	.36*	.27*	.27*	.08	.06	.30*	.31*	−.11	.16^†	−.05	.42*	.25*	.23*	−.16	.08	−.30*
Self-esteem	.20*	.14	.03	.10	.02	.19^†	.42*	.29*	.36*	.36*	.46*	.28*	.28*	.17	.12	.08

Note. NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; L/A = leadership/authority; S/S = self-absorption/self-admiration; S/A = superiority/arrogance; E/E = exploitative/entitlement; S1 = Study 1; S2 = Study 2; First = perceptions during the first meeting in Study 2; Last = perceptions during the final meeting in Study 2, or after 4 months of weekly meetings. Personality traits were the aggregate of self-perceptions and one informant report, but self-esteem was a self-reported item.

†

p < .10. *p < .05.

Results for Model 2 (Table 3) show that, of the five covariates, only attractiveness was a unique predictor of status above and beyond the NPI (attractiveness β = .33, p < .001; ΔR² = .10, p < .001), although the NPI was not a significant, unique predictor of status when controlling for attractiveness (β = .08, p = .35). In a model that included the NPI and all five covariates (Model 3), attractiveness was the only unique predictor of status (attractiveness β = .23, p = .001; NPI β = .01, p = .76). Model 2 results also showed that the NPI was not significant when controlling for extraversion (β = .13, p = .18) or self-esteem (β = .13, p = .19), although these covariates were also not unique predictors. In contrast to the NPI, L/A remained a significant, unique predictor of status when controlling for each of the five covariates individually and when controlling for all five covariates simultaneously (β = .13, p = .07). Thus, something unique to L/A predicted status.

Table 3.

The Relationship Between Narcissism and Actual Status and Popularity, Controlling for Personality Traits in Study 1.

	Model 1	Model 2 Independent Variables: Narcissism (β_narc) and a Covariate (β_cov)
	Narcissism	Extraversion			Agreeableness			Emotional stability			Attractiveness			Self-esteem
	β	ΔR²	β_narc	β_cov	ΔR²	β_narc	β_cov	ΔR²	β_narc	β_cov	ΔR²	β_narc	β_cov	ΔR²	β_narc	β_cov
Status
NPI	.19*	.02	.13	.15	.01	.19*	.08	.01	.17^†	.08	.10*	.08	.33*	.02	.13	.14
L/A	.25*	.01	.20*	.09	.00	.25*	.05	.00	.24*	.05	.10*	.20*	.33*	.01	.21*	.12
S/S	.13	.03*	.11	.18	.01	.14	.07	.01	.12	.09	.11*	−.02	.36*	.02^†	.06	.17^†
S/A	.14	.03^†	.08	.17	.01	.15	.09	.01	.13	.10	.11*	.06	.34*	.03^†	.09	.17^†
E/E	.00	.04*	−.02	.20	.00	.01	.07	.01	.01	.11	.13*	−.03	.36*	.04*	−.03	.20*
Popularity
NPI	.11	.02	.05	.14	.01	.11	.08	.01	.09	.08	.00	.09	.05	.00	.08	.07
L/A	.18*	.01	.13	.09	.00	.18*	.06	.00	.17^†	.06	.00	.17^†	.05	.00	.16^†	.05
S/S	.04	.02	.02	.16^†	.01	.04	.07	.01	.02	.10	.00	.01	.07	.01	−.01	.11
S/A	.18*	.01	.14	.11	.01	.19*	.10	.01	.17^†	.09	.00	.17^†	.04	.00	.16^†	.06
E/E	−.09	.03	−.11	.17^†	.00	−.08	.05	.01	−.08	.09	.01	−.10	.08	.01	−.10	.12

Note. ΔR² = amount of additional variance explained by the covariate when entered as a predictor after narcissism in Model 2; β_narc = the unique relationship between narcissism (the NPI or a facet score) and status or popularity, controlling for a covariate in Model 2; β_cov = the unique relationship between the covariate and status or popularity, controlling for narcissism; NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; L/A = leadership/authority; S/S = self-absorption/self-admiration; S/A = superiority/arrogance; E/E = exploitative/entitlement.

†

p < .10. *p < .05.

With respect to popularity, L/A and S/A were significant or marginally significant predictors of popularity when controlling for agreeableness (L/A β = .18, p = .05; S/A β = .19, p = .03), emotional stability (L/A β = .17, p = .07; S/A β = .17, p = .06), attractiveness (L/A β = .17, p = .06; S/A β = .17, p = .07), or self-esteem (L/A β = .16, p = .09; S/A β = .16, p = .09) but not when controlling for extraversion (L/A β = .13, p = .20; S/A β = .14, p = .15), although none of the covariates explained additional, unique variance above and beyond L/A or S/A (see Table 3). When all five covariates were entered, none of the covariates were significant predictors of status, nor were L/A (β = .10, p = .24) or S/A (β = .17, p = .13). Overall, results suggest that something unique to L/A and S/A predicted popularity above and beyond core traits, although the overlap between extraversion and these facets may partially explain their association with popularity.

Discussion

Results suggest that relative to people lower, people higher in narcissism initially attained more status but not necessarily more popularity. Narcissists correctly perceived themselves as having attained higher status, but they also (erroneously) believed they were more popular and tended to self-enhance their popularity. With respect to facets, L/A was positively associated with status and popularity and S/A was positively associated with popularity, suggesting that leadership and grandiosity were initially socially valued. Covariate analyses revealed that attractiveness, extraversion, and self-esteem diminished the positive relationship between status and the NPI. Yet, L/A was a robust, unique predictor of status above and beyond all five covariates, suggesting something unique to L/A predicts status above and beyond core personality traits. With respect to popularity, the same pattern emerged for L/A and S/A, with the exception of extraversion, suggesting that extraversion may partially explain their link to popularity but that L/A and S/A’s social value was independent of most core personality traits.

Study 2: Narcissists’ Status and Popularity Over Time

The goal of Study 2 was to explore the longitudinal trajectories of narcissists’ status and popularity and their beliefs about their status and popularity among the first 4 months of acquaintanceship.

Method

Participants (N = 94, 62.8% female) were undergraduates enrolled in a personality course and were not compensated for their participation. Of the 88 participants who reported ethnicity, ethnicities were as follows: 60% Caucasian, 27% Asian or Asian American, 4% Black, 2% Indian, 1% Hispanic. Ratings from the n = 85 (63.2% female) participants who completed the narcissism measure were included in the current analyses. Participants nominated up to five informants, who were not compensated, to describe their personality. A total of 235 informants responded, and informants and targets knew one another for approximately 9.83 years.

Procedure

Participants took part in a semester-long study in a personality psychology course, which lasted approximately 15 weeks. During the first week of class, participants were assigned to 15 unacquainted groups (M = 6.43; range n = 4-8) and met with the same group once a week in class for 10 to 20 min. Participants played the icebreaking game “Two Truths and a Lie” in the first meeting, a game where each person makes three statements about themselves, two of which were true, one of which was a lie, and the other members guess which statement is a lie. Group meetings for the remaining meetings were based on material from class. Participants provided status and popularity ratings after the first and last meeting (Week 15) and after a meeting in the middle of the semester (i.e., three ratings spaced approximately 6 weeks apart). A couple of weeks into the course, participants completed a narcissism measure, described their own personality, and nominated informants to describe their personality.

Measures

Narcissism

Participants completed the NPI (M = 13.90, SD = 6.86, α = .85), which was also scored for L/A (M = 3.23, SD = 2.21, α = .71), S/S (M = 3.43, SD = 2.09, α = .67), S/A (M = 2.11, SD = 1.87, α = .65), and E/E (M = 1.47, SD = 1.40, α = .48). Notably, the reliability of E/E was low. The average correlation among facets was .44 and ranged from .33 (S/S and S/A) to .50 (L/A and S/A).

Status and popularity

Participants rated each group member’s status and their own status on the item “has high status (respect, influence) in this group” using a 1 (disagree strongly) to 15 (agree strongly) scale. Using the same scale, they also rated how much they liked each group member and how much they thought each person liked them. Status and popularity (Time 1 r = .55, p < .01; Time 2 r = .63, p < .01; Time 3 r = .72, p < .01) were positively associated.

Covariates

As in Study 1, participants and informants described the target on the TIPI and physical attractiveness on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 15 (strongly agree) scale. Aggregated perceptions for extraversion (M = 9.85, SD = 2.33), agreeableness (M = 11.26, SD = 1.93), emotional stability (M = 10.06, SD = 2.77), and attractiveness (M = 11.86, SD = 1.63) included a minimum of one informant report. Self-esteem was measured as a single-item self-report but on a 1 (disagree strongly) to 9 (agree strongly; M = 5.86, SD = 1.78) scale.

Analyses

Status and popularity effects were computed in the same way as in Study 1.³ To assess status and popularity over time, a series of growth curve models were fit using multilevel models in SPSS (IBM Corp., 2010). Two-level models were constructed where the dependent variable (DV) at Level 1 was a perception of actual, self-perceived, or self-enhancement of status (or popularity). The DV varied across individuals (i) and time (j). Rating session, or time (j), was modeled as a Level 1 predictor of status, whereas NPI scores (or facet scores) were modeled as grand mean centered Level 2 predictors. Time was modeled as a linear effect. The first rating was coded as zero and each subsequent rating was coded as +1. The Level 2 intercept (β₀₀) reflects the typical person’s initial status (popularity), and the slope (β₀₁) reflects the typical person’s change over time in status (popularity). Models were rerun such that the last rating was coded as zero and preceding time points were coded as −1. For these models, the intercept (β₀₀) reflects status at the end of the semester. Taken together, these models reveal the typical person’s initial rating (First β₀₀), change (Change β₁₀), and rating after 4 months (Last β₀₀). The intercepts and slopes were modeled as random effects, and the significance tests of their variance reveal whether there are individual differences in initial, change, or final ratings. Moderators of nonsignificant random variances should be interpreted with caution (Nezlek, 2011). Narcissism was entered as a Level 2 moderator of intercepts (β₀₁) and slopes (β₁₁). Model 2 included the same covariates in Study 1 as moderators of intercepts (First β₀₂; Last β₀₂), Model 3 simultaneously included all five covariates (i.e., β₀₂ to β₀₆), and these covariates were grand mean centered. Analyses included all data, including individuals who missed a rating session.

Level 1:

y_{i j} = π_{0 j} + π_{1 j} time + e_{i j} .

Level 2:

π_{0 j} = β_{00} + β_{01} narcissism + β_{02} covariate + \dots + β_{06} covariate + r_{0 j} .

π_{1 j} = β_{10} + β_{11} narcissism + r_{1 j} .

Support for the Maintenance Pattern will be obtained if narcissism is positively associated with the intercepts but not the slope. Support for the Waning Pattern will be obtained if narcissism is negatively associated with the slope, and partial support will be obtained if narcissism is positively associated with the first but not the final intercept. Evidence for the Null Pattern will be observed when narcissism is not associated with the intercepts.

Results

Target variance for status was 27% at Time 1, 38% for Time 2, and 37% for Time 3, indicating that people agreed on who had higher status. Target variance for popularity at Time 1 was 7%, and 19% for Times 2 and 3, suggesting people agreed about popularity, especially after the first meeting. Table 4 shows that the random variances in the intercepts and slopes were significant, except for metaperceptions of popularity and self-enhancement of popularity, which means the latter effects should be interpreted with caution.

Table 4.

Normative Effects for Status and Popularity Over Time in Study 2.

	First β₀₀ (SE)	r₀ (SE)	Change β₁₀ (SE)	r₁ (SE)	Last β₀₀ (SE)	r₀ (SE)
	[95% CI]	r₀ (SE)	[95% CI]	r₁ (SE)	[95% CI]	r₀ (SE)
Status
Actual status	8.99* (0.18)	2.39* (0.45)	0.15^† (0.08)	0.23* (0.11)	9.29* (0.21)	3.65* (0.63)
Actual status	[8.64, 9.35]	2.39* (0.45)	[−0.01, 0.31]	0.23* (0.11)	[8.86, 9.71]	3.65* (0.63)
Self-perception	8.82* (0.27)	4.41* (1.09)	0.15 (0.16)	0.80* (0.41)	9.12* (0.30)	5.67* (1.26)
Self-perception	[8.27, 9.36]	4.41* (1.09)	[−0.16, 0.47]	0.80* (0.41)	[8.53, 9.71]	5.67* (1.26)
Self-enhancement	0.00 (0.24)	2.31* (0.97)	0.03 (0.17)	0.65 (0.48)	0.05 (0.25)	2.80* (1.06)
Self-enhancement	[−0.49, 0.49]	2.31* (0.97)	[−0.30, 0.36]	0.65 (0.48)	[−0.45, 0.56]	2.80* (1.06)
Popularity
Actual popularity	10.48* (0.14)	1.40* (0.30)	0.11 (0.09)	0.35* (0.11)	10.70* (0.17)	2.20* (0.41)
Actual popularity	[10.19, 10.77]	1.40* (0.30)	[−0.06, 0.28]	0.35* (0.11)	[10.36, 11.04]	2.20* (0.41)
Metaperception	9.64* (0.18)	1.70* (0.42)	0.25* (0.09)	0.00 (0.00)	10.13* (0.18)	1.95* (0.44)
Metaperception	[9.27, 9.98]	1.70* (0.42)	[.08, 0.42]	0.00 (0.00)	[9.76, 10.49]	1.95* (0.44)
Self-enhancement	0.00 (0.10)	0.56* (0.06)	0.00 (0.06)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.10)	0.56* (0.06)
Self-enhancement	[−0.20, 0.20]	0.56* (0.06)	[−0.11, 0.11]	0.00 (0.00)	[−0.20, 0.20]	0.56* (0.06)

Note. CI = confidence interval; Actual = target effects of status or popularity; self-perception = self-views of status; metaperception = beliefs about one’s own popularity; self-enhancement = over or underestimation of status or popularity.

†

p < .10. *p < .05.

Results for status and self-reported status supported the Waning Pattern (Table 5). Relative to people lower, people who scored higher on the NPI tended to have higher status initially (β₀₁= .05, p = .07). These individuals tended to lose status over time (β₁₁ = –.03, p = .03) and did not have especially high or low status at the end of 4 months (β₀₁ = .00, p = .90). Relative to people lower, people higher on the NPI initially thought they had higher status (β₀₁ = .11, p = .01), believed that they lost status (β₁₁ = –.04, p = .08), and did not believe they had higher or lower status at the end of 4 months (β₀₁ = .02, p = .61). The NPI was positively associated with status enhancement at first (β₀₁ = .07, p = .05) but not at the end of 4 months (β₀₁ = .06, p = .11); however, unlike actual and self-perceived status, the 95% confidence intervals were nearly identical, suggesting a Maintenance rather than Waning Pattern.

Table 5.

Narcissism and Perceptions of Status and Popularity Over Time in Study 2.

	Status			Popularity
	First β₀₁ (SE)	Change β₁₁ (SE)	Last β₀₁ (SE)	First β₀₁ (SE)	Change β₁₁ (SE)	Last β₀₁ (SE)
	[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]
Actual
NPI	.05^† (.03)	−.03* (.01)	.00 (.03)	−.02 (.02)	.01 (.01)	−.01 (.03)
NPI	[.00, .11]	[−.05, −.00]	[−.07, .06]	[−.06, .03]	[−.02, .03]	[−.06, .05]
L/A	.21* (.08)	−.07^† (.04)	.07 (.10)	.01 (.07)	.03 (.04)	.07 (.08)
L/A	[.04, .37]	[−.14, .01]	[−.13, .27]	[−.13, .14]	[−.05, .11]	[−.09, .23]
S/S	.25* (.09)	−.08* (.04)	.09 (.10)	.00 (.07)	.03 (.04)	.05 (.08)
S/S	[.08, .41]	[−.16, .00]	[−.12, .30]	[−.14, .14]	[−.06, .11]	[−.11, .22]
S/A	.10 (.10)	.01 (.05)	.12 (.13)	−.13 (.08)	.08 (.05)	.04 (.10)
S/A	[−.11, .30]	[−.08, .11]	[−.13, .37]	[−.29, .03]	[−.02, .18]	[−.16, .24]
E/E	−.07 (.14)	−.16* (.06)	−.39* (.16)	−.19^† (.11)	−.07 (.06)	−.33* (.12)
E/E	[−.34 .20]	[−.27 −.05]	[−.70 −.08]	[−.40, .02]	[−.20, .06]	[−.57, −.08]
Self-perception
NPI	.11* (.04)	−.04^† (.02)	.02 (.05)	.05^† (.03)	−.02 (.01)	.01 (.03)
NPI	[.03, .19]	[−.09, .01]	[−.07, .12]	[−.01, .10]	[−.04, .01]	[−.04, .07]
L/A	.48* (.12)	−.14^† (.08)	.20 (.14)	.18* (.08)	−.01 (.04)	.17^† (.09)
L/A	[.24, .71]	[−.29, .01]	[−.08, .48]	[.01, .34]	[−.09, .08]	[−.01, .34]
S/S	.44* (.12)	−.14^† (.08)	.16 (.15)	.21* (.08)	−.05 (.04)	.11 (.09)
S/S	[.19, .69]	[−.29, .01]	[−.13, .45]	[.04, .37]	[−.13, .04]	[−.06, .29]
S/A	.10 (.16)	.07 (.09)	.23 (.18)	.04 (.10)	.01 (.05)	.06 (.11)
S/A	[−.22, .41]	[−.12, .25]	[−.12, .58]	[−.16, .24]	[−.09, .11]	[−.15, .27]
E/E	.07 (.20)	−.20^† (.12)	−.33 (.22)	−.01 (.13)	−.18* (.06)	−.36* (.13)
E/E	[−.33, .48]	[−.43, .03]	[−.77, .10]	[−.27, .26]	[−.30, −.05]	[−.63, −.10]
Self-enhancement
NPI	.07^† (.04)	.00 (.03)	.06 (.04)	.05* (.02)	−.02 (.01)	.02 (.02)
NPI	[−.00, .14]	[−.06, .05]	[−.01, .14]	[.01, .10]	[−.04, .01]	[−.03, .06]
L/A	.26* (.11)	−.05 (.08)	.16 (.12)	.18* (.07)	−.03 (.04)	.11^† (.07)
L/A	[.04, .49]	[−.21, .10]	[−.09, .40]	[.04, .32]	[−.11, .05]	[−.02, .25]
S/S	.17 (.12)	−.02 (.08)	.13 (.12)	.21* (.08)	−.07 (.04)	.08 (.07)
S/S	[−.07, .40]	[−.18, .14]	[−.12, .37]	[.06, .36]	[−.15, .02]	[−.06, .21]
S/A	.06 (.14)	.09 (.10)	.25 (.15)	.11 (.09)	−.04 (.05)	.03 (.08)
S/A	[−.21, .34]	[−.10, .28]	[−.05, .55]	[−.07, .28]	[−.13, .06]	[−.13, .20]
E/E	.20 (.18)	.08 (.12)	.35^† (.19)	.08 (.12)	−.11^† (.06)	−.14 (.10)
E/E	[−.16, .56]	[−.17, .32]	[−.02, .72]	[−.15, .32]	[−.24, .01]	[−.35, .07]

Note. First β₀₁ = narcissism as a predictor of initial status (popularity); Change β₁₁ = narcissism as a predictor of change in status (popularity); Last β₀₁ = narcissism as a predictor of status (popularity) at 4 months; CI = confidence interval; Actual = target effects of status or popularity; NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; L/A = leadership/authority; S/S = self-absorption/self-admiration; S/A = superiority/arrogance; E/E = exploitative/entitlement; Self-Perception = self-views of status; Metaperception = beliefs about one’s popularity; Self-enhancement = over or underestimation of status or popularity.

†

p < .10. *p < .05.

Results for actual popularity supported the Null Pattern (see Table 5). Yet, relative to people lower, people higher on the NPI initially tended to believe they were more popular (β₀₁ = .05, p = .10) and tended to self-enhance their popularity more (β₀₁ = .05, p = .03). However, after 4 months, the NPI was not associated with self-perceptions (β₀₁ = .01, p = .62) or self-enhancement (β₀₁ = .02, p = .44) of popularity, providing partial support for the Waning Pattern.

Facets of narcissism

Supporting the Waning Pattern, relative to people lower, people higher in L/A initially tended to have higher status (β₀₁ = .21, p = .02) and saw themselves as having higher status (β₀₁ = .48, p < .001), but over 4 months, they tended to lose status (β₁₁ = –.07, p = .08) and this loss was reflected in their self-perceptions (β₁₁ = –.14, p = .07). After 4 months, there was no association between L/A and actual (β₀₁ = .07, p = .48) or self-perceived status (β₀₁ = .20, p = .17). Although these individuals initially tended to self-enhance status (β₀₁ = .26, p = .02), self-enhancement was not significant after 4 months (β₀₁ = .16, p = .21), providing partial support for the Waning Pattern for status self-enhancement. In contrast to status, results for actual popularity supported the Null Pattern. However, relative to people lower, people higher in L/A believed they were more popular and tended to self-enhance their popularity more at the beginning (metaperception β₀₁ = .18, p = .03; enhancement β₀₁ = .18 p = .02) and end of 4 months (metaperception Last β₀₁ = .17 p = .06; enhancement Last β₀₁ = .11 p = .09), which supports a Maintenance Pattern.

Results for S/S and status supported the Waning Pattern. Relative to people lower, people higher in S/S initially tended to have higher status (β₀₁ = .25, p = .01) and tended to see themselves as having higher status (β₀₁ = .44, p = .001), but over 4 months, they tended to lose status (β₁₁ = –.08, p = .04) and this loss was reflected in their self-perceptions (β₁₁ = –.14, p = .07). Providing additional support for the Waning Pattern, after 4 months, there was no association between S/S and actual (β₀₁ = .09, p = .41) or self-perceived status (β₀₁ = .16, p = .28). In support of a Null Pattern, there was no association between S/S and status self-enhancement at the beginning or end of the study (First β₀₁ = .17, p = .16; Last β₀₁ = .13, p = .31). As shown in Table 5, results for S/S and actual popularity supported the Null Pattern. Yet, relative to people lower, people higher in S/S initially tended to believe that they were more popular (First β₀₁ = .21, p = .02) and tended to self-enhance their popularity more (β₀₁ = .21, p = .01), but these effects were not significant after 4 months (metaperceptions β₀₁ = .11, p = .21; enhancement β₀₁ = .08 p = .28), a pattern that partially supports the Waning Pattern.

Results for S/A supported the Null Pattern for all effects (see Table 5).

Results for E/E mostly supported the Waning Pattern for actual and self-reported status. E/E was not initially associated with actual status (β₀₁ = –.07, p = .61) or with self-perceptions of status (β₀₁ = .07, p = .72). However, relative to people lower, people higher in E/E tended to lose status over time (β₁₁ = –.16, p = .01), a loss that was reflected in their self-perceptions (β₁₁ = –.20, p = .08), although unlike other facets, these individuals tended to have less status at the end of 4 months (β₀₁ = –.39, p = .01). With respect to popularity, E/E was associated with being less popular at the beginning (β₀₁: E/E = –.19, p = .08) and end of 4 months (β₀₁ = –.33, p = .01), which supports a Maintenance Pattern of lower popularity. People higher in E/E did not believe they were especially popular at first (β₀₁ = –.01, p = .95), but they did tend to believe they were less popular over time and at the end of 4 months (Change β₁₁ = –.18, p = .01; Last β₀₁ = –.36, p = .01). These individuals did not tend to self-enhance their popularity (First β₀₁ = .08, p = .48; Last β₀₁ = –.14 p = .18).

Covariate analyses

Table 2 shows the correlations among the covariates, the NPI, status, and popularity. Replicating past work, the NPI was positively associated with extraversion (r = .35, p = .002) and self-esteem (r = .29, p = .01) and negatively associated with agreeableness (r = –.43, p < .001). Extraversion (First r = .47, Last r = .48, p < .001) and attractiveness (First and Last: r = .27, p = .02) were positively associated with status, and extraversion was associated with popularity (First r = .31, p = .01; Last r = .43, p < .001). At 4 months, emotional stability (r = .23, p = .05) and self-esteem (r = .19, p = .07) were positively associated with popularity.

NPI

Model 2 showed the same Waning Pattern for status as observed in Model 1, such that the NPI predicted a negative change over time when controlling for core personality traits (see Table 6). The NPI also predicted a negative change in Model 3, suggesting narcissism was a unique predictor of a loss in status. The NPI was not a significant predictor of initial or final status (First β₀₁ = .01, p = .74, Change β₁₁ = –.03, p = .06, Last β₀₁ = –.04, p = .24), but extraversion and attractiveness were unique predictors (extraversion β₀₂ = .39, p < .001; attractiveness β₀₅ = .26, p = .02). Table 6 shows that the same initial association between the NPI and higher status observed in Model 1 remained when controlling for agreeableness (First β₀₁ = .07, p = .05) or attractiveness (First β₀₁ = .06, p = .07). This effect was not significant when controlling for emotional stability (First β₀₁ = .05, p = .14) or self-esteem (First β₀₁ = .04, p = .14), but the 95% confidence intervals for the NPI when controlling for emotional stability [–.02, .11] and self-esteem [–.01, .10] were nearly identical to the confidence intervals observed in Model 1 [.00, .11]. A Waning Pattern was also observed when controlling for extraversion (Change β₁₁ = –.03, p = .02), but the NPI was not related to initial status (First β₀₁ = .00, p = .98) and showed a negative relationship with status at the end of 4 months (Last β₀₁ = –.06, p = .04). In sum, extraversion eliminated narcissism’s association with initial status, but something unique to narcissism predicted a loss in status.

Table 6.

The Relationship Between Narcissism and Actual Status and Popularity Controlling for Personality Traits in Study 2.

	Extraversion			Agreeableness			Emotional stability			Attractiveness						Self-esteem
	First β₀₁ (SE)	Change β₁₁ (SE)	Last β₀₁ (SE)	First β₀₁ (SE)	Change β₁₁ (SE)	Last β₀₁ (SE)	First β₀₁ (SE)	Change β₁₁ (SE)	Last β₀₁ (SE)	First β₀₁	(SE)	Change β₁₁	(SE)	Last β₀₁	(SE)	First β₀₁	(SE)	Change β₁₁	(SE)	Last β₀₁	(SE)
	[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]		[95% CI]		[95% CI]		[95% CI]		[95% CI]		[95% CI]
Status
NPI	.00 (.03)	−.03* (.01)	−.06* (.03)	.07^† (.03)	−.03* (.01)	.00 (.04)	.05 (.03)	−.03* (.01)	−.02 (.04)	.06^† (.03)		−.03* (.01)		−.01 (.04)		.04 (.03)		−.03* (.01)		−.01 (.03)
NPI	[−.06, .06]	[−.06, −.01]	[−.13, .00]	[.00, .13]	[−.06, .00]	[−.07, .08]	[−.02, .11]	[−.06, .00]	[−.09, .05]	[.00, .12]		[−.06, .00]		[−.08, .06]		[−.01, .10]		[−.05, .00]		[−.08, .06]
L/A	.02 (.09)	−.08^† (.04)	−.14 (.10)	.21* (.09)	−.08^† (.04)	.05 (.11)	.18^† (.09)	−.08^† (.04)	.02 (.11)	.19* (.09)		−.08^† (.04)		.03 (.11)		.19* (.09)		−.07^† (.04)		.05 (.11)
L/A	[−.16, .19]	[−.16, .01]	[−.33, .05]	[.02, .39]	[−.16, .00]	[−.17, .26]	[.00, .36]	[−.16, .01]	[−.19, .23]	[.01, .37]		[−.17, .01]		[−.18, .24]		[.01, .36]		[−.14, .01]		[−.16, .27]
S/S	.22* (.09)	−.08^† (.05)	.07 (.11)	.38* (.10)	−.08 (.05)	.23^† (.12)	.33* (.10)	−.08 (.05)	.18 (.12)	.29* (.10)		−.08 (.05)		.14 (.12)		.23* (.09)		−.08* (.04)		.07 (.11)
S/S	[.04, .40]	[−.17, .01]	[−.14, .28]	[.18, .57]	[−.17, .02]	[−.01, .46]	[.14, .52]	[−.17, .02]	[−.05, .41]	[.09, .49]		[−.17, .02]		[−.09, .37]		[.05, .41]		[−.15, .00]		[−.14, .29]
S/A	−.06 (.11)	−.03 (.05)	−.11 (.11)	.08 (.12)	−.02 (.05)	.04 (.13)	.03 (.12)	−.02 (.05)	−.01 (.13)	.11 (.11)		−.02 (.05)		.06 (.12)		.08 (.11)		.01 (.05)		.10 (.13)
S/A	[−.27, .15]	[−.13, .08]	[−.33, .11]	[−.17, .32]	[−.13, .08]	[−.23, .30]	[−.20, .26]	[−.12, .08]	[−.26, .25]	[−.12, .33]		[−.13, .08]		[−.19, .31]		[−.13, .29]		[−.08, .11]		[−.15, .35]
E/E	−.21 (.13)	−.17* (.06)	−.54* (.13)	−.16 (.16)	−.16* (.06)	−.48* (.17)	−.14 (.15)	−.16* (.06)	−.46* (.16)	−.07 (.15)		−.16* (.06)		−.39* (.16)		−.08 (.14)		−.16* (.06)		−.40* (.16)
E/E	[−.47, .05]	[−.29, −.04]	[−.80, −.28]	[−.49, .16]	[−.29, −.03]	[−.83, −.14]	[−.43, .16]	[−.29, −.03]	[−.77, −.14]	[−.37, .23]		[−.29, −.03]		[−.72, −.07]		[−.35, .18]		[−.27, −.05]		[−.71, −.09]
Popularity
NPI	−.06* (.03)	.00 (.02)	−.05^† (.03)	−.01 (.03)	.00 (.02)	.00 (.03)	−.03 (.03)	.00 (.02)	−.03 (.03)	−.02 (.03)		.00 (.02)		−.02 (.03)		−.02 (.02)		.01 (.01)		−.01 (.03)
NPI	[−.11, −.01]	[−.03, .03]	[−.10, .00]	[−.06, .05]	[−.03, .03]	[−.06, .06]	[−.08, .02]	[−.03, .03]	[−.08, .03]	[−.08, .03]		[−.03, .03]		[−.08, .04]		[−.07, .02]		[−.02, .03]		[−.07, .04]
L/A	−.10 (.08)	.02 (.05)	−.07 (.08)	.03 (.08)	.01 (.05)	.05 (.09)	−.01 (.08)	.01 (.05)	.02 (.08)	−.01 (.08)		.01 (.05)		.02 (.09)		−.02 (.07)		.03 (.04)		.05 (.08)
L/A	[−.26, .05]	[−.07, .11]	[−.24, .09]	[−.12, .18]	[−.08, .10]	[−.12, .22]	[−.16, .14]	[−.08, .10]	[−.15, .18]	[−.16, .15]		[−.08, .10]		[−.15, .19]		[−.16, .13]		[−.05, .11]		[−.12, .21]
S/S	−.02 (.08)	.03 (.05)	.04 (.09)	.09 (.08)	.03 (.05)	.15 (.09)	.03 (.08)	.03 (.05)	.09 (.09)	.03 (.09)		.03 (.05)		.08 (.10)		−.02 (.07)		.03 (.04)		.03 (.08)
S/S	[−.18, .15]	[−.07, .13]	[−.14, .22]	[−.07, .26]	[−.07, .13]	[−.04, .33]	[−.13, .20]	[−.07, .13]	[−.09, .28]	[−.15, .20]		[−.07, .13]		[−.11, .27]		[−.16, .13]		[−.06, .11]		[−.13, .20]
S/A	−.25* (.09)	.03 (.05)	−.18^† (.09)	−.15 (.10)	.04 (.05)	−.07 (.10)	−.21* (.09)	.04 (.05)	−.13 (.10)	−.17^† (.10)		.04 (.05)		−.09 (.10)		−.15^† (.08)		.08^† (.05)		.02 (.10)
S/A	[−.43, −.07]	[−.07, .14]	[−.36, .01]	[−.34, .05]	[−.07, .14]	[−.28, .13]	[−.39, −.02]	[−.07, .15)]	[−.32, .07]	[−.36, .02]		[−.07, .15]		[−.29, .11]		[−.31, .02]		[−.02, .18]		[−.18, .22]
E/E	−.30* (.11)	−.09 (.07)	−.48* (.11)	−.25^† (.13)	−.08 (.07)	−.41* (.13)	−.27* (.12)	−.08 (.07)	−.43* (.12)	−.27* (.12)		−.09 (.07)		−.44* (.13)		−.20^† (.11)		−.07 (.06)		−.34* (.12)
E/E	[−.53, −.08]	[−.22, .05]	[−.70, −.26]	[−.50, .00]	[−.22, .05]	[−.67, −.15]	[−.50, −.03]	[−.22, .06]	[−.67, −.19]	[−.51, −.03]		[−.23, .05]		[−.69, −.19]		[−.41, .01]		[−.20, .06]		[−.58, −.10]

Note. First β₀₁ = narcissism as a predictor of initial status (popularity) controlling for the listed covariate; Change β₁₁ = narcissism as a predictor of change in status (popularity) controlling for the listed covariate; Last β₀₁ = narcissism as a predictor of status (popularity) at 4 months controlling for the listed covariate; CI = confidence interval; NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; L/A = leadership/authority; S/S = self-absorption/self-admiration; S/A = superiority/arrogance; E/E = exploitative/entitlement.

†

p < .10. *p < .05.

L/A

Model 2 results showed the same association with initial higher status and a negative change in status (i.e., the Waning Pattern) as observed in Model 1 when controlling for agreeableness (First β₀₁ = .21, p = .03, Change β₁₁ = –.08, p = .06), emotional stability (First β₀₁ = .18, p = .05, Change β₁₁ = –.08, p = .06), attractiveness (First β₀₁ = .19, p = .04, Change β₁₁ = –.08, p = .07), or self-esteem (First β₀₁ = .19, p = .04, Change β₁₁ = –.07, p = .08), although the change effects were marginally significant (Table 6). A similar pattern was observed when controlling for extraversion, but initial status was not significant (First β₀₁ = .02, p = .86, Change β₁₁ = –.08, p = .07). Model 3, which controlled for all covariates, also showed that L/A’s association with initial status was not significant and that the slope was not significant (First β₀₁ = .01, p = .90, Change β₁₁ = –.07, p = .13), although the 95% confidence interval [–.15, .02] for the slope was similar to that of Model 1 ([–.14, .01]; see Table 5). In sum, shared variance between L/A and extraversion might explain initial status, but something unique to L/A predicted waning status.

S/S

Model 2 showed the same Waning Pattern and initial higher status as observed in Model 1 when controlling for extraversion (First β₀₁ = .22, p = .02, Change β₁₁ = –.08, p = .10) or self-esteem (First β₀₁ = .23, p = .01, Change β₁₁ = –.08, p = .04). Partial support for the Waning Pattern was observed when controlling for attractiveness (First β₀₁ = .29, p = .004, Change β₁₁ = –.08, p = .11, Last β₀₁ = .14, p = .23) or emotional stability (First β₀₁ = .33, p = .001, Change β₁₁ = –.08, p = .10, Last β₀₁ = .18, p = .13) in that S/S was significantly associated with initial status but not final status; although, the 95% confidence intervals for the slopes in Model 2 were similar to those of Model 1 (see Tables 5 and 6). When controlling for agreeableness, S/S was associated with higher initial status that waned (First β₀₁ = .38, p < .001; Change β₁₁ = –.08, p = .10) but also with higher status at 4 months (Last β₀₁ = .23 p = .06). Controlling for all five covariates in Model 3, S/S remained a marginally, unique predictor of initial status (β₀₁ = .19, p = .07) but not final status (β₀₁ = .05, p = .69) and, although the slope coefficient was not significant (Change β₁₁ = –.07, p = .13), the 95% confidence interval [–.16, .02] was similar to Model 1 ([–.16, .00]; Table 5). In sum, S/S was a unique predictor of initial higher status above and beyond core personality traits. Something unique to S/S predicted a waning pattern, although agreeableness might play a role in the waning status effect.

S/A

S/A showed a Null Pattern for status and popularity in Model 1; thus, we do not interpret Model 2 and 3 effects.

E/E

Model 2 results for status paralleled Waning Pattern results from Model 1 such that E/E was associated with losing status over time and with lower status at the end of 4 months when controlling for extraversion (Change β₁₁ = –.17, p = .01, Last β₀₁ = –.54, p < .001), agreeableness (Change β₁₁ = –.16, p = .01, Last β₀₁ = –.48, p = .01), emotional stability (Change β₁₁ = –.16, p = .01, Last β₀₁ = –.46, p = .01), attractiveness (Change β₁₁ = –.16, p = .01, Last β₀₁ = –.39, p = .02), or self-esteem (Change β₁₁ = –.16, p = .01, Last β₀₁ = –.40, p = .01). When all five covariates were entered simultaneously (Model 3), E/E showed the same Waning Pattern and was associated with lower status at the end of 4 months (Change β₁₁ = –.15, p = .02, Last β₀₁ = –.44, p = .01). Model 2 results for popularity also paralleled the results from Model 1, such that E/E was associated with less popularity initially and at 4 months when controlling for extraversion (First β₀₁ = –.30, p = .01, Last β₀₁ = –.48, p < .001), agreeableness (First β₀₁ = –.25, p = .054, Last β₀₁ = –.41, p = .002), emotional stability (First β₀₁ = –.27, p = .03, Last β₀₁ = –.43, p = .001), attractiveness (First β₀₁ = –.27, p = .03, Last β₀₁ = –.44, p = .001), or self-esteem (First β₀₁ = –.20, p = .07, Last β₀₁ = –.34, p = .01). When all five covariates were entered simultaneously, E/E was negatively associated with popularity at the beginning and end of 4 months (First β₀₁ = –.25, p = .05, Last β₀₁ = –.39, p = .003). In sum, these results suggest that something unique to E/E predicted a loss of status and lower status at 4 months as well as less popularity.

Discussion

In the first 4 months of acquaintanceship, relative to people lower, people higher in narcissism tended to attain but later lose status, and they were not necessarily popular. Narcissists (accurately) saw themselves as having attained initial higher status but also erroneously assumed they were initially popular and tended to self-enhance their initial social value more. Despite their initial self-enhancement, narcissists seemed to realize that they lost status over time, and at 4 months, they did not tend to think they were especially high or low on status or popularity, nor did they tend to self-enhance their social value. With respect to the facets, L/A and S/S were associated with higher status that faded over time, whereas E/E was associated with status that decreased over time and was especially low at the end of 4 months. Interestingly, all three facets were associated with self-perceptions of status that decreased over time, suggesting some awareness of waning status. E/E was also linked to lower popularity over 4 months.

Covariate analyses revealed that extraversion explained some of narcissists’ initial higher status (i.e., the NPI and L/A). Models that simultaneously controlled for all five covariates revealed that S/S was a unique predictor of initially high status and that E/E was a unique predictor of lower status at the end of 4 months as well as lower popularity across 4 months. However, the NPI, L/A, S/S, and E/E facets were unique predictors of declining status. Taken together, extraversion may partially explain how narcissists initially rose to the top, but something unique to narcissism explained a loss in status.

Supplementary Study: Narcissists’ Perceptions About How to Attain Status

To better understand why narcissists might have lost status, we explored narcissists’ beliefs about which attributes garner status. Participants (N = 73; female 51%; age M = 35.74, SD = 11.71) were recruited online via Mechanical Turk and were paid $1 for their responses to the online survey. Embedded in a larger survey, participants were asked to rate the extent to which several attributes, which were culled from past research (Anderson et al., 2001; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; see Table 7), “are likely to succeed or fail when it comes to attaining influence (or respect)” using a sliding −10 (fail) to 10 (succeed) scale. Participants’ responses for influence and respect were averaged to obtain a single perception for each attribute (average α = .72). Participants also completed the NPI (M = 15.58, SD = 8.35, α = .91; L/A: M = 3.64, SD = 2.57, α = .84, S/S: M = 3.41, SD = 2.29, α = .73, S/A: M = 2.84, SD = 1.71, α = .49, E/E: M = 1.99, SD = 1.59, α = .55).

Table 7.

Perceptions of Attributes That Garner Status.

Sample averages (ordered from most to least successful)		Correlations between narcissism and perceptions of attributes (ordered from strongest to weakest absolute values)
Attributes	M (SD)	Attributes	NPI	L/A	S/S	S/A	E/E
Being trustworthy	6.84 (2.75)	Highlighting others’ weaknesses	.36*	.32*	.32*	.30*	.28*
Confidence	6.28 (2.88)	Attractiveness	.33*	.38*	.20^†	.26*	.21^†
Being likeable	6.08 (2.67)	Dominance	.29*	.27*	.23*	.24*	.23*
Intelligence	5.82 (3.42)	Competitiveness	.25*	.24*	.20^†	.21^†	.21^†
Building up others’ strengths	5.21 (3.41)	Arrogance	.25*	.26*	.13	.30*	.22^†
Having unique skills/abilities	5.16 (3.33)	Having unique skills/abilities	−.24*	−.12	−.20^†	−.29*	−.16
Being calm	4.88 (3.79)	Being outgoing; assertive	.19^†	.29*	.11	.02	.24*
Being warm	4.39 (4.10)	Intelligence	−.10	.00	−.05	−.17	−.09
Being outgoing; assertive	3.75 (3.59)	Being trustworthy	−.09	−.01	−.04	−.09	−.19
Attractiveness	3.32 (4.12)	Building up others’ strengths	−.08	.01	−.03	−.16	−.06
Empathy	3.26 (4.24)	Being likeable	.07	.02	.14	−.03	.04
Competitiveness	3.10 (3.58)	Being warm	−.07	−.04	−.01	−.16	−.04
Dominance	−.89 (5.11)	Empathy	.04	.13	.04	−.02	.04
Highlighting others’ weaknesses	−4.03 (4.56)	Being calm	−.03	.06	−.03	−.10	−.03
Arrogance	−4.48 (4.45)	Confidence	.00	−.04	.14	−.01	−.11

Note. Perceptions of whether attributes garnered status were completed on −10 (fail) to 10 (succeed) scale. Average perceptions are presented in rank order, from most to least successful. Correlations between narcissism and attributes are rank ordered in terms of the absolute value of the correlation for the NPI. NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; L/A = leadership/authority; S/S = self-absorption/self-admiration; S/A = superiority/arrogance; E/E = exploitative/entitlement.

†

p < .10. *p < .05.

Table 7 shows the average person’s beliefs about how to attain status, rank ordered from the most to least successful, as well as the correlations between narcissism and these attributes, rank ordered from the strongest to weakest absolute association. As shown, the three most successful attributes, as rated by the typical person, included being trustworthy, confident, and likeable, whereas the three least successful attributes included arrogance, highlighting others’ weaknesses, and dominance. The strongest relationship between the NPI and the attributes was “highlighting others’ weaknesses.” Narcissism was also associated with believing that attractiveness, dominance, competitiveness, arrogance, having unique skills and abilities, and being outgoing were more successful ways of obtaining status. Results were similar across the four facets. In sum, relative to people lower, people higher in narcissism seem to believe that hostile and dominant behaviors garner status, whereas the typical person tends to believe that relatively amiable behaviors garner status.

General Discussion

The goal of the current research was to determine whether narcissists attained and maintained status and popularity and whether they were aware of their social value. Overall, results for status supported the Waning Pattern, such that grandiose narcissism was associated with initial higher status but also with losing social status over time. Relative to people lower, people higher in narcissism also tended to (accurately) believe they had higher status early on, although these individuals tended to self-enhance their status more after initially meeting their group (Study 2). Interestingly, narcissists perceived themselves as having less status over time and were not more or less likely to self-enhance after 4 months. Taken together, results suggest that narcissists have some awareness of their waning social standing. In contrast to status, results for popularity supported the Null Pattern, such that narcissists were not especially liked or disliked over 4 months. Yet, relative to people lower, people higher in narcissism initially tended to believe they were more popular and tended to overestimate their popularity more; however, these effects were not significant after 4 months, suggesting some degree of insight. In sum, narcissists got ahead initially but not in the long run, and eventually, they seemed to be aware that they were not especially socially valued.

The pattern of findings differed across the four subscales of narcissism, suggesting that some features of narcissism played a larger role in status and popularity than did others. L/A was associated with initial status in both studies and with initial popularity in Study 1. Although L/A was associated with a decline in status, it was not associated with especially low status or popularity at the end of 4 months suggesting L/A attributes were not especially undesirable. This pattern provides more evidence that L/A is an especially adaptive aspect of narcissism that yields positive social consequences, at least in early acquaintanceship (Emmons, 1984). One possible explanation for this pattern is that L/A individuals tend to ease the initial tension among strangers by taking control of the group, but this assertive style may not be especially valuable once people are acquainted. In contrast, E/E predicted waning status that was especially low at the end of 4 months as well as lower popularity over 4 months, a finding that provides further support that that this aspect of narcissism is maladaptive and may become even more problematic over time.

We also controlled for five core features of narcissism that may have played a role in how narcissists attained status or popularity. Overall, results suggested that initial higher status for the NPI may be explained somewhat by its overlap with extraversion and attractiveness. However, covariate analyses suggested that something unique to narcissism predicted status given that L/A and S/S were unique predictors of initial status, and E/E was a unique predictor of lower status after 4 months. Something unique to narcissism also predicted waning status, given that the NPI, L/A, S/S (with the exception of agreeableness), and E/E scales were unique predictors of a loss in status over time. With respect to popularity, results suggested that initial popularity for L/A and S/A may be due somewhat to their overlap with extraversion. However, something unique to E/E explained unpopularity above and beyond all covariates. Taken together with past work, our results suggest that positive aspects of narcissism, such as extraversion and attractiveness, facilitate narcissists’ social value initially, but the negative aspects of their personality (e.g., hostility) eventually undermine their social value.

We also explored narcissists’ beliefs about how to attain status to gain some insight into which strategies narcissists might use, which may help to explain why narcissists lose status. Results suggested that, relative to people lower, people higher in narcissism tend to believe dominant and narcissistic attributes garner status (e.g., highlighting others’ weaknesses, arrogance), which may explain why they eventually lost status over time.

Implications

Our findings have several implications for understanding narcissism, status, and popularity. With respect to narcissism, results provide further support for the contextual reinforcement model of narcissism given that narcissists were socially valued in the initial phase of acquaintanceship but not later on (Campbell & Campbell, 2009). However, while narcissists lost social value over time, the NPI was not associated with especially low status or popularity after 4 months, suggesting that narcissism was not especially socially undesirable. Our general finding that the facets of narcissism differentially predicted status and popularity over time also provides further support for the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept model (NARC; Back et al., 2013) and the dual pathway model of narcissism (Küfner et al., 2013), both of which argue that the positive (e.g., assertive) and negative (e.g., aggressive) aspects of narcissism account for narcissism’s complex associations with adaptive and maladaptive outcomes. Indeed, taken together with the contextual reinforcement model, our results suggest that the positive aspects of narcissism may account for narcissists’ initial success (i.e., the emerging zone), whereas the negative aspects of narcissism may account for their declining social value in the later stages of acquaintanceship (i.e., the enduring zone).

From the perspective of narcissists, they were initially socially valued (i.e., they believed they attained status and popularity) but were not especially socially valued later on. This subjective experience likely makes first impression contexts more rewarding than later stages of acquaintanceship and might explain why they prefer short-term relationships (Campbell & Campbell, 2009). Going further, narcissists’ beliefs that their narcissistic tendencies benefit them in general (Carlson, 2013) and garner status in particular (Study 3) may be reinforced in the short term by their real and imagined status. Put another way, narcissists believe their narcissism gets them ahead, and our results suggest that in some contexts this belief is true, at least in the short term. In fact, results from two studies suggest that narcissists tend to have initially higher status without being especially popular, suggesting they can get the status they crave without being particularly liked. Finally, our finding that narcissists perceived their status as waning and did not self-enhance their social value after 4 months provides additional evidence that narcissists are aware that their reputation fades over time (Carlson et al., 2011). Thus, despite their general motivation to self-enhance, narcissists do have some insight into social reality.

Our findings also have broad implications for status and popularity. Results replicate the finding that extraversion and attractiveness are stable predictors of status over time (Anderson et al., 2001) and replicate cross-sectional work that suggests extraversion is a robust predictor of popularity over time, whereas emotional stability is linked to popularity in the later stages of acquaintanceship (Back et al., 2011; Wortman & Wood, 2011). However, focusing on these discrete attributes seems to mask important boundary conditions for which characteristics maintain status or popularity. Indeed, narcissism represents a constellation of attributes linked to higher status and popularity (e.g., extraversion), but our finding that narcissists lost status and were not especially popular suggests that these discrete attributes may not be enough to attain status or popularity when combined with other attributes (e.g., entitlement, vanity).

Limitations and Future Directions

The current research has many strengths, including replication and a longitudinal design, but there are a few limitations we believe can be addressed with future research. First, we did not measure behavior, which limits our ability to explain why narcissists attained but lost status and why they were never especially popular. In line with past work, we suspect that narcissists were charming at first, but over time, their hostility and exploitative tendencies came to light (Paulhus, 1998). Likewise, given that narcissists are eventually seen as people who exaggerate their abilities (Carlson, Vazire, & Oltmanns, 2011), they may have lost influence once group members realized these individuals were overconfident rather than competent (Driskell, Olmstead, & Salas, 1993). Future research that explicitly measures narcissists’ interpersonal behaviors over time may explain why they lose status.

Second, our results suggest that narcissists were aware that their status waned, but we did not measure narcissists’ attributions for this change. People higher in narcissism see others in negative ways (Lukowitsky & Pincus, 2013) and may have made negative attributions about their group, such as assuming members were too incompetent to recognize their brilliance rather than believe their own behavior undermined their status. Likewise, narcissists may have engaged in counterproductive behaviors to reclaim their status that ultimately backfired, such as trying harder to impress people (e.g., bragging). Indeed, future research examining narcissists’ beliefs about why they lose status might explain some of their negative interpersonal tendencies, such as bragging or derogating others.

Third, we assessed status and popularity in mainly social settings, but different contexts might reveal a different pattern given that contextual factors affect who attains status and popularity. One study found that extraversion predicted status early but not later on when group members worked on a class project together (Bendersky & Shah, 2012), suggesting that workplace environments where social value is often merit based may show a different pattern (Driskell et al., 1993). Likewise, narcissists tend to be popular in self-presentational settings but not in intimate contexts (e.g., self-disclosure; Küfner et al., 2013), a pattern that might explain why they were not particularly popular in our studies, which involved some degree of self-disclosure (e.g., Two Truths and a Lie; Study 2). Indeed, contextual factors might explain why we found that E/E was associated with less popularity over 4 months, whereas Back and colleagues (2010) found that E/E is positively associated with popularity after a brief introduction. Participants in their study were asked to introduce themselves without having a conversation, a situation that encourages self-presentation, whereas participants in our studies engaged in group discussions that involved self-disclosure and the sharing of ideas, a situation that likely allowed the negative aspects of E/E to come to light.

Finally, our longitudinal sample was not large, which reduced the power of the research and the precision of the effects. Future replication with a larger sample will be important to demonstrate the robustness of our effects. Going further, our samples were comprised mainly of women, but given that there are important gender differences in the NPI (particularly in the L/A and E/E facets; Grijalva et al., 2015), the effects we observed for L/A and E/E may be stronger in a sample that includes more men. Similarly, the reliabilities of some NPI facets were low, which may explain why some results for initial social value did not replicate. There is an ongoing debate about how to best measure narcissism and its facets (e.g., Ackerman et al., 2011; Back et al., 2013), but most solutions include an adaptive and maladaptive component that is similar to the L/A and E/E, respectively. Thus, we predict that other narcissism measures will likely replicate our finding that L/A features are socially valued, whereas E/E features are not. Future work exploring whether our results replicate across measures of grandiose narcissism other than the NPI as well as measures of pathological narcissism may be helpful in understanding the generalizability of our results as well as the construct of narcissism.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Robert Wilson and Kathryn Bollich for their help in preparing this manuscript.

Authors’ Note

Data from Study 1 were reported in Solomon and Vazire (2014). Data from Study 2 were reported in Carlson, Vazire, and Furr (2011) and . However, the analyses reported in the current manuscript are novel.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for Study 1 was provided by the National Science Foundation (Simine Vazire: BCS-1025330, BCS-1125553), and a grant from the John Templeton Foundation.

Supplemental Material

The online supplemental material is available at .

Notes

References

Ackerman

Witt

Donnellan

M. B.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Robins

R. W.

Kashy

(2011). What does the narcissistic personality inventory really measure? Assessment, 18, 67-87.

Anderson

Ames

D. R.

Gosling

S. D.

(2008). Punishing hubris: The perils of overestimating one’s status in a group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 90-101.

Anderson

Brion

Moore

D. A.

Kennedy

J. A.

(2012). A status-enhancement account of overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 718-735.

Anderson

John

O. P.

Keltner

Kring

A. M.

(2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116-132.

Anderson

Kilduff

G. J.

(2009a). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 295-298.

Anderson

Kilduff

G. J.

(2009b). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 491-503.

Anderson

Srivastava

Beer

J. S.

Spataro

S. E.

Chatman

J. A.

(2006). Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1094-1110.

Back

M. D.

Krause

Hirschmuller

Stopfer

J. M.

Egloff

Schmukle

S. C.

(2009). Unraveling the three faces of self-esteem: A new information-processing sociometer. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 933-937.

Back

M. D.

Küfner

A. C.

Dufner

Gerlach

T. M.

Rauthmann

J. F.

Denissen

J. J.

(2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1013-1037.

10.

Back

M. D.

Schmukle

S. C.

Egloff

(2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 132-145.

11.

Back

M. D.

Schmukle

S. C.

Egloff

(2011). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal of Personality, 25, 225-238.

12.

Bendersky

Shah

N. P.

(2012). The cost of status enhancement: Performance effects of individuals’ status mobility in task groups. Organizational Science, 23, 308-322.

13.

Brown

R. P.

Budzek

Tamborski

(2009). On the meaning and measure of narcissism. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 951-964.

14.

Brunell

A. B.

Gentry

W. A.

Campbell

W. K.

Hoffman

B. J.

Kuhnert

K. W.

DeMarree

K. G.

(2008). Leader emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1663-1676.

15.

Buss

D. M.

(1999). Human nature and individual differences: The evolution of human personality. In Pervin

L. A.

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 31-56). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

16.

Campbell

W. K.

Bush

C. P.

Brunell

A. B.

Shelton

(2005). Understanding the social costs of narcissism: The case of the tragedy of the commons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1358-1368.

17.

Campbell

W. K.

Campbell

S. M.

(2009). On the self-regulatory dynamics created by the peculiar benefits and costs of narcissism: A contextual reinforcement model and examination of leadership. Self and Identity, 8, 214-232.

18.

Carlson

E. N.

(2013). Honestly arrogant or simply misunderstood? Narcissists’ awareness of their narcissism. Self and Identity, 12, 259-277.

19.

Carlson

E. N.

Kenny

D. A.

(2012). Meta-accuracy: Do we know how others see us? In Vazire

Wilson

T. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-knowledge (pp. 242-257). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

20.

Carlson

E. N.

Naumann

L. P.

Vazire

(2011). Getting to know a narcissist inside and out: Self and other perspectives on narcissism. In Campbell

W. K.

Miller

J. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments (pp. 285-299). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

21.

Carlson

E. N.

Vazire

Furr

R. M.

(2011). Meta-insight: Do people really know how others see them? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 831-846.

22.

Carlson

E. N.

Vazire

Oltmanns

T. F.

(2011). You probably think this paper’s about you: Narcissists’ perceptions of their personality and reputation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 185-201.

23.

Cheng

J. T.

Tracy

J. L.

Foulsham

Kingstone

Henrich

(2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 103-125.

24.

Clifton

Turkheimer

Oltmanns

T. F.

(2009). Personality disorder in social networks: Network position as a marker of interpersonal dysfunction. Social Networks, 31, 26-32.

25.

Driskell

J. E.

Olmstead

Salas

(1993). Task cues, dominance cues, and influence in task groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51-56.

26.

Dufner

Rauthmann

J. F.

Czarna

A. Z.

Denissen

J. J.

(2013). Are narcissists sexy? Zeroing in on the link between narcissism and short-term mate appeal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 870-882.

27.

Dunning

Heath

Suls

J. M.

(2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 69-106.

28.

Ellis

(1994). Social stratification and socioeconomic inequality (Vol. 2). Westport, CT: Praeger.

29.

Emmons

R. A.

(1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291-300.

30.

Emmons

R. A.

(1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 11-17.

31.

Farwell

Wohlwend-Lloyd

(1998). Narcissistic processes: Optimistic expectations, favorable self-evaluations, and self-enhancing attributions. Journal of Personality, 66, 65-83.

32.

Gabriel

M. T.

Critelli

J. W.

J. S.

(1994). Narcissistic illusions in self-evaluations of intelligence and attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 62, 143-155.

33.

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Swann

W. B.

(2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.

34.

Grijalva

Newman

D. A.

Tay

Donnellan

M. B.

Harms

P. D.

Robins

R. W.

Yan

(2015). Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 261-310.

35.

Hogan

Kaiser

R. B.

(2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9, 169-180.

36.

Holtzman

N. S.

Vazire

Mehl

M. R.

(2010). Sounds like a narcissist: Behavioral manifestations of narcissism in everyday life. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 478-484.

37.

John

O. P.

Robins

R. W.

(1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 206-219.

38.

Jonason

P. K.

Slomski

Partyka

(2012). The dark triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 449-453.

39.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

Ilies

Gerhardt

M. W.

(2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.

40.

Judge

T. A.

Lepine

J. A.

Rich

B. L.

(2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762-776.

41.

Keltner

van Kleef

G. A.

Chen

Kraus

(2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 151-192.

42.

Küfner

A. C. P.

Nestler

Back

M. D.

(2013). The two pathways to being an (un-)popular narcissist. Journal of Personality, 81, 184-195.

43.

Kwan

V. S. Y.

John

O. P.

Kenny

D. A.

Bond

M. H.

Robins

R. W.

(2004). Reconceptualizing individual differences in self-enhancement bias: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Review, 111, 94-110.

44.

Lukowitsky

M. R.

Pincus

A. L.

(2013). Interpersonal perception of pathological narcissism: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 261-273.

45.

Magee

J. C.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351-398.

46.

Miller

J. D.

Campbell

W. K.

(2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76, 449-476.

47.

Miller

J. D.

Campbell

W. K.

(2010). The case for using research on trait narcissism as a building block for understanding narcissistic personality disorder. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1, 180-191.

48.

Morf

C. C.

Rhodewalt

(2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177-196.

49.

Nezlek

J. B.

(2011). Multilevel modeling for social and personality psychology. London, England: SAGE.

50.

Oltmanns

T. F.

Friedman

J. N. W.

Fiedler

E. R.

Turkheimer

(2004). Perceptions of people with personality disorders based on thin slices of behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 216-229.

51.

Paulhus

D. L.

(1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197-1208.

52.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2001). Normal narcissism: Two minimalist accounts. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 228-230.

53.

Raskin

Terry

(1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890-902.

54.

Rhodewalt

Morf

C. C.

(1995). Self and interpersonal correlates of the narcissistic personality inventory: A review and new findings. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 1-23.

55.

Robins

R. W.

Hendin

H. M.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

(2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151-161.

56.

Robins

R. W.

John

O. P.

(1997). Effects of visual perspective and narcissism on self-perception: Is seeing believing? Psychological Science, 8, 37-42.

57.

Ruiz

J. M.

Smith

T. W.

Rhodewalt

(2001). Distinguishing narcissism and hostility: Similarities and differences in interpersonal circumplex and five-factor correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 537-555.

58.

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Back

M. D.

Schmukle

S. C.

(2012). TripleR: An R package for social relations analyses based on round robin designs. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 455-470.

59.

Sedikides

Rudich

Gregg

A. P.

Kumashiro

Rusbult

(2004). Are normal narcissists psychologically healthy? Self-esteem matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 400-416.

60.

Solomon

B. C.

Vazire

(2014). You are so beautiful…to me: Seeing beyond biases and achieving accuracy in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 516-528.

61.

Sunnafrank

Ramirez

Jr. (2004). At first sight: Persistent relational effects of get-acquainted conversations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 361-379.

62.

Van Vugt

(2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 354-371.

63.

Vazire

Naumann

L. P.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Gosling

S. D.

(2008). Portrait of a narcissist: Manifestations of narcissism in physical appearance. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1439-1447.

64.

Wortman

Wood

(2011). The personality traits of liked people. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 519-528.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

3.28 MB