Narcissistic Admiration and Narcissistic Rivalry: Associations With Accuracy and Bias in Perceptions of Romantic Partners

Abstract

Two studies examined perceptions of romantic partners, using the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept model to conceptualize narcissism. We examined three types of partner perceptions: partner-enhancement (perceiving one’s partner more positively than oneself), mean-level bias (perceiving one’s partner more positively than the partner’s self-perception), and tracking accuracy (accurately perceiving the relative position of one’s partner within a sample). In Study 1, 252 individuals rated themselves and their partners in two agentic domains (attractiveness/vitality, status/resources) and one communal domain (warmth/trustworthiness). Narcissistic admiration was associated with less partner-enhancement, especially for agentic qualities. Study 2 surveyed 75 romantic couples about their self-perceptions and partner perceptions. Analyses with the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model revealed that narcissistic admiration was associated with less partner-enhancement. Study 2 also used the Truth and Bias model to examine mean-level bias and tracking accuracy. Narcissistic rivalry was associated with less mean-level bias and greater tracking accuracy in the domain of attractiveness/vitality.

Keywords

Narcissism narcissistic admiration narcissistic rivalry accuracy/bias partner-enhancement truth and bias model

Narcissism refers to a complex set of personality features that involve a sense of grandiosity, self-centeredness, and feelings of entitlement (e.g., Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). To maintain their grandiose self-perceptions, narcissistic individuals often use both psychological processes (e.g., perceive themselves more positively than is warranted) and interpersonal behaviors (e.g., derogate others; see Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001, for a review). These self-regulatory strategies have important implications for how narcissistic individuals navigate romantic relationships (e.g., Brunell & Campbell, 2011; Campbell et al., 2006; Foster & Brunell, 2018). Although narcissism is associated with initial attraction and short-term romantic appeal, it is also associated with problems that emerge during the course of long-term relationships (e.g., Brunell & Campbell, 2011; Campbell et al., 2006; Foster & Brunell, 2018; Wurst et al., 2017). One issue often found in the romantic relationships of narcissistic individuals is the tendency for these individuals to perceive themselves as superior to their partners (e.g., Campbell et al., 2002; Czarna et al., 2022), which may prevent them from reaping the relational benefits that often accompany partner-enhancement (e.g., Busby et al., 2009).

The present research will examine the associations that narcissism has with partner perceptions. We will extend past research in two important ways. First, we will assess multiple types of accuracy and bias in partner perceptions, whereas previous studies that have examined how narcissistic individuals perceive their partners (e.g., Campbell et al., 2002; Czarna et al., 2022; Zeigler-Hill & Trombly, 2018) have focused only on one of the biases that we will examine, partner-enhancement (i.e., the extent to which individuals perceive their partners more favorably than themselves; Busby et al., 2009; Morry et al., 2014). Second, we will use the two-dimensional Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept model (NARC; Back et al., 2013), rather than relying on a unidimensional conceptualization of narcissism. This will allow for a more nuanced and complete understanding of the connections that narcissistic personality features have with accuracy and bias in perceptions of romantic partners.

Accuracy and Bias in Partner Perception

Individuals involved in romantic relationships can perceive their partners in a positively biased manner, seeing them through “rose-colored glasses,” or their perceptions can be more accurately aligned with reality. Accuracy or bias in these perceptions can take several forms, with each form based upon making a comparison between one’s partner and some standard. We will focus on three types of partner perceptions in the present studies: partner-enhancement, mean-level bias (aka directional bias), and tracking accuracy (aka correlational accuracy). To illustrate the similarities and differences between these types of perceptions, we will use the example of a hypothetical couple, Jack and Jill, in which we evaluate Jack’s perceptions of Jill.

The first partner-perception phenomenon we will consider is the bias of partner-enhancement which refers to perceiving one’s partner more positively than oneself (Busby et al., 2009; Morry et al., 2014). Partner-enhancement uses the self-ratings of participants as the benchmark against which their ratings of their partners are compared. This is typically operationalized as the extent to which participants provide more favorable ratings of their partner on particular characteristics compared with the self-ratings of the participant for those same characteristics (e.g., Busby et al., 2009; Czarna et al., 2022), but is sometimes operationalized as comparative judgments in which individuals directly rate the extent to which either their partners or themselves are superior on certain characteristics (e.g., Czarna et al., 2022). For example, Jack would demonstrate partner-enhancement if his ratings of Jill for characteristics such as warmth were more favorable than his own self-ratings for those same characteristics. Partner-enhancement is associated with greater relationship satisfaction (e.g., Busby et al., 2009) and is particularly likely to occur with respect to relationship-relevant, communal traits, such as being loving (Morry et al., 2014). However, previous research has shown that narcissism is negatively associated with partner-enhancement which reflects the tendency for narcissistic individuals to rate themselves more favorably than their partners (Campbell et al., 2002; Czarna et al., 2022).

The second type of perception we will address is mean-level bias which concerns differences between the perception of the target and a specific benchmark (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010). In the literature concerning perceptions of romantic partners, the benchmark that is most typically used is the partner’s own self-assessment. Thus, mean-level bias is captured by the difference between the participant’s ratings of their romantic partner on particular characteristics and their partner’s own self-ratings for those same characteristics. For example, Jack would demonstrate positive mean-level bias if his ratings of Jill for positive characteristics, such as warmth, were more favorable than Jill’s own self-ratings for those same characteristics, and negative mean-level bias if his ratings of positive characteristics were lower than Jill’s self-ratings. A meta-analysis by Fletcher and Kerr (2010) showed a small – but reliable – tendency for individuals to engage in positive mean-level bias when assessing their romantic partners. Positive mean-level bias (i.e., overperceiving a positive quality or underperceiving a negative quality) is associated with greater relationship satisfaction (Murray et al., 1996), whereas negative mean-level bias is associated with lower satisfaction (Seidman, 2012) and may be harmful for relationships (Overall & Hammond, 2013). Positive mean-level bias is especially beneficial when it occurs for traits individuals perceive as being particularly relevant to the relationship (Boyes & Fletcher, 2007) or communal traits (Seidman, 2012).

The third type of perception we will address is tracking accuracy, which concerns the association between a rating and a set of ratings or benchmarks (Fletcher, 2015; Fletcher & Kerr, 2010; West & Kenny, 2011). Tracking accuracy is generally assessed at the level of the entire sample (Stern & West, 2018). For example, if data showed high levels of tracking accuracy in partners’ perceptions of each other’s level of warmth, this would suggest that participants with the warmest partners in the sample correctly perceive that to some extent, and people with the coldest partners correctly perceive that to some extent. If Jack’s judgment of Jill demonstrates tracking accuracy, his relative ranking of Jill among all partners in the sample will be accurate. Findings are mixed with respect to whether tracking accuracy is associated with higher or lower levels of relationship satisfaction, with meta-analyses showing no overall mean association between tracking accuracy and satisfaction (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010).

It is important to note that an individual can simultaneously hold partner perceptions that are both biased and accurate (Fletcher, 2015; Kenny & Acitelli, 2001). Although people tend to show positive mean-level bias in their perceptions of their partners, they actually show considerable tracking accuracy (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010). In their meta-analysis, Fletcher and Kerr (2010) found that mean-level bias and tracking accuracy were completely independent. To address these complexities, West and Kenny (2011) proposed the Truth and Bias Model, an integrative framework that considers both mean-level bias and tracking accuracy simultaneously, while considering the influence of other person-perception biases, such as perseverance in judgments over time, and assumed similarity between the self and other. Assumed similarity between the self and other – which involves the projection of self-traits onto the partner – is an important and common bias factor in romantic partner perceptions (Kenny & Acitelli, 2001).

Romantic partners could conceivably evaluate one another on any personality trait or ability, but romantic relationship researchers typically focus on evaluations in domains important to mate selection. Specifically, Fletcher et al. (1999) defined warmth/trustworthiness, attractiveness/vitality, and status/resources as three pivotal partner characteristics. These characteristics are particularly beneficial for understanding how individuals perceive their partners and themselves in romantic relationships (e.g., Campbell et al., 2013). Thus, we will examine these three domains in the present research. Prior research linking the NARC dimensions to partner perceptions has tended to focus on the overall positivity of these views regardless of domain (e.g., Zeigler-Hill & Trombly, 2018). However, differentiating between these domains is especially important when examining how narcissistic individuals perceive their partners because narcissism is positively associated with valuing agentic partner characteristics, such as status/resources and attractiveness/vitality, but not communal characteristics like warmth/trustworthiness (Campbell, 1999; Seidman, 2016).

The NARC Model

Although previous studies have examined the connections that narcissism has with partner perceptions (e.g., Campbell et al., 2002; Czarna et al., 2022), these studies have often used a unidimensional conceptualization of narcissism, even though there is a considerable body of evidence suggesting that it is actually a multidimensional construct. We addressed this limitation in the existing literature by using the NARC model (Back et al., 2013) to provide a more nuanced understanding of the connections that narcissistic personality features have with perceptions of romantic partners. This model of narcissism distinguishes between narcissistic admiration (an agentic strategy for maintaining a grandiose self-image that involves the use of self-promotion and admiration-seeking) and narcissistic rivalry (an antagonistic strategy for maintaining a grandiose self-image that involves self-defense and the derogation of others). The agentic strategies that characterize narcissistic admiration tend to be at least somewhat effective in securing external affirmation from the social environment that helps individuals support their grandiose self-views, whereas the antagonistic strategies that characterize narcissistic rivalry tend to promote social conflict which often has the unintended consequence of making it even more difficult for individuals to maintain their grandiose self-views.

The NARC model provides unique insights into the interpersonal behavior of narcissistic individuals because narcissistic admiration captures the charm and self-confidence they display to others, whereas narcissistic rivalry captures the tendency to diminish and exploit other people (Back et al., 2013). In fact, narcissistic admiration is often associated with positive relationship outcomes (e.g., more positive views of the relationship, more positive behaviors directed toward romantic partners, more adaptive responses to transgressions), whereas narcissistic rivalry has consistent negative associations with these outcomes (e.g., Wurst et al., 2017; Zeigler-Hill et al., 2020; Zeigler-Hill & Trombly, 2018). Most relevant to the present studies, narcissistic admiration is associated with positive perceptions of both current and former romantic partners, whereas narcissistic rivalry is associated with negative perceptions of these partners (Seidman & Schlott, 2022; Wurst et al., 2017; Zeigler-Hill & Trombly, 2018).

The Current Research

The present studies examine the associations that narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry have with perceptions of romantic partners. Narcissistic individuals are known to have high standards for their romantic partners, especially for agentic traits such as status and physical attractiveness (e.g., Campbell, 1999; Seidman, 2016). This suggests that narcissistic individuals view their partners positively which is consistent with their tendency to consider their partners as something akin to “trophies” that can be used to support their own grandiose self-views (Campbell et al., 2006). However, narcissistic individuals may have difficulty praising others or elevating others above themselves (e.g., Campbell et al., 2002; Czarna et al., 2022) and this may be particularly true for those with elevated levels of narcissistic rivalry who often derogate others, including their romantic partners (Wurst et al., 2017; Zeigler-Hill & Trombly, 2018). We also expect that narcissistic individuals will find it especially difficult to evaluate a partner more positively than themselves on the agentic qualities that they most value in themselves (Campbell et al., 2002; 2007). As a result, we expect both narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry to be negatively associated with partner-enhancement because this involves a direct comparison between perceptions of oneself and perceptions of one’s partner. That is, we expect individuals with elevated levels of narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry to rate their romantic partners somewhat less favorably than themselves with this pattern being particularly pronounced for agentic characteristics.

It is less clear how narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry will relate to mean-level bias and tracking accuracy. It is possible that narcissistic admiration may be positively associated with mean-level bias, especially for the agentic qualities which narcissistic individuals highly value in partners (Campbell, 1999). This may reflect the belief among those with elevated levels of narcissistic admiration that they deserve an exceptional partner which may lead them to perceive their partners in a positively biased way. In contrast, narcissistic rivalry may be negatively associated with mean-level bias, which is consistent with the tendency for those with elevated levels of narcissistic rivalry to derogate their partners (e.g., Wurst et al., 2017). It is possible that there may be a negative association between narcissistic admiration and tracking accuracy due to the tendency for those with elevated levels of narcissistic admiration to inflate their perceptions of their partners, whereas narcissistic rivalry may show the opposite pattern and be positively associated with tracking accuracy due to those with elevated levels of narcissistic rivalry not adopting inflated views of their partners (Zeigler-Hill & Trombly, 2018). We did not have clear predictions concerning the associations that narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry would have with mean-level bias or tracking accuracy, but we examined these associations for exploratory purposes.

We examined the associations that narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry had with partner-enhancement in Study 1 by comparing the self-ratings of participants with the ratings they provided for their partners. In Study 2, we collected data from romantic couples to examine these associations using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny et al., 2006). Although partner effects were not a focus of our research questions, the data afforded us the opportunity to examine these associations in an attempt to extend the findings of Czarna et al. (2022), showing that partners of narcissistic individuals engaged in partner-enhancement. The dyadic data in Study 2 also allowed us to consider mean-level bias and tracking accuracy by using the Truth and Bias Model (Stern & West, 2018; West & Kenny, 2011). These studies were not pre-registered but materials, data, and syntax for both studies are available at https://osf.io/sur84/. Following the model used by the Center for Open Science (Nosek et al., 2017), we confirm that we have reported all measures, data exclusions, and how we determined sample sizes for the present studies.

Study 1

Method

Participants

Participants were adults from the United States recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) who were paid $1 to complete the survey. To participate, respondents were required to be in a committed romantic relationship and users of social media (this data is from a larger study involving social media use). Participants were restricted to be under age 45 due to constraints of the larger study. Our stopping rule for data collection was financially-based such that we terminated data collection when funds were exhausted. We used filters to restrict respondents to those who had successfully completed at least 95% of their 100 previous MTurk jobs. However, because of other sample restrictions, we did not exhaust our funds and thus removed that filter after the first 150 respondents.

We excluded data from 119 of 371 respondents due to careless responding, incomplete data, or failure to meet study criteria: 22 for not completing all measures used in the present analysis, 77 for failing attention check items, 16 for indicating they were single, and four for indicating they were over age 45. We excluded all participants who showed inattention or failure to meet study criteria out of caution because of reported issues with the reliability of MTurk data during the summer of 2018 when the data were collected (Chmielewski & Kucker, 2020). Because we planned to control for gender, we excluded data from one participant describing himself as a trans male, and three who did not indicate their gender. The final sample included 252 participants. Power analyses in G*Power 3 (Faul et al., 2007) indicated a sample of 74 would be sufficient to detect medium-sized effects with 90% power (2-tailed) in a multiple regression model with five predictors, so this study was more than adequately powered for our planned analysis. A sensitivity analysis in G*Power using those same parameters with N = 252 revealed that the smallest detectable effect was f² = .057.

Participants (122 men, 130 women) ranged in age from 21 to 41 (Mdn = 30, M = 30.29, SD = 4.71) and their racial/ethnic composition was 69% White/Caucasian, 13.9% Black/African American, 8.3% Asian or Pacific Islander, 3.2% Hispanic/Latino/a, 3.2% Native American, and 2.4% selecting “other ethnicity.” Participants reported their sexual orientation as follows: 80.2% heterosexual, 11.9% bisexual, 6.7% homosexual, and 0.8% preferred not to answer. Participants reported their highest level of education as follows: 12.8% graduate or professional degree, 49.8% college graduate, 25.7% some college, 10.1% completed high school, 0.8% no high school diploma, and 0.8% did not report. Participants’ average relationship length was 6.09 years (SD = 4.66) and the relationship status distribution was 49.2% married, 27% living together, 18.3% in a committed relationship without living together, and 5.6% casually dating.¹

Materials and Procedure

Participants completed measures of narcissism, self-perceptions, partner perceptions, demographic questions, and other questionnaires not relevant to the present study via a secure website. Table 1 displays descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients for all measures. See supplement for materials and correlations between all key variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients (Cronbach’s Alpha) for Studies 1 and 2.

	Study 1			Study 2
	M	SD	α	M	SD	α
Narcissistic admiration	3.44	1.17	.909	3.26	1.01	.877
Narcissistic rivalry	2.70	1.24	.921	2.31	0.84	.772
Attractiveness/Vitality self-ratings	4.54	1.22	.847	4.68	1.25	.841
Status/Resources self-ratings	4.40	1.31	.852	4.57	1.38	.841
Warmth/Trustworthiness self-ratings	5.49	1.10	.873	5.82	0.96	.854
Attractiveness/Vitality partner-ratings	5.26	1.17	.852	5.57	0.95	.777
Status/Resources partner-ratings	4.77	1.36	.881	5.09	1.25	.818
Warmth/Trustworthiness partner-ratings	5.31	1.32	.907	6.04	0.93	.851

Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry

Participants completed the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ; Back et al., 2013). Participants rated the extent to which each of 18 items described them, using a scale ranging from 1 (not agree at all) to 6 (agree completely). Nine items assessed narcissistic admiration (e.g., “I deserve to be seen as a great personality,” “I show others how special I am”), and nine items assessed narcissistic rivalry (e.g., “I want my rivals to fail,” “Most people won’t achieve anything”).

Self and Partner Perceptions

Participants completed the short form of the Ideal Standards Questionnaire (Fletcher et al., 1999), rating both themselves and their partner on a series of desirable partner characteristics.² These qualities encompass three domains: warmth/trustworthiness (six items, including “kind,” “supportive”), attractiveness/vitality (six items, including “sexy,” “adventurous”), and status/resources (five items, including “financially secure,” “successful”). The original status/resources scale included the item “appropriate ethnicity,” which we eliminated because it was illogical for self-ratings. Participants rated themselves and their partners on scales ranging from 1 (not at all like myself/my partner) to 7 (very much like myself/my partner).

Results and Discussion

To examine whether the NARC dimensions were associated with partner-enhancement, we used an approach similar to Czarna et al. (2022). We calculated partner-enhancement scores in each of the three domains by subtracting self-ratings from partner-ratings (e.g., partner-rating of attractiveness/vitality minus self-rating of attractiveness/vitality). We conducted three multiple regression analyses (i.e., a separate analysis for each domain) with narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry predicting partner-enhancement. We controlled for the average of self- and partner-ratings to avoid confounding the difference scores with their component parts (Iida et al., 2018), as well as demographic variables (age, relationship length, and gender). Due to well-documented suppression effects that occur when using both narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry as predictors (see Seidman et al., 2020, for an extended discussion), we also ran each model with only one narcissistic personality feature as a predictor. Table 2 displays the results of each regression model, including the change in R² when the narcissistic personality features were added to the model containing the control variables. Regression estimates are provided for narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry for both the full model (both narcissistic personality features as predictors) and the one-dimension model (only one narcissistic personality feature as a predictor).

Table 2.

Study 1 Regression Results Predicting Partner/Self Enhancement (Perception of Partner - Self-Perception).

Predictor	Attractiveness/Vitality		Status/Resources		Warmth/Trustworthiness
Predictor	B (SE)	95% CI	B (SE)	95% CI	B (SE)	95% CI
Age	−.02 (.02)	(−.05, .01)	−.03 (.02)^†	(−.07, .00)	−.05 (.02)^**	(−.09, −.01)
Gender (0 = male, 1 = female)	.16 (.14)^†	(−.12, .44)	.30 (.15)^†	(.00, .59)	−.59 (.16)^***	(−.90, −.28)
Relationship length (Years)	.00 (.02)	(−.03, .03)	.01 (.02)	(−.03, .04)	−.003 (.02)	(−.04, .03)
Average of self and partner	.24 (.08)^**	(.01, .40)	.26 (.07)^***	(.12, .39)	.39 (.08)^***	(.23, .55)
Narcissistic admiration (full model)	−.52 (.09)^***	(−.70, −.34)	−.48 (.09)^***	(−.65, −.31)	−.17 (.09)^†	(−.35, .00)
Narcissistic admiration (one-dimension model)	−.44 (.07)^***	(−.58, −.30)	−.35 (.07)^***	(−.49, −.21)	−.06 (.07)	(−.19, .08)
Narcissistic rivalry (full model)	.10 (.07)	(-.05, .24)	.20 (.07)^**	(.06, .35)	.17 (.08)^*	(.01, .33)
Narcissistic rivalry (one-dimension model)	−.17 (.06)^**	(−.28, −.05)	−.02 (.07)	(−.15, .11)	−.07 (.06)	(−.05, .20)
ΔR² (full model)	.140^***		.107^***		.017^†

Note. Full model refers to analyses where both narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry are predictors. One-dimension model refers to analyses where only one NARC dimension is entered as a predictor. ΔR² represents change in R² when adding narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry to the model containing control variables.

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, ^†p < .10.

In the full model, narcissistic admiration was negatively associated with partner-enhancement for the two agentic domains (attractiveness/vitality and status/resources), but not the communal domain (warmth/trustworthiness), which was only significant at p < .10. In contrast, narcissistic rivalry was positively associated with partner-enhancement for status/resources and warmth/trustworthiness, but this association was not significant for attractiveness/vitality.

Results differed somewhat for the one-dimension models. The associations that narcissistic admiration had with partner-enhancement were slightly smaller when narcissistic rivalry was not in the model, but they were in the same direction. In contrast, the associations that narcissistic rivalry had with partner-enhancement reversed direction and became nonsignificant for warmth/trustworthiness and status/resources when narcissistic admiration was not included in the model. We also found that narcissistic rivalry was associated with significantly less partner-enhancement on attractiveness/vitality only in the one-dimensional model. It should be noted that Seidman et al. (2020) found an asymmetry in the associations between narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry across multiple samples such that high levels of narcissistic admiration are often found alongside either high or low levels of narcissistic rivalry, whereas high levels of narcissistic rivalry almost always occur with high levels of narcissistic admiration, which has implications for the interpretation of suppression effects. Consistent with Seidman et al.’s (2020) interpretation, our results suggest that accounting for narcissistic rivalry may have implications for the connection that narcissistic admiration has with self-enhancing tendencies.

Study 2

Method

Participants

We recruited 97 couples, but only included data from 75 couples due to incomplete data from one or both partners. Our stopping rule for data collection was financially-based such that we terminated data collection when funds were exhausted. Participants were recruited from two sources. Forty-six couples were recruited from local Facebook Exchange groups in the Midwestern region of the United States. Potential participants were told they must currently be involved in a male-female romantic relationship and must recruit their partner in order to participate. Interested respondents provided their own and their partner’s email addresses and each partner was separately sent a unique code and online survey link. Each couple was compensated with a $5 Amazon gift card. Only 24 couples provided complete data from both partners, and we were unable to recruit additional participants via this method. Subsequently, we recruited 51 couples using the survey panel service through Turkprime.com (now Cloud Research), which pre-selected US-based male-female couples who were social media users (these data were part of a larger study on couples’ use of social media). Each couple was paid $10.00 for participating.

The individual members of the couples were between the ages of 18 and 61 (Mdn = 30, M = 31.95, SD = 9.47). The racial/ethnic composition of the participants was 81.3% White/Caucasian, 11.3% Hispanic/Latino/a, 4% Black/African American, 1.3% Asian or Pacific Islander, 0.7% Native American, 0.7% selected “other ethnicity,” and 0.7% chose not to answer. The majority of participants (96.7%) reported they were heterosexual, 2.7% were bisexual, and 0.7% were asexual. The average relationship length was 6.71 years (SD = 6.54); 46.7% were married, 39.3% were seriously dating, 11.3% were engaged, and 2.7% of the couples were casually dating, with 66.3% of non-married couples reporting they lived with their partner. Participants reported their highest level of education as follows: 9.2% graduate or professional degree, 33.6% college graduate, 16.4% Associates degree, 40.1% completed high school, and 1.7% no high school diploma.

Materials and Procedure

Both members of the couple separately completed an online survey via a secure website. The survey contained the Study 1 measures, demographic questions, and additional measures not relevant to the present analysis. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients for all measures. See supplement for materials and correlations between all key variables.

Results and Discussion

Partner-Enhancement

Data Analysis

We again operationalized partner-enhancement as partner-ratings minus self-ratings. We used the APIM (Kenny et al., 2006) to estimate actor and partner effects for narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry, using the mixed procedure in IBM SPSS Statistics 27 (IBM Corp, 2020). Because we only found one significant gender difference when treating the dyads as distinguishable by gender, we chose to report results treating them as indistinguishable. As in Study 1, we tested three models, one for each trait domain (i.e., attractiveness/vitality, status/resources, and warmth/trustworthiness) with the dependent variable being the actor’s partner-rating minus the actor’s self-rating. We controlled for the averages of the self-ratings and partner-ratings provided by both partners, as well as age, relationship length, and sample source.

Findings

Table 3 displays overall actor and partner effect coefficients and confidence intervals. For attractiveness/vitality, there was a significant actor effect, such that narcissistic admiration was associated with greater self-enhancement and thus less partner-enhancement. There was also a significant effect of partner’s narcissistic admiration in the opposite direction, such that individuals with partners who reported elevated levels of narcissistic admiration were more likely to engage in partner-enhancement. Results showed a similar pattern for status/resources, but both effects were smaller than attractiveness/vitality. Although we opted to analyze the data as indistinguishable, it should be noted that in the distinguishable analysis, women showed this partner effect to a greater extent than men, meaning that female partners of men with high levels of narcissistic admiration were particularly likely to enhance their partners on status/resources.

Table 3.

Study 2 APIM Results Predicting Partner/Self Enhancement (Perception of Partner - Self-Perception).

Predictor	Attractiveness/Vitality		Status/Resources		Warmth/Trustworthiness
Predictor	B (SE)	95% CI	B (SE)	95% CI	B (SE)	95% CI
Actor’s admiration	−.632 (.131)^***	(−.892, −.373)	−.447 (.134)^***	(−.738, −.205)	−.257 (.103)^*	(−.462, −.205)
Actor’s rivalry	−.061 (.135)	(−.330, .207)	.132 (.140)	(−.147, .411)	.293 (.110)^**	(−071, .367)
Partner’s admiration	.318 (.131)^*	(.056, .578)	.278 (.133)^*	(.014, .542)	.057 (.102)	(−.133, .542)
Partner’s rivalry	−.016 (.134)	(−.283, .250)	−.140 (.141)	(−.422, .140)	−.161 (.110)	(−.380, .140)
Actor’s average of self and partner view	.016 (.021)	(−.027, .059)	.042 (.160)	(−.278, .361)	.087 (.132)	(−.176, .361)
Partner’s average of self and partner view	−.016 (.021)	(−.049, .026)	−.193 (.160)	(−.511, .125)	−.145 (.130)	(−.405, .125)

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

For warmth/trustworthiness, there was a significant actor effect for narcissistic admiration, such that those with high levels of narcissistic admiration were more likely to self-enhance rather than partner-enhance. Unlike the agentic traits, there were no significant partner effects of narcissistic admiration. There was, however, a significant positive effect of actor’s narcissistic rivalry, showing that those high in narcissistic rivalry tended to partner-enhance on warmth/trustworthiness. This may be due to their especially poor self-perceptions of communality.

The actor effects of narcissistic admiration indicate that those with elevated levels of narcissistic admiration were more likely to self-enhance than partner-enhance in all three domains. The partner effects demonstrate that the partners of those with high levels of narcissistic admiration tend to enhance their partners on the agentic qualities most valued by narcissistic individuals. There were no consistent actor or partners effects for narcissistic rivalry.³

We calculated post-hoc power using Monte Carlo Power simulation in MPlus, Ver. 8.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2010) with 1000 replications, and found the study had more than 80% power to detect significant effects for actor’s admiration on the two agentic domains, and actor’s rivalry on the communal domain. For the remaining effects, power calculations and sample size needed to reach 70% power are reported in the supplemental tables.

Truth and Bias Model

Data Analysis

To test for the presence of mean-level bias and tracking accuracy, we used the Truth and Bias Model (Stern & West, 2018; West & Kenny, 2011), which contains three elements: the rating, the truth force (i.e., how strongly the truth affects the rating), and the bias force (i.e., how strongly the bias affects the rating). At minimum, this model requires at least one truth variable and at least one bias variable. A truth variable is anything that measures the extent to which the target possesses the characteristic. The Truth and Bias Model assumes the target’s self-ratings serve as a truth variable even though these ratings may not accurately reflect the underlying characteristic (e.g., targets’ self-ratings of their own warmth may not correspond to their actual level of warmth). A bias variable is anything that is not the truth, but could be used by perceivers to make their ratings, including self-projection (Kenny & Acitelli, 2001). Thus, self-perceptions are bias variables in this model. Moderators, including individual difference variables, such as narcissism, can also be included in the model. The dependent variable, the truth variable, and the bias variables are “truth-centered” by subtracting the average “truth” score of the sample from the ratings because this aids in interpretation of the model coefficients. We accomplished this by subtracting the average self-rating for characteristics across the entire sample from the partners’ self-ratings, the individual perceivers’ ratings of their partners’ characteristics, and their ratings of their own characteristics. For example, a dependent variable, such as participants’ judgments of their partners’ warmth, is computed as the participant’s rating of partner warmth minus the average self-rating of warmth made by all partners in the sample.

The equation below represents the Truth and Bias Model, predicting a perceiver’s perception of their partner’s level of a characteristic (e.g., warmth) with narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry as moderators.

y = b_{0} + b_{1} T + b_{2} B + b_{3} A + b_{4} R + b_{5} A \times T + b_{6} R \times T + b_{7} A \times B + b_{8} R \times B + E

In the equation, y is the perceiver’s rating of the target’s warmth. Because the outcome and bias variables are truth-centered, the intercept and main effects of the truth and bias variables provide information about the extent to which the average person in the sample displays mean-level bias, tracking accuracy, or projection. b₀, the intercept, is the average mean-level bias in warmth ratings present in the entire sample. T is the truth score, which in this case is the target’s self-rating of warmth; b₁ is the effect of the truth on the perceiver’s rating which is interpreted as the average tracking accuracy of the sample. B is the bias variable, which is the perceiver’s self-rating of warmth; b₂ is the effect of the bias variable on the perceiver’s rating which is interpreted as the extent to which the average person in the sample projects self traits.

The remaining terms concern the effects of the moderator variables (narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry). A is the perceiver’s level of narcissistic admiration and b₃ is the effect of the perceiver’s level of narcissistic admiration on the perceiver’s rating. R is the perceiver’s level of narcissistic rivalry and b₄ is the effect of the perceiver’s level of narcissistic rivalry on the perceiver’s rating. The main effects of the moderators tell us how these moderators are associated with mean-level bias. Thus, a positive value of b₃ indicates that narcissistic admiration is associated with greater mean-level bias. The interpretation of b₄ is similar, with respect to narcissistic rivalry. The coefficients b₅ through b₈ represent interaction effects. Interactions between the truth variable (the target’s self-perception) and the moderator indicate how the moderator relates to tracking accuracy. Thus, a positive value of b₅ or b₆, indicates the moderator is associated with higher levels of tracking accuracy. Finally, interactions between the bias variable (the perceiver’s self-perception) and the moderator indicate the extent to which the moderator is associated with the bias variable’s impact on the rating. In this case, we interpret these interactions as the extent to which the moderator is associated with projection of one’s own qualities onto one’s partner.

We used the Mixed procedure in IBM SPSS Statistics 27 (IBM Corp, 2020) with a heterogeneous compound symmetry covariance structure, as recommended by Stern and West (2018). We ran separate models for each of the three trait domains. As described above, we truth-centered each outcome variable and the trait rating predictors. We used the partner’s self-perception as our “truth variable” and the perceiver’s self-perception as our “bias variable” (both truth-centered on partner’s self-perceptions). Both narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry (grand mean centered) were used as predictors and allowed to interact with the truth and bias variables to determine the extent to which they are associated with mean-level bias, tracking accuracy, and projection of self-qualities onto partners. We controlled for age, relationship length, and sample source.

Findings

Table 4 displays the fixed effects. The first column shows the name of the predictor value and the explanation of that coefficient’s interpretation in the Truth and Bias Model. The intercept and main effects of the truth and bias variables demonstrate that on average, participants showed significant positive mean-level bias, tracking accuracy, and projection of self-traits for all three domains. There was a significant main effect of narcissistic rivalry on perceptions of partner’s attractiveness/vitality which indicates that elevated levels of narcissistic rivalry were associated with less mean-level bias. Otherwise, narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry were not significantly associated with mean-level bias. Narcissistic rivalry was associated with greater tracking accuracy on attractiveness/vitality. Narcissistic admiration was not significantly associated with tracking accuracy in any domain. There were also no significant associations for narcissistic admiration or narcissistic rivalry and projection. Results were similar when narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry were entered into the model alone or together.

Table 4.

Study 2 Truth and Bias Model Results.

Predictor	Warmth/Trustworthiness		Attractiveness/Vitality		Status/Resources
Predictor	B (SE)	95% CI	B (SE)	95% CI	B (SE)	95% CI
Intercept (mean-level of bias of sample)	.260 (.085)^**	(.091, .429)	.911 (.092)^***	(.728, 1.09)	.572 (.087)^***	(.397, .746)
Partner’s self-rating (average tracking accuracy of sample)	.334 (.077)^***	(.182, .496)	.323 (.056)^***	(.211, .435)	.461 (.063)^***	(.335, .587)
Actor’s self-rating (average projection of sample)	.330 (.078)^***	(.176, .485)	.116 (.065)^†	(-.013, .246)	.247 (.067)^***	(.114, .380)
Actor’s rivalry (association of rivalry with mean-level bias)	−.016 (.082)	(-.178, .146)	−.224 (.081)^**	(-.385, −.062)	−.067 (.081)	(-.228, .094)
Actor’s admiration (association of admiration with mean-level bias)	−.108 (.071)	(-.250, .034)	−.053 (.082)	(-.214, .108)	−.072 (.076)	(-.222, .078)
Partner’s self-rating × Actor’s rivalry (association of rivalry with tracking accuracy)	.148 (.096)	(-.043, .339)	.172 (.065)^*	(.043, .301)	.104 (.077)	(-.049, .256)
Partner’s self-rating × Actor’s admiration (association of admiration with tracking accuracy)	−.021 (.083)	(-.186, .144)	−.009 (.056)	(-.119, .101)	−.003 (.074)	(-.149, .144)
Actor’s self-rating × Actor’s rivalry (association of rivalry with projection)	−.089 (.095)	(-.277, .100)	−.062 (.060)	(-.180, .056)	−.138 (.070)^†	(-.276, .001)
Actor’s self-rating × Actor’s admiration (association of admiration with projection)	.119 (.086)	(-.051, .289)	−.041 (.047)	(-.135, .052)	−.001 (.063)	(-.126, .125)

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, ^†p < .10.

As in the APIM analyses, we calculated post-hoc power for the Truth and Bias Model using Monte Carlo Power simulation with 1000 replications. We had 90% power to detect the presence of mean-level bias, tracking accuracy, and projection for most domains. The remaining power calculations and sample size needed to reach 70% power are reported in the supplemental tables.

General Discussion

The present research examined how narcissism relates to three forms of partner perception: partner-enhancement (perceiving one’s partner more positively than oneself), mean-level bias (perceiving one’s partner more positively than the partner’s self-perception), and tracking accuracy (accurately perceiving one’s partner’s relative position in the sample). This research was also the first to examine these perceptions using the bidimensional NARC model, which considers both agentic and antagonistic elements of narcissism.

Both Study 1, which investigated individuals, and Study 2, which investigated romantic couples, demonstrated that narcissistic admiration was associated with less partner-enhancement. This is consistent with our predictions and past research showing that narcissism is associated with less partner-enhancement (e.g., Czarna et al., 2022). Surprisingly, in Study 1, narcissistic rivalry was largely associated with greater partner-enhancement. While this finding contradicts prior research showing lack of partner-enhancement among narcissistic individuals, it is important to note that subsequent analyses showed that the effects of narcissistic rivalry were due to suppression effects and that narcissistic rivalry is not positively associated with partner-enhancement on its own, and was in fact negatively associated with enhancement on attractiveness/vitality. In Study 2, there was evidence that those high in narcissistic rivalry partner-enhanced on warmth/trustworthiness, which may be partly explained by their negative self-perceptions in that area (Back et al., 2013).

Both studies also showed that the tendency for those high in narcissistic admiration to self-enhance rather than partner-enhance was especially strong for attractiveness/vitality and status/resources. Both of these domains are particularly important to the self-concept of narcissistic individuals (Campbell et al., 2002; 2007), suggesting it is important for those high in narcissistic admiration to maintain perceptions that they are superior to their partners in these areas. Study 2 also showed significant partner effects, such that partners of those high in narcissistic admiration were more likely to partner-enhance in the domains of status/resources and attractiveness/vitality. This suggests that narcissistic individuals are able to obtain partners who enhance them on the domains most important to their self-concept. This is also consistent with the findings of Czarna et al. (2022) that the partners of narcissistic individuals engaged in greater partner-enhancement.

Study 2 examined mean-level bias and tracking accuracy. Results showed that narcissistic admiration was not associated with mean-level bias, demonstrating no systematic tendency for those high in narcissistic admiration to perceive their partners either more positively or more negatively than their partners perceived themselves. The only association that emerged for mean-level bias was a tendency for those high in narcissistic rivalry to show less mean-level bias in judgments of their partners’ attractiveness/vitality. Prior research has shown that narcissistic admiration is associated with more positive partner perceptions, whereas narcissistic rivalry is associated with more negative partner perceptions (Wurst et al., 2017; Zeigler-Hill & Trombly, 2018). However, we did not observe a similar pattern of mean-level bias in partner perceptions with narcissistic admiration associated with positive and narcissistic rivalry associated with negative bias, aside from the finding for attractiveness/vitality. It is possible that prior research has shown positive associations between partner ratings and narcissistic admiration because those high in narcissistic admiration actually have partners who possess, or at least believe they possess, relatively positive characteristics. This would mean that the more positive partner perceptions reported by those high in narcissistic admiration are a function of their partners’ actual or self-perceived qualities, rather than a function of their own biased perceptions. Similarly, it is possible that those high in narcissistic rivalry have partners who possess or believe they possess lower levels of desirable traits. If this interpretation is correct, this suggests that narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry may have divergent associations with the ability to attract and retain high-quality romantic partners. This is consistent with research showing that narcissistic admiration is associated with both initial attraction and more positive long-term relationship outcomes, whereas narcissistic rivalry is associated with relatively poor long-term outcomes (Wurst et al., 2017). Future research should investigate these possibilities by assessing not only self-perceptions and partner perceptions, but obtaining more objective outside assessments of both partners by friends or acquaintances.

Study 2 also demonstrated that narcissistic rivalry was associated with greater tracking accuracy in attractiveness/vitality. While not reaching significance, this pattern of greater tracking accuracy exhibited by those high in narcissistic rivalry was also seen in the other two domains. Future research with larger samples and improved power should be conducted to test for these potentially small effects. These results suggest individuals with elevated levels of narcissistic rivalry may be relatively accurate in their perceptions of the relative standing of their romantic partners.

Study 2 also tested if projection of self-traits was association with narcissism. For the most part, we did not find evidence that either narcissistic admiration or narcissistic rivalry was associated with projection. One might expect narcissistic traits to be associated with greater projection due to the tendency for narcissistic individuals to focus on themselves rather than others. However, it is also possible that the desire for narcissistic individuals to view themselves as superior to others may make it difficult for them to see aspects of themselves in their partners. There is some evidence that this may have occurred for those high in narcissistic rivalry, as the negative association between narcissistic rivalry and projection approached significance.

The present research is limited by our ability to operationalize accuracy. Our benchmark for accuracy was the partner’s self-reported trait ratings. Although this benchmark is commonly used in the literature, person perception researchers can use additional reports to improve accuracy (Funder, 1999). Moreover, even in cases where additional reporters are used, there is debate about the extent to which truly “accurate” judgments are possible (Kenny, 1994).

The generalizability of our findings is limited by features of our samples. Participants were predominantly in mixed sex relationships, so it is unclear to what extent these patterns would replicate in same-sex couples. We did not explicitly ask about gender identity, and thus it is not clear the extent to which these results would generalize across different gender identities. Participants were from the United States, a highly individualistic culture, so results may not generalize to more collectivistic cultures. Nonetheless, cross-cultural research has demonstrated that associations between narcissism and preference for agentic traits in romantic partners exist in collectivist cultures (Tanchotsrinon et al., 2007). Participants were recruited on MTurk which tends to provide more highly educated and younger samples than the general population (Paolacci et al., 2010). This likely skewed the sample’s age range and limits generalizability to less educated and older populations. Generalizability is also limited by our reliance on volunteers rather than probability sampling because it is possible that the likelihood of individuals selecting to participate in the study may have been impacted by their possession of certain characteristics which could have altered the associations observed in the present studies (see Rohrer, 2018). We also removed data from incomplete couples, but this may have introduced a selection bias, as those whose partners did not complete the survey may differ from those whose partners did participate. Study 1 was highly powered, but the sample size for Study 2 was small and limited our ability to detect small effects. Finally, our hypotheses and data analyses were not pre-registered. Future work seeking to replicate these findings should pre-register hypotheses to ensure accuracy and integrity in the data-analytic process in addition to documenting important sample characteristics and recruiting diverse samples.

Future research should examine accuracy and bias in how narcissistic individuals perceive their romantic partners over the course of the relationship. This may be important because prior research shows that relationship commitment or stage is associated with partner perceptions. For example, people are more likely to partner-enhance early rather than later in a relationship, and research specifically linking partner-enhancement to narcissism has shown that narcissism was not associated with partner enhancement at either relationship stage (Czarna et al., 2022). In the present research, we did not investigate relationship stage, in part due to the complexity of our models (The Truth and Bias model would require testing 3-way interaction effects that would be difficult to interpret under the best of conditions). In addition, the samples in both studies were relatively young and do not adequately represent couples at a wide variety of relationship stages. However, future researchers may consider ways to incorporate relationship stage into their analyses. In addition, the present research was cross-sectional, and therefore we were unable to observe changes in partner perceptions and self-perceptions over the course of the relationship. Given that the romantic relationships of narcissistic individuals tend to begin well but end poorly (Brunell & Campbell, 2011), longitudinal research would be particularly helpful in understanding how these patterns manifest in partner perceptions.

Future research should also examine how these perceptions relate to relationship outcomes. Prior research shows that partner-enhancement, mean-level bias, and tracking accuracy have associations with relationship outcomes, such as satisfaction and conflict (e.g., Busby et al., 2009; Fletcher, 2015). Future research should examine what role – if any –narcissism plays in these associations. It may be especially fruitful for this research to separately examine perceptions in agentic and communal domains, given that many of the effects in the present studies were stronger for agentic domains, and that prior research shows that narcissistic individuals’ relationship satisfaction is associated with correspondence between current and ideal partner for agentic, but not communal, qualities (Seidman, 2016).

The present research illuminates how individual differences relate to accuracy and bias in romantic partner perceptions. It is well-documented that romantic partners exhibit positive bias in partner perceptions, as partner-enhancement and positive mean-level bias are common, while also demonstrating overall tracking accuracy (e.g., Fletcher, 2015; Morry et al., 2014). We found that individual differences in narcissism predict the extent to which partners display some of these patterns (partner-enhancement), but are less predictive of others (mean-level bias and tracking accuracy were only associated with narcissism in the domain of attractiveness/vitality judgments). Prior research has shown that these processes are largely independent (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010), and this may be, in part, because they are influenced by different individual difference variables.

These results have important implications for understanding how narcissistic individuals perceive their romantic partners. By examining both bias and accuracy, our results can aid in understanding the mechanisms that underlie observed associations between narcissism and partner perceptions. Prior research leaves open the question of whether lack of partner enhancement is due to the inflated self-perceptions of narcissistic individuals, more negative perceptions of their partners, or both. Our results suggest this lack of partner enhancement is due to inflated self-perceptions, as there was little evidence of mean-level bias.

Conclusion

The purpose of the present studies was to examine associations that narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry had with accuracy and bias in perceptions of romantic partners. Our results revealed that narcissistic admiration was associated with less partner-enhancement in both studies, whereas narcissistic rivalry had inconsistent associations with partner-enhancement across the present studies. Neither aspect of narcissism was associated with mean-level bias or tracking accuracy across most domains we examined, with the exception of attractiveness/vitality. These results provide additional support for the importance of distinguishing between narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry because individuals with elevated levels of these narcissistic personality features often diverged in their perceptions of their romantic partners. Also, our decision to include multiple approaches for capturing accuracy and bias in perceptions of romantic partners was beneficial because it allowed for a more nuanced understanding of how narcissistic individuals view their romantic partners.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Narcissistic Admiration and Narcissistic Rivalry: Associations With Accuracy and Bias in Perceptions of Romantic Partners

Supplemental Material for Narcissistic Admiration and Narcissistic Rivalry: Associations With Accuracy and Bias in Perceptions of Romantic Partners by Gwendolyn Seidman and Virgil-Zeigler Hill in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Allison Roberts and Michael Langlais for assistance with data collection and Tessa West for aid with data analyses.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained at: or by emailing: gseidman@albright.edu. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained at: https://osf.io/sur84/ or by emailing: gseidman@albright.edu.

ORCID iDs

Gwendolyn Seidman

Virgil-Zeigler Hill

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Back

M. D.

Küfner

A. C. P.

Dufner

Gerlach

T. M.

Rauthmann

J. F.

Denissen

J. J. A.

(2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034431

Boyes

A. D.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

(2007). Metaperceptions of bias in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.286

Brunell

A. B.

Campbell

W. K.

(2011). Narcissism and romantic relationships: Understanding the paradox. In Campbell

W. K.

Miller

J. D.

(Eds.), The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments (pp. 344–350). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118093108

Busby

D. M.

Holman

T. B.

Niehuis

(2009). The association between partner enhancement and self‐enhancement and relationship quality outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00612.x

Campbell

Overall

N. C.

Rubin

Lackenbauer

S. D.

(2013). Inferring a partner’s ideal discrepancies: Accuracy, projection, and the communicative role of interpersonal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033009

Campbell

W. K.

(1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1254–1270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1254

Campbell

W. K.

Bosson

J. K.

Goheen

T. W.

Lakey

C. E.

Kernis

M. H.

(2007). Do narcissists dislike themselves “deep down inside”? Psychological Science, 18(3), 227–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01880.x

Campbell

W. K.

Brunell

A. B.

Finkel

E. J.

(2006). Narcissism, interpersonal self-regulation, and romantic relationships: An agency model approach. In Finkel

E. J.

Vohs

K. D.

(Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 57–83). Guilford Press.

Campbell

W. K.

Rudich

E. A.

Sedikides

(2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286007

10.

Chmielewski

Kucker

S. C.

(2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149

11.

Czarna

A. Z.

Śmieja

Wider

Dufner

Sedikides

(2022). Narcissism and partner-enhancement at different relationship stages. Journal of Research in Personality, 98, 104212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104212

12.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

13.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

(2015). Accuracy and bias of judgments in romantic relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415571664

14.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Kerr

P. S. G.

(2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 627–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019792

15.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Simpson

J. A.

Thomas

Giles

(1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72

16.

Foster

J. D.

Brunell

A. B.

(2018). Narcissism and romantic relationships. In Hermann

A. D.

Brunell

A. B.

Foster

J. D.

(Eds.), The handbook of trait narcissism: Key advances, research methods, and controversies (pp. 317–326). Springer.

17.

Funder

D. C.

(1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. Academic Press.

18.

IBM Corp (2020). IBM SPSS statistics for windows. IBM Corp. Version 27.0 [Computer software].

19.

Iida

Seidman

Shrout

P. E.

(2018). Models of interdependent individuals versus dyadic processes in relationship research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517725407

20.

Kenny

D. A.

(1994). interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Guilford Press.

21.

Kenny

D. A.

Acitelli

L. K.

(2001). Accuracy and bias in the perception of the partner in a close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.439

22.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.

23.

Morf

C. C.

Rhodewalt

(2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_1

24.

Morry

M. M.

Kito

Dunphy

(2014). How do I see you? Partner-Enhancement in dating couples. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 46(3), 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033167

25.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Griffin

D. W.

(1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.79

26.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2010). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

27.

Nosek

B. A.

Simonsohn

Moore

D. A.

Nelson

L. D.

Simmons

J. P.

Sallans

LeBel

E. P.

(2017). Standard reviewer statement for disclosure of sample, conditions, measures, and exclusions. osf.io/hadz3.

28.

Overall

N. C.

Hammond

M. D.

(2013). Biased and accurate: Depressive symptoms and daily perceptions within intimate relationships. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 636–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213480188

29.

Paolacci

Chandler

Ipeirotis

P. G.

(2010). Running experiments on Amazon mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500002205

30.

Rohrer

J. M.

(2018). Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917745629

31.

Seidman

(2012). Positive and negative: Partner derogation and enhancement differentially related to relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 19(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01337.x

32.

Seidman

(2016). Narcissism, intrinsic and extrinsic romantic ideals, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(8), 1018–1030. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515615693

33.

Seidman

Roberts

Zeigler-Hill

(2019). Narcissism and romantic relationship presentation on social media: The role of motivations and partner attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 149(15), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.039

34.

Seidman

Schlott

(2022). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry and reactions to romantic breakup. Personality and Individual Differences, 186(Part B), 111342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111342

35.

Seidman

Shrout

P. E.

Zeigler-Hill

(2020). Untangling the associations that narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry have with agency, communion, and romantic commitment. Journal of Research in Personality, 89, 104022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104022

36.

Stern

West

T. V.

(2018). Assessing accuracy in close relationships research: A truth and bias approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517712901

37.

Tanchotsrinon

Maneesri

Campbell

W. K.

(2007). Narcissism and romantic attraction: Evidence from a collectivistic culture. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(3), 723–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.004

38.

West

T. V.

Kenny

D. A.

(2011). The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychological Review, 118(2), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022936

39.

Wurst

S. N.

Gerlach

T. M.

Dufner

Rauthmann

J. F.

Grosz

M. P.

Küfner

A. C. P.

Denissen

J. J. A.

Back

M. D.

(2017). Narcissism and romantic relationships: The differential impact of narcissistic admiration and rivalry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(2), 280–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000113

40.

Zeigler-Hill

Seidman

Trombly

D. R. C.

Ishaq

Shango

Roberts

(2020). Narcissism and romantic commitment: The role of attitudes toward alternative romantic partners. Self and Identity, 19(4), 473–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2019.1635521

41.

Zeigler-Hill

Trombly

D. R. C.

(2018). Narcissism and mate value: Is beauty in the eye of the narcissistic beholder? Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 115–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.021

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

0.67 MB