Evaluating the Instantiation of Narcissism Components in Contemporary Measures of Psychopathy

Abstract

Narcissistic traits figure prominently in classical conceptualizations of psychopathy and bear substantial empirical overlap with components of psychopathy. Yet the degree to which various widely used self-report measures of psychopathy include relevant narcissistic content has not been evaluated, especially in relation to new, multidimensional models of narcissism. Using a large undergraduate sample (N = 432) and self- and informant-ratings of narcissism, the present study examined narcissism’s instantiation in several commonly used self-report psychopathy measures. A modern conceptualization of narcissism at three levels of hierarchical organization (i.e., Trifurcated Model of Narcissism) was applied to comprehensively evaluate narcissism’s instantiation in these psychopathy measures. Although narcissistic traits related to self-centered antagonism were well-instantiated across psychopathy self-report measures, narcissistic traits related to agentic extraversion were represented more modestly by most (i.e., Triarchic Psychopathy Measure, Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: Version III, Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale), but not all (i.e., Elemental Psychopathy Assessment [EPA]) psychopathy measures. Only the EPA contained substantial representation of all narcissism components. Given the theoretical and empirical overlap between psychopathy and narcissism, it behooves researchers to be aware of the degree to which psychopathy measures capture narcissistic content.

Keywords

Trifurcated Model of Narcissism psychopathy narcissism

Narcissistic traits figure prominently in classical conceptualizations of psychopathy (e.g., Hare, 2003) and bear substantial empirical overlap with psychopathic components (e.g., Sleep et al., 2019; Wygant et al., 2016). Yet the degree to which contemporary self-report measures of psychopathy capture the full range of narcissism-related traits has not received sufficient attention. Although clinical and theoretical accounts of psychopathy differ in the degree to which a full array of narcissistic traits are embedded (e.g., not all highlight grandiosity or attention seeking), almost all include several traits that are central to narcissism, including egocentricity, entitlement, manipulativeness, and callousness (e.g., Cleckley, 1976; Hare, 2003; Lykken, 1995; McCord & McCord, 1964; Patrick et al., 2009). Accordingly, the content validity of psychopathy measures depends, in part, on adequately assessing these traits. The primary purpose of the present study is to evaluate the degree to which commonly used self-report measures of psychopathy are consistent with classical/theoretical and contemporary/empirical conceptualizations that include narcissism-related traits. To do so, we leverage recently developed three-factor models of narcissism (Crowe et al., 2019; Krizan & Herlache, 2018; Miller et al., 2017).

The Structure of Narcissism

Recent advances in the conceptualization and assessment of narcissism have led scholars to view narcissism at three levels of organization. At the three-factor level, researchers have described factors related to self-centered antagonism, agentic extraversion, and neuroticism/reactivity; at the two-factor level: grandiose narcissism (i.e., agentic extraversion and self-centered antagonism) and vulnerable narcissism (i.e., neuroticism/reactivity and antagonism/entitled self-importance); and at the single-factor level: all three components (Crowe et al., 2019). These more articulated empirical models follow decades of clinical descriptions of heterogeneity in narcissism-related presentations (see Cain et al., 2008, for a review) and more recent empirical work demonstrating the substantially different nomological networks associated with these presentations (e.g., grandiose vs. vulnerable; e.g., Miller et al., 2011). For instance, at the two-factor level, grandiose narcissism is associated with arrogance, entitlement, aggression, emotional resilience, and interpersonal dominance, and bears large relations with five-factor model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992) extraversion and (low) agreeableness (e.g., O’Boyle et al., 2015).¹ Conversely, vulnerable narcissism is associated with an egocentric interpersonal style that is paired with intense negative affectivity, low self-esteem, and feelings of inadequacy, and bears large relations to neuroticism, (low) extraversion, and (low) agreeableness (e.g., Weiss & Miller, 2018). Like grandiose narcissism, vulnerable narcissism is associated with egocentricity and fantasies of self-enhancement, but instead of being interpersonally dominant, vulnerably narcissistic individuals tend to be passive, withdrawn, and sensitive to criticism with a variety of attachment difficulties (Miller et al., 2011).

The Trifurcated Model of Narcissism (TMN; Miller et al., 2017; Weiss et al., 2019; see also Krizan and Herlache’s [2018] narcissism spectrum model for a similar three-factor model) is a more recently developed three-factor model that divides narcissism into three components (Crowe et al., 2019), and thus, provides a useful framework for evaluating the presence of narcissistic traits in measures of other personality disorders. Components include agentic extraversion (defined by acclaim seeking, attention seeking, dominance, arrogance, and grandiosity and bearing relations to FFM extraversion and aspects of low agreeableness); self-centered antagonism (defined by exploitativeness, lack of empathy, and entitlement, and bearing relations to FFM agreeableness primarily); and neuroticism/reactivity (defined by neuroticism, a need for validation, distrust, and shame, and bearing relations to FFM neuroticism; Crowe et al., in press; Thomas et al., 2012; Weiss et al., 2019). Of note, the TMN is instantiated in the FFM of Narcissism (Glover et al., 2012), and its components have been recovered in independent factor analytic work (e.g., the Narcissism spectrum model; Krizan & Herlache, 2018).

Narcissism in Theoretical and Clinical Descriptions of Psychopathy

Theoretical and clinical descriptions of psychopathy as well as a large body of empirical work support the presence of narcissistic traits within psychopathy’s conceptualization. Many of these narcissistic traits reflect the self-enhancement that defines grandiose narcissism (e.g., Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010; e.g., grandiosity, immodesty, entitlement), while others reflect interpersonal callousness (e.g., exploitativeness, lack of empathy). With respect to the former category, at least four characteristics of psychopathy are consistent with grandiose narcissism: (a) a slick, smooth, and overly confident interpersonal style; (b) holding an attitude of superiority and an exaggerated regard for one’s abilities; (c) preoccupying interest in status and obtaining special benefit or exemption; and (d) valuing relationships only inasmuch as they enhance the self (Cleckley, 1976; Hare, 2003; McCord & McCord, 1964).

With respect to other antagonistic traits, manipulativeness (i.e., a tendency to mislead in the service of self-serving utility despite disutility for others), exploitativeness (i.e., a tendency to take advantage of others and hold this as a value), and callousness (i.e., a tendency to exhibit cruel disregard for others) may be the most closely shared between psychopathy and a variety of narcissistic dimensions (Cleckley, 1976; Hare, 2003; Karpman, 1948; Kernberg, 1970; Lykken, 1995; McCord & McCord, 1964). For example, expert raters view these traits as characteristic of both psychopathy (Miller et al., 2001) and narcissism (Lynam & Widiger, 2001; Samuel & Widiger, 2004). We have argued that the broad suite of traits captured by the term antagonism (or low agreeableness) found in dimensional models of personality and personality disorder represent the core of psychopathy (Lynam et al., 2018; Lynam & Miller, 2015), narcissism (Miller et al., 2017), and the broader dark triad constellation (Vize et al., 2020).

Empirical Relations Between Psychopathy and Narcissism

Previous examinations of empirical relations between measures of psychopathy and narcissism have shown evidence of moderate overlap between the two constructs. Large meta-analyses of 156 samples by Vize et al. (2018) and 118 samples by Muris et al. (2017) indicated a moderate correlation between Dark Triad measures of psychopathy and narcissism of .38. However, much of the previous work, especially in the context of dark triad research has generally not taken into account the multidimensional nature of either psychopathy or narcissism and has sometimes relied on relatively flawed measures of both (e.g., Dirty Dozen; e.g., Maples et al., 2014). More granular examinations of psychopathy and narcissism (and NPD) have demonstrated moderate relations between trait grandiosity and interpersonal and affective components of psychopathy (e.g., lying, charm, lack of empathy and remorse; Klipfel & Kosson, 2018).

Furthermore, the FFM, a comprehensive and multidimensional taxonomy of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dispositions, offers a useful framework for comparing psychopathy and narcissism. There are at least two sources of information that use the FFM framework that bear on the convergence between psychopathy and narcissism: self-report data and expert-ratings of FFM facets. Findings from self-report data have demonstrated strong similarities on the FFM domain of low agreeableness, or antagonism; whereas psychopathy and narcissism are known to differ on other FFM domains (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness; e.g., Vize et al., 2018). Both psychopathy and grandiose narcissism share elevations on FFM extraversion, due primarily to the boldness component of psychopathy whose centrality to the construct remains debated (e.g., Lilienfeld et al., 2015; Miller & Lynam, 2012; Sleep et al., 2019). Psychopathy and vulnerable narcissism show differential relations to FFM neuroticism; and only psychopathy shows substantive (negative) relations to FFM conscientiousness.

Expert-ratings of FFM facets associated with psychopathic personality similarly demonstrate the relevance of narcissism-related traits in psychopathy. The FFM facet of (low) modesty may be the most relevant FFM facet of narcissism given its conceptual overlap with grandiosity, attention seeking, and entitlement. Compared with other facets of FFM agreeableness, (low) modesty displays the largest empirical relation with narcissism constructs including NPD, grandiose narcissism, and TMN agentic extraversion across academic-, clinician-, and lay-ratings (e.g., Lynam & Widiger, 2001; Samuel & Widiger, 2004). It is notable that every expert rater provided the lowest possible score of 1 (i.e., “Extremely Low”) on the modesty facet when describing the prototypical case of psychopathy (Miller et al., 2001).² Expert-ratings of psychopathy and grandiose narcissism have also converged in cases of nearly all FFM agreeableness facets as well as most FFM extraversion facets, most notably assertiveness and excitement seeking (Lynam & Widiger, 2001; Miller & Lynam, 2003). Overlap in expert-ratings of psychopathy and vulnerable narcissism have been largely limited to FFM agreeableness facets, particularly the (low) trust facet, which is most central to vulnerable narcissism (Miller et al., 2001; Weiss et al., 2019).

Present Study

The present study evaluates the degree to which an array of widely used self-report instruments of psychopathy successfully capture narcissistic traits as reported by both self and informant reports using a large undergraduate sample. Given recent work highlighting the benefits of using more articulated models and measures of narcissism and psychopathy (e.g., Crowe et al., 2019; Krizan & Herlache, 2018), we examine the relations between these measures of psychopathy and narcissism across three levels of the narcissism hierarchy. Specifically, we aim to compare the degree to which particular psychopathy measures account for variance in different components of narcissism (e.g., 1 = total narcissism; 2 = grandiose and vulnerable narcissism; 3 = self-centered antagonism, agentic extraversion, neuroticism/reactivity); and examine the mapping between these narcissism components and various specific aspects of psychopathy. Specific hypotheses are presented in our preregistration at aspredicted.org (https://aspredicted.org/k2rm7.pdf).

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 432 undergraduates from a large, southeastern university who received research credit for their participation. A collection of over 300 responders was planned in order to be sufficiently well-powered to detect correlations as small as .20 using a p < .01 threshold for significance. Participants were removed for invalid response styles on the basis of elevated scores on the Infrequency and/or Virtue scales of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment–Short Form (EPA-SF; n = 12), a response time suggestive of invalid responding (900 seconds; n = 7), and for exhibiting a singular response style (e.g., responding to survey with all 1s) on 85% or more of the items (n = 2). Of note, invalid responding was not assessed for informants. After invalid response were removed, self-reports were available for a range of 397 to 408 individuals (74% female; 76% White, 9% Asian; 9% Black; mean age = 18.9; SD = 1.12), varying by scale (see Measures section). Informant contact information was solicited for all participants, and if informant contact information was provided, a Qualtrics survey was sent to informants asking about target participants’ narcissistic personality. If multiple reports were received per participants, reports were averaged. Informant reports were received for 52% of participants, the majority of whom were family members (54%) and close friends (38%). Informant data consisted of reports from one, two, and three informants for 32%, 16%, and 5% of participants, respectively. Some notable differences were observed between participants with and without informant reports. Specifically, female participants were more likely to have informant reports, and fewer informant reports were collected for participants with higher psychopathy scores (i.e., higher scores on Triarchic Psychopathy Measure [TriPM] Meanness, self-report psychopathy (SRP) total, SRP Interpersonal Manipulation, SRP Callous Affect, EPA total, EPA Antagonism). Inisitutional review board approval was obtained for the study at the University of Georgia. This is the first publication to use this data set. We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study. Data and materials can be accessed on request via e-mail.

Measures

Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory–Short Form (FFNI-SF; Sherman et al., 2015)

The FFNI-SF is a 60-item abbreviated form of the FFNI (Glover et al., 2012). The FFNI-SF measures 15 facets that can be aggregated to form measures of grandiose (αs = .91 and .90, for self- and informant-report, respectively) and vulnerable (αs = .83 and .82, for self- and informant-report, respectively) narcissism as well as three empirically derived higher order factors (Miller et al., 2016): Agentic Extraversion (αs = .84 and .90, for self- and informant-report, respectively), Antagonism (αs = .92 and .87, for self- and informant-report, respectively), Neuroticism (αs = .88 and .87, for self- and informant-report, respectively). For measurement of informant-report narcissism, the FFNI-SF items contained a pronoun relevant to the sex of the target participant (e.g., “Others say she brags too much”). This scale was completed by 408 participants.

Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale (Rosenthal et al., 2007)

The Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale is a 16-item adjective-based measure of narcissistic grandiosity (α = .95). This scale was completed by 408 participants.

Narcissistic Personality Inventory-13 (Gentile et al., 2013)

The Narcissistic Personality Inventory-13 is an abbreviated 13-item self-report measure of trait narcissism (α = .86) with subscales that measure Leadership/Authority (LA; α = .79), Grandiose Exhibitionism (GE; α = .79), and Entitlement/Exploitativeness (EE; α = .67). In the current study, a Likert version of the measure was used, where participants respond on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree, as it yields more reliable factors. This scale was completed by 408 participants.

Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (Hendin & Cheek, 1997)

The Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale is a 10-item measure of narcissistic vulnerability, hypersensitivity, and entitlement (α = .75). This scale was completed by 408 participants.

Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale (Crowe et al., 2018)

The Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale is an 11-item measure of narcissistic vulnerability (α = .88). This scale was completed by 408 participants.

Elemental Psychopathy Assessment–Short Form (Lynam et al., 2013)

The EPA-SF is a 72-item abbreviated, self-report measure of psychopathy from the FFM perspective. Items are averaged to provide a mean score (α =.92) and four-factor scores. Alphas for Antagonism, Emotional Stability, Narcissism, and Disinhibition were.90, .86, .79 and .91, respectively. Of note, eight items from the EPA-SF overlap with the FFNI-SF identically (i.e., Items 6, 16, 24, 34, 42, 52, 60, 70). These items come from EPA-SF and FFNI-SF subscales named Distrust and Thrill seeking. This scale was completed by 397 participants.

Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (Patrick, 2010)

The TriPM is a 58-item self-report measure that assesses psychopathy (α = .87), and three-factors: Boldness (α = .82), Meanness (α = .87), and Disinhibition (α = .81). This scale was completed by 407 participants.

Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: Version III (SRP-III; Paulhus et al., 2009)

The SRP-III is a 64-item measure of psychopathy with subscales of Interpersonal Manipulation (α = .84), Callous Affect (α = .81), Erratic Lifestyle (α = .83), and Antisocial Behavior (α = .81). This scale was completed by 403 participants.

Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP; Christian & Sellbom, 2016)

The LSRP an abbreviated 36-item, self-report measure of psychopathy (α = .89) and three factors: Egocentricity (α = .87), Callousness (α = .72), and Antisocial Behavior (α = .84). This scale was completed by 405 participants.

Results

A p value of ≤ .01 was used for all analyses. Bivariate correlations for all scales are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Bivariate Relations Between All Outcomes.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22
2	.27
3	−.11	.47
4	.31	.62	.41
5	.34	.75	.29	.68
6	.33	.58	.59	.60	.59
7	.08	.36	.35	.45	.35	.42
8	.16	.62	.40	.62	.57	.43	.35
9	.22	.69	.20	.54	.70	.40	.31	.52
10	.07	.59	.73	.47	.48	.74	.37	.48	.39
11	.16	.68	.42	.74	.74	.51	.48	.63	.62	.48
12	.67	.33	−.17	.20	.36	.21	.01	.15	.33	.02	.14
13	.13	.51	.68	.55	.48	.79	.49	.44	.36	.73	.62	.00
14	.54	.37	.28	.44	.40	.42	.21	.40	.21	.34	.36	.27	.38
15	.52	.28	.11	.40	.32	.27	.11	.30	.17	.16	.21	.25	.16	.70
16	.38	.20	.20	.33	.22	.30	.20	.32	.08	.24	.21	.14	.27	.47	.50
17	.23	.40	.29	.60	.45	.38	.21	.51	.28	.32	.46	.04	.33	.54	.61	.49
18	.30	.69	.52	.75	.67	.64	.44	.70	.53	.61	.77	.12	.66	.58	.46	.42	.63
19	.49	.12	.06	.26	.16	.18	−.02	.23	.01	.10	.04	.17	.06	.57	.68	.44	.45	.32
20	−.61	−.28	.13	−.18	−.30	−.18	−.11	−.10	−.27	−.02	−.15	−.66	−.08	−.29	−.17	−.13	−.02	−.14	−.07
21	.44	.27	.08	.31	.28	.19	.16	.38	.17	.14	.21	.25	.13	.54	.54	.45	.42	.44	.47	−.21
22	−.42	.11	.35	.13	.05	.05	.03	.21	.00	.28	.22	−.46	.20	.02	.03	.01	.20	.25	.02	.48	.12
23	−.33	.17	.35	.22	.10	.08	.08	.33	.06	.31	.30	−.42	.25	.06	.03	.14	.27	.35	.07	.47	.08	.55

Note. TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure; SRP-III = Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: Version III; LSRP = Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy; EPA = Elemental Psychopathy Assessment; NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; FFNI = Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory. Effect sizes ≥.30 are bolded; 1 = TriPM Boldness; 2 = TriPM Meanness; 3 = TriPM Disinhibition; 4 = SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation; 5 = SRP-III Callous Affect; 6 = SRP-III Erratic Lifestyle; 7 = SRP-III Antisocial Behavior; 8 = LSRP Egocentricity; 9 = LSRP Callousness; 10 = LSRP Antisocial; 11 = EPA Antagonism; 12 = EPA Emotional Stability; 13 = EPA Disinhibition; 14 = EPA Narcissism; 15 = NPI Leadership/Authority; 16 = NPI Grandiose Exhibitionism; 17 = NPI Entitlement/Exploitativeness; 18 = FFNI Antagonism; 19 = FFNI Extraversion; 20 = FFNI Neuroticism; 21 = Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale; 22 = Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale; 23 = Hypersensitivity Narcissism Scale.

Narcissism Exploratory Factor Analyses

First, exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were used to derive factor scores for dependent variables indexing narcissism. These factor scores were derived exclusively for use within self-reported analyses, not informant-reported analyses. Based on recent factor analytic work by Crowe et al. (2019) on the hierarchy of narcissism, we extracted one-, two-, and three-factor as planned in our preregistration (see Table 2 for the factors loadings for the two- and three-factor solution). Consistent with Crowe and colleagues, at the two-factor level, factors assessing grandiose and vulnerable narcissism emerged, and at the three-factor level, factors related to self-centered antagonism, neuroticism/reactivity, and agentic extraversion emerged. Unit weighted factor scores were then created by assigning each scale to the factor on which it loaded most highly, z scoring all narcissism scales, and creating mean scored composites. Of note, scale loadings for vulnerable narcissism and neuroticism/reactivity were identical when using unit weighting. Correlations within and across the three levels of factor extractions ranged from small to large. Within the two-factor level, grandiose and vulnerable narcissism evinced small relations (r = .07). Correlations within the three-factor level were .04 (neuroticism/reactivity − extraversion), .58 (self-centered antagonism − extraversion), and −.16 (self-centered antagonism − neuroticism/reactivity). Across levels of narcissism, correlations ranged from .04 (vulnerable narcissism − agentic extraversion; neuroticism/reactivity − agentic extraversion) to .98 (grandiose narcissism − agentic extraversion) with a median of .52.

Table 2.

Exploratory Factor Analyses for Two- and Three-Factor Narcissism Solutions.

Pattern matrix loadings
	Grandiose narcissism	Vulnerable narcissism	Self-centered antagonism	Neuroticism/reactivity	Agentic extraversion
Narcissistic Personality Inventory
Leadership Authority	.84	−.13	−.05	−.06	.90
Grandiose Exhibitionism	.64	−.03	.15	−.01	.55
Entitlement/Exploitativeness	.74	.18	.30	.17	.56
Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory
Antagonism	.65	.20	.71	.13	.26
Extraversion	.67	−.08	−.21	.01	.85
Neuroticism	−.22	.64	−.36	.79	−.04
Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale	.66	−.05	.17	−.03	.56
Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale	.09	.72	.12	.68	.00
Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale	.15	.77	.20	.72	.01

Note. Highest scale loading are bolded.

Associations Between Narcissism Factors and Psychopathy

We next examined the association between scores from the various self-reported psychopathy inventories and the factors from the three narcissism factor solutions, first using bivariate correlations and then using a series of multivariate regression analyses in which each narcissism factor was regressed on the subscales within each psychopathy measures to examine the unique relation of each set of psychopathy scales with each of the narcissism factors (see Table 3). Here, we focus on both which psychopathy factors account for variance in narcissism components as well as a comparison of the total variance various psychopathy measures accounted for in the different narcissism constructs.

Table 3.

Bivariate and Multivariate Relations Between EFA Narcissism Factors and Psychopathy Measures.

	One-factor		Two-factor				Three-factor
	Narcissism		Grandiose narcissism		Vulnerable narcissism		Self-centered antagonism		Neuroticism/reactivity		Agentic extraversion
	r	β	r	β	r	β	r	β	r	β	r	Β
TriPM
Boldness	.20*	.19*	.53*	.50*	−.55*	−.52*	.30*	.21*	−.55*	−.52*	.53*	.53*
Meanness	.36*	.15*	.43*	.18*	.00	.01	.69*	.49*	.00	.01	.33*	.09
Disinhibition	.39*	.33*	.28*	.24*	.34*	.28*	.52*	.31*	.34*	.28*	.19*	.20*
R ²	.22*^a (.26)		.41*^a (.49)		.38*^a (.47)		.56*^a (.70)		.38*^a (.47)		.35*^a (.42)
SRP-III
Interpersonal Manip	.53*	.52*	.58*	.48*	.07	.22*	.75*	.45*	.07	.22*	.49*	.45*
Callous Affect	.36*	−.02	.46*	.08	−.06	−.19*	.67*	.21*	−.06	−.19*	.37*	.04
Erratic Lifestyle	.36*	.08	.43*	.12	−.02	−.03	.64*	.22*	−.02	−.03	.34*	.08
Antisocial Behavior	.21*	−.04	.24*	−.05	.00	−.02	.44*	.08*	.00	−.02	.17*	−.08
R ²	.29*^ab (.33)		.36*^a (.41)		.03^b (.04)		.65*^b (.78)		.03^b (.04)		.25*^ab (.28)
LSRP
Egocentricity	.54*	.52*	.53*	.49*	.18*	.22*	.70*	.46*	.18*	.22*	.44*	.46*
Callousness	.19*	−.16*	.27*	−.03	−.09	−.30*	.53*	.16*	−.09	−.30*	.18*	−.08
Antisocial	.39*	.21*	.34*	.12	.23*	.24*	.61*	.33*	.23*	.24*	.25*	.06*
R ²	.33*^b (.38)		.30*^a (.35)		.12*^c (.15)		.62*^ab (.76)		.12*^c (.15)		.20*^b (.23)
EPA
Antagonism	.42*	.27*	.41*	.18*	.15*	.24*	.77*	.53*	.15*	.24*	.29*	.08
Emotional Stability	−.10	−.30*	.22*	.01	−.63*	−.66*	.12	−.04	−.63*	−.66*	.22*	.02
Disinhibition	.37*	−.02	.35*	−.03	.15*	.00	.66*	.21*	.15*	.00	.24*	−.08
Narcissism	.60*	.59*	.75*	.69*	−.09	.00	.58*	.32*	−.09	.00	.72*	.72*
R ²	.49*^c (.55)		.58*^b (.65)		.45*^a (.53)		.73*^c (.87)		.45*^a (.53)		.53*^c (.60)

Note. Interpersonal Manip = Intepersonal Manipulation; TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure; SRP-III = Self-report Psychopathy Scale–III; LSRP = Levenson Self-report Psychopathy Scale; EPA = Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. Significant differences (p ≤. 01) between psychopathy measures in the prediction in each narcissism component are represented by different superscripts. R² disattenuated for unreliability are provided in parentheses.

p ≤ .01

Apart from vulnerable narcissism and neuroticism/reactivity factors, bivariate relations for the extracted narcissism factors and each of the psychopathy measures were generally moderate to large. At the highest level (i.e., one-factor), narcissism manifested correlations that ranged from −.10 (EPA Emotional Stability) to .60 (EPA Narcissism) with a median of .37. At the two-factor level, grandiose narcissism evinced moderate relations that ranged from .22 (EPA Emotional Stability) to .75 (EPA Narcissism) with a median of .42. For vulnerable narcissism, the psychopathy scales manifested correlations ranging from −.63 (EPA Emotional Stability) to .34 (TriPM Disinhibition) with a median of .00. At the three-factor level of narcissism, the self-centered antagonism component manifested correlations that ranged from .12 (EPA Emotional Stability) to .77 (EPA Antagonism) with a median of .63. As noted earlier, the vulnerable narcissism (from the two-factor structure) and neuroticism/reactivity factor of narcissism (from the three-factor structure) were composed of the same scales, and thus, manifested identical correlations with the psychopathy scales. Finally, the agentic extraversion factor of narcissism manifested correlations with the psychopathy scales that ranged from .17 (SRP Antisocial Behavior) to .72 (EPA Narcissism) with a median of .31.

In the multivariate analyses (also found in Table 3), each measure of psychopathy generally contributed to the prediction of each of the extracted narcissism factors. The variance accounted for by the different psychopathy measures were compared for statistical significance (p ≤ .01). To compare the amount of variance accounted for by the various psychopathy measures, a test of dependent rs was conducted. First, the bivariate relation between each psychopathy regression composite was calculated by saving the predicted values from each of the multivariate analyses and correlating them with one other (i.e., the standardized predicted value for TriPM psychopathy and EFA total narcissism and the standardized predicted value for SRP psychopathy and EFA total narcissism). Next, the square root of the R² values was taken and tests of dependent rs were calculated for each measure. At the broadest level of narcissism, the EPA accounted for the most variance in Narcissism (R² = .49), followed by the LSRP (R² = .33), the SRP-III (R² = .29), and the TriPM (R² = .22). Within these models, the strongest predictors of Narcissism were EPA Narcissism (β = .59), LSRP Egocentricity (β = .52), SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation (β = .52), and, somewhat surprisingly, TriPM Disinhibition (β = .33). Not surprisingly, given that most psychopathy scales within a measure are significantly interrelated, many of the bivariate effects were attenuated in the multivariate analyses.

At the two-factor level, psychopathy measures were generally able to capture more unique variance in grandiose narcissism than vulnerable narcissism. For instance, all four psychopathy measures accounted for a large amount of variance in grandiose narcissism that ranged from .30 (LSRP) to .58 (EPA). As with the one-factor narcissism solution, the EPA accounted for a significantly larger portion of variance than the rest of the psychopathy measures, which did not differ from one another. The largest unique predictors for each model were EPA Narcissism (β = .69; EPA R² = .58), followed by TriPM Boldness (β = .50; TriPM R² = .41), LSRP Egocentricity (β =.49; LSRP R² = .30), and SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation (β = .48; SRP-III R² = .36). Unsurprisingly, the four psychopathy measures accounted for a smaller amount of variance in vulnerable narcissism with variance accounted for ranging from .03 (SRP-III, ns) to .45 (EPA). In this case, the EPA and TriPM accounted for significantly more variance than the remaining models and the LSRP accounted for significantly more variance than the SRP-III. For vulnerable narcissism, the strongest unique predictors for each model were EPA Emotional Stability (β = −.66; EPA R² = .45), TriPM Boldness (β = −52; TriPM R² = .38), LSRP Callousness (β = −.30; LSRP R² = .12), and SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation (β = .22; SRP-III R² = .03). Unlike the result for the grandiose narcissism factor, there were relatively fewer changes in size and direction of relations when moving from bivariate to multivariate examinations.

At the three-factor level, measures of psychopathy were able to account for the most variance in the self-centered antagonism factor, followed by agentic extraversion and then neuroticism/reactivity. For self-centered antagonism, the four psychopathy measures accounted for between .56 (TriPM) and .73 (EPA) of the variance with the EPA accounting for significantly more variance than the remaining three, followed by the SRP-III, LSRP, and then the TriPM. Within these models, the strongest predictors were EPA Antagonism (β = .53), TriPM Meanness (β = .49), LSRP Egocentricity (β = .46), and SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation (β = .45). More than one psychopathy subscale was a significant predictor of this factor for each psychopathy measures; for instance, TriPM Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition all accounted for unique variance in the self-centered antagonism factor. In fact, EPA Emotional Stability was the only subscale of the 14 that was not a unique predictor of this narcissism factor. We do not review the findings for the neuroticism/reactivity factor of narcissism given it was scored in an identical manner to the vulnerable narcissism factor extracted in the two-factor solution. Finally, all four psychopathy measures accounted for significant variance in the agentic extraversion factor of narcissism that ranged from .20 (LSRP) to .53 (EPA). The EPA accounted for a statistically significantly larger percentage of variance than the rest of the measures, followed by the TriPM (which was different than the SRP-III and LSRP), and then the SRP-III and LSRP. The largest unique predictors for each model were EPA Narcissism (β = .72; EPA R² = .53), TriPM Boldness (β = .53; TriPM R² = .35), LSRP Egocentricity (β = .46; LSRP R² = .45), and SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation (β = .45; SRP-III R² = .25).

Associations Between Self-Reported Psychopathy and Informant-Reported Narcissism

Although smaller in magnitude, as expected, a similar pattern of results was observed for self-reports of psychopathy and informant-reports of narcissism (i.e., containing only FFNI-SF narcissism subscales; see Table 4).³ The one-factor, informant-reported narcissism factor manifested correlations with self-reported psychopathy scales that ranged from .03 (EPA Emotional Stability) to .33 (EPA Narcissism) with a median of .26. At the two-factor level, informant reported grandiose narcissism evinced small to moderate relations with self-reported psychopathy scales that ranged from .11 (SRP Antisocial Behavior) to .42 (EPA Narcissism) with a median of .27. For informant reported vulnerable narcissism, the psychopathy scales manifested correlations ranging from −.22 (EPA Emotional Stability) to .28 (TriPM Disinhibition) with a median of .09. At the three-factor level of narcissism, the informant reported self-centered antagonism component manifested correlations that ranged from .02 (EPA Emotional Stability) to .38 (TriPM Meanness) with a median of .29. For informant reported neuroticism/reactivity component of narcissism, relations with self-reported psychopathy scales ranged from −.31 (EPA Emotional Stability) to .23 (TriPM Disinhibition) with a median of −.03. Finally, informant reported scores on the agentic extraversion factor of narcissism manifested correlations with self-reported psychopathy scales that ranged from −.05 (TriPM Disinhibition) to .39 (EPA Narcissism) with a median of .09.

Table 4.

Bivariate and Multivariate Relations Between Informant-Reported Narcissism and Self-Reported Psychopathy Measures.

Informant-reported narcissism
	One-factor		Two-factor				Three-factor
	Narcissism		Grandiose narcissism		Vulnerable narcissism		Self-centered antagonism		Neuroticism/reactivity		Agentic extraversion
	r	β	r	β	r	β	r	β	r	β	r	Β
TriPM
Boldness	.23*	.23*	.37*	.33*	−.12	−.08	.20*	.17	−.27*	−.19*	.38*	.39*
Meanness	.32*	.17	.36*	.23*	.08	−.03	.38*	.25*	−.09	−.18	.08	−.02
Disinhibition	.26*	.21*	.18	.11	.28*	.29*	.30*	.21*	.23*	.28*	−.05	.02
R ²		.16*^a		.22*^a		.09*^a		.19*		.13*^a		.15*^a
SRP-III
Interpersonal Manip	.31*	.19	.35*	.19	.09	.10	.33*	.13	.01	.17	.19	.25*
Callous Affect	.28*	.06	.34*	.14	.03	−.12	.33*	.13	−.14	−.29*	.13	.01
Erratic Lifestyle	.30*	.19	.32*	.17	.13	.14	.35*	.22*	−.02	.03	.07	−.03
Antisocial Behavior	.10	−.07	.11	−.09	.05	.00	.15	−.03	.04	.05	−.02	−.12
R ²		.13*^ab		.16*^a		.02^b		.16*		.04^b		.05^b
LSRP
Egocentricity	.26*	.20	.27*	.20	.11	.11	.29*	.16	.02	.12	.15	.26*
Callousness	.15	−.03	.21*	.06	−.03	−.19	.22*	.03	−.18	−.31*	.00	−.10
Antisocial	.25*	.17	.20*	.09	.22*	.24*	.32*	.24*	.10	.17	−.04	−.12
R ²		.09*^b		.09*^b		.07*^ab		.13*		.08*^ab		.04^b
EPA
Antagonism	.25*	.10	.27*	.08	.10	.09	.29*	.14	−.03	.01	.10	−.01
Emotional Stability	.03	−.01	.16	.10	−.22*	−.21*	.02	−.01	−.31*	−.29*	.20*	.11
Disinhibition	.25*	.08	.24*	.05	.15	.09	.29*	.13	.05	.06	.03	−.13
Narcissism	.33*	.26*	.42*	.35*	.00	−.03	.29*	.19	−.12	−.10	.39*	.43*
R ²		.13*^ab		.19*^a		.07*^ab		.13*		.10*^ab		.19*^a

Note. Interpersonal Manip = Intepersonal Manipulation; TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure; SRP-III = Self-report Psychopathy Scale –III; LSRP = Levenson Self-report Psychopathy Scale; EPA = Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. Significant differences (p ≤. 01) between psychopathy measures in the prediction in each narcissism component are represented by different superscripts; Columns with no superscripts mean no significant differences were found among the correlations; Narcissism factors consist exclusively of Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory–Short Form facets.

p ≤ .01

In the multivariate analyses (also found in Table 4), measures of psychopathy also contributed to the prediction of informant-reported narcissism factors, in most cases. The variance accounted for by the different psychopathy measures were again compared for statistical significance. At the broadest level of informant-rated narcissism, the TriPM (R² = .16), EPA (R² = .13), and SRP-III (R² = .13) accounted for the most variance, followed by the LSRP (R² = .09). Within these models, the strongest predictors were EPA Narcissism (β = .26), TriPM Boldness (β = .23), LSRP Egocentricity (β = .20), and SRP Interpersonal Manipulation and Erratic Lifestyle (β = .19).

At the two-factor level of informant reported narcissism, self-reported psychopathy measures were generally able to capture more unique variance in informant-rated grandiose narcissism than vulnerable narcissism. Indeed, psychopathy measures accounted for a significant amount of variance in grandiose narcissism that ranged from .09 (LSRP) to .22 (TriPM). In this case, the TriPM, EPA, and SRP-III all accounted for significantly more variance in grandiose narcissism than the LSRP. In general, the largest unique predictors for each model were EPA Narcissism (β = .35; EPA R² = .19), followed by TriPM Boldness (β = .33; TriPM R² = .22), LSRP Egocentricity (β = .20; LSRP R² = .09), and SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation (β = .19; SRP R² = .16). As seen with the self-reported narcissism factors, the four psychopathy measures accounted for a smaller amount of variance in informant-rated vulnerable narcissism factor with variance accounted for ranging from .02 (SRP-III, ns) to .09 (TriPM). Here, the TriPM accounted for significantly more variance than the SRP-III, but the variance accounted for by the LSRP, EPA, and the SRP-III did not significantly differ. For informant-rated vulnerable narcissism, the strongest unique predictors for each model were TriPM Disinhibition (β = .29; TriPM R² = .09), followed by LSRP Antisocial (β = .24; LSRP R² = .07), EPA Emotional Stability (β = −.21; EPA R² = .07), and SRP-III Erratic Lifestyle (β = .14; SRP-III R² = .02). As seen with self-reported narcissism factors, there was relatively fewer changes in size and direction of relations when moving from bivariate to multivariate examinations for informant-rated vulnerable narcissism than for grandiose narcissism.

At the three-factor level of informant reported narcissism, self-report measures of psychopathy were able to account for the most variance in the self-centered antagonism factor, followed by agentic extraversion and then neuroticism/reactivity. For self-centered antagonism, the four psychopathy measures accounted for between .13 (LSRP and EPA) and .19 (TriPM) of the variance with no significant difference in the amount of variance accounted for among the psychopathy measures. Within these models, the strongest predictors were TriPM Meanness (β = .25), LSRP Antisocial (β = .24), SRP-III Erratic Lifestyle (β = .22), and EPA Narcissism (β = .19). For informant-rated neuroticism/reactivity, the psychopathy measures accounted for between .04 (SRP-III, ns) and .13 (TriPM) of the variance with no significant difference in the amount of variance accounted for among the psychopathy measures. Within these models, the strongest predictors were TriPM Meanness (β = .25), LSRP Antisocial (β = .24), SRP-III Erratic Lifestyle (β = .22), and EPA Narcissism (β = .19). Here, the TriPM accounted for significantly more variance than the SRP-III, but the variance accounted for by the EPA, LSRP, and the SRP-III did not significantly differ. Finally, only two of the four psychopathy measures accounted for significant variance in the informant reported agentic extraversion factor of narcissism that ranged from .04 (LSRP, ns) to .19 (EPA). The EPA and TriPM accounted for a statistically significantly larger percentage of variance than the remaining measures. The largest unique predictors for each model were EPA Narcissism (β = .43; EPA R² = .19), TriPM Boldness (β = .39; TriPM R² = .15), LSRP Egocentricity (β = .26; LSRP R² = .04), and SRP Interpersonal Manipulation (β = .25; SRP-III R² = .05).

Convergence Between Self- and Informant-Reported Narcissism

Scores on self- and informant-reported FFNI-SF factors were correlated to determine convergence between self- and informant-report. Results indicated moderate convergence between corresponding factors (Table 5). To quantify the pattern of relations found when using self- versus informant-reported narcissism data, similarity analyses were conducted using the bivariate relations found for each narcissism dimension (e.g., correlating column of self-report psychopathy correlations found with self-report one-factor narcissism with the column of self-report correlations found with informant-report one-factor narcissism). In general, the patterns were remarkably similar across reports. At the broadest level of narcissism, the one-factor model, self- and informant-reported correlations manifested substantial similarity (r = .86). At the two-factor level, relations between self- and informant-reported grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and psychopathy measures were again highly similarly (rs = .89 and .95, respectively). Last, at the three-factor level, robust similarity was again found between the self-report psychopathy correlations and self- and informant-reported narcissism: rs = .91, .88, and .87 for neuroticism/reactivity, self-centered antagonism, and agentic extraversion, respectively.⁴

Table 5.

Bivariate Relations Between Self-Reported and Informant-Reported FFNI-SF Factors of Narcissism.

Self reports
	One-factor	Two-factor		Three-factor
	Narcissism	Grandiose narcissism	Vulnerable narcissism	Self-centered antagonism	Neuroticism/reactivity	Agentic extraversion
Informant reports
Narcissism	.38*	.37*	.16	.37*	.16	.33*
Grandiose narcissism	.37*	.43*	.02	.41*	.02	.40*
Vulnerable narcissism	.22*	.07	.34*	.12	.34*	.05
Antagonism	.35*	.34*	.15	.41*	.15	.29*
Neuroticism	.14	−.04	.38*	−.05	.38*	−.04
Extraversion	.31*	.39*	−.02	.21*	−.02	.41*

Note. FFNI-SF = Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory–Short Form. Relations between corresponding factors are in bold.

p ≤ .01.

Discussion

According to classical theoretical conceptualizations, expert-ratings, and empirical work, psychopathy should overlap substantially with narcissism given the centrality of several traits to both constructs (e.g., grandiosity, egocentricity; Hare, 2003; Miller et al., 2001; Wygant et al., 2016). However, the degree to which commonly used, self-report measures of psychopathy capture narcissism-related traits has not received a great deal of focused attention. To evaluate the instantiation of narcissism-related traits in several widely used measures of psychopathy, a recently developed hierarchical framework for conceptualizing and measuring narcissism was used (e.g., TMN; Miller et al., 2017) so as to test the degree to which several popular measures of psychopathy capture these different narcissism components. Narcissism was measured using both self and informant reports to examine the generalizability of findings across methodologies.

Overall, narcissistic trait content was meaningfully instantiated in all psychopathy measures, although there was considerable variability across measures and narcissism components. Interpretation of effect size is largely context dependent, and it is not clear what total amount of variance in narcissism is appropriate for psychopathy measures to explain. However, each psychopathy measure accounted for at least 20% of the variance in the one-factor model narcissism, which qualifies as a large effect size according to some benchmarks (e.g., Cohen, 1988). We, thus, regard this as a “meaningful” threshold of instantiation. Because grandiose narcissism (and associated factors) is the most relevant to psychopathy according to theoretical and empirical work, the present examination was most concerned with evaluating the degree to which psychopathy measures reflected this aspect of narcissism. Our results suggested that all psychopathy measures substantially represented self-centered antagonism (R² range = .56 to .73), in line with the notion that trait antagonism undergirds much of the overlap between psychopathy and narcissism, as well as other “dark” traits (Vize et al., 2020). However, only the EPA, and to a lesser degree, the TriPM, represented agentic extraversion to a substantial degree, whereas the SRP-III and LSRP accounted for a smaller, though meaningful, amount of variance (R² range = .20 to .25). Inasmuch as grandiose narcissism is recognized as a core feature of psychopathy, these results suggest that the SRP-III and LSRP may not assess traits that are related to a goal-directed, reward-sensitive approach to the world that is commonly found in psychopathic individuals.

Our study results also bear on the degree to which narcissistic trait content is represented within the psychopathy construct. Indeed, because the EPA and TriPM were both developed with careful attention to psychopathy’s content validity in relation to a wide-range of extant psychopathy measures (e.g., Lynam et al., 2013; Patrick, 2010), it is plausible that the representation of narcissistic traits we observe in their related results is suggestive of what portion of narcissism is contained in the psychopathy construct more broadly. Two potential conclusions are considered. First, grandiose narcissism may be wholly subsumed within the psychopathy construct, and vulnerable narcissism may also be subsumed, albeit in the opposite direction (i.e., immunity from neuroticism). By implication, this degree of overlap could lead researchers to collapse models of psychopathy and narcissism into one. Second, it is conceivable that psychopathy contains a more limited set of narcissistic traits, whose contours follow theoretical accounts, expert/clinician ratings, and empirical work (e.g., self-centered antagonism, but to a lesser degree agentic extraversion). Our results seem to support the second conclusion. Specifically, self-centered antagonism appears to be more strongly related to the TriPM and EPA than agentic extraversion and neuroticism/reactivity. To further probe the validity of this conclusion, relations between psychopathy measures and dimensions of narcissism were disattenuated for unreliability to estimate the degree of overlap without measurement error.⁵ Results indicated disattenuated variance explained in self-centered antagonism that ranged from .70 to .87 across psychopathy measures (see Table 3), suggesting that narcissistic antagonism largely overlaps with psychopathic antagonism. Variance explained in other narcissistic dimensions were variable, and did not exceed .60, suggesting that these elements were not as strongly instantiated, in line with expert and clinician ratings (e.g., Miller et al., 2001; Samuel & Widiger, 2004).

Notwithstanding this interpretation, it also bears raising possible methodological issues that could obscure insight into narcissism’s representation in psychopathy. With respect to the EPA in particular, variance explained by the EPA-SF may in part emanate artificially from sharing 11% of its items in common with the FFNI-SF, and method-related similarities owing to the two measures’ common derivation from FFM personality item content. Although the FFNI-SF was not the only narcissism scale to make up the EFA-derived narcissism factors, its dimensions comprised one third of included subscales (see Table 2), and the FFNI-SF subscales disproportionately contributed to the weight of the EFA-derived narcissism factor self-centered antagonism (λ = .71; Table 2), which could have inflated the EPA’s association with self-centered antagonism. We addressed the first of these methodological issues by rerunning analyses without the eight overlapping items between the EPA-SF and FFNI-SF and the results differed negligibly (see Supplemental Table 1, available online). Nevertheless, if the representation of psychopathy remains artificially inflated within the EPA, perhaps a more accurate portrait of its representation lies in the TriPM, which similarly showed substantial overlap with self-centered antagonism (disattenuated R² = .70), and meaningful overlap with the two other dimensions.

Another pertinent issue that affects the interpretation of narcissism’s instantiation in the psychopathy construct relates to psychopathy’s boldness component. Boldness is instantiated as a core element within a number of widely used assessments of psychopathy (e.g., Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised Fearless Dominance (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005; TriPM Boldness), and yet remains controversial in view of evidence that it does not robustly or consistently relate to dysfunctional behavior (e.g., antisocial behavior, substance use; Miller & Lynam, 2012; Weiss et al., 2019; c.f. Lilienfeld et al., 2015). This controversy has led some scholars to advocate for a diminished contribution of boldness to the conceptualization of psychopathy. The present results are noteworthy within the context of this debate because they point to strong associations between boldness (and related components [e.g., EPA Narcissism; Miller et al., 2018]) and dimensions of narcissism including agentic extraversion and neuroticism/reactivity, results that are in line with moderate to strong findings between boldness and narcissistic traits from multiple other samples (e.g., Blagov et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2020). For proponents of boldness’ relevance to psychopathy (e.g., Lilienfeld et al., 2015), the present results reinforce boldness’ importance to the construct. For those who dispute boldness’ relevance, but support narcissism’s relevance, examining more granular overlapping facets of both constructs would be helpful in future research toward adjudicating those areas of both that are most relevant.

Implications for Dimensional Models of Psychopathology

The foregoing discussion has supported the core contribution of narcissistic traits to psychopathy, especially self-centered antagonism, and attempted to adjudicate the content areas of narcissism that bear specific relevance. However, scholars of personality pathology increasingly recognize the importance of focusing on pathological dimensions that traverse (and seem primary to) personality disorder categories, of which narcissism and psychopathy are examples. Although the present authors support movement in this direction, it is our contention that the field must also conduct interstitial research that establishes the content validity of dimensional models based on preexisting and well-researched personality disorder categories. Research along these lines can be widely observed as a popular means of validating incipient dimensional models (e.g., in relation to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth edition Section III Alternative Model of Personality Disorders; Anderson et al., 2014; Watters et al., 2019). However, in the context of transitioning from delimited personality disorders to inclusive dimensional models, the present results are strongly suggestive that personality disorders that were at one point considered distinct bear considerable overlap along more fundamental dimensions. Specifically, integrated models that seek to combine narcissism and psychopathy could be well-informed by results demonstrating potential redundancy between narcissistic and psychopathic antagonism. Other dimensions of narcissism and psychopathy appear to bear moderate to large overlap (e.g., TriPM Boldness and EPA Emotional Stability with neuroticism/reactivity; TriPM Boldness, LSRP Egocentricity, SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation, and EPA Narcissism with agentic extraversion). Accordingly, integration efforts should appropriately draw from common and unique features of both.

Limitations

Some methodological limitations have already been noted, but at least at least three additional issues worth noting. First, although our results pointed to substantial overlap between self-centered antagonism and psychopathy measures, coverage of self-centered antagonism may not have been fully adequate. Factor analytic results indicated outsized weight of FFNI Antagonism (λ = .71), whereas Narcissistic Personality Inventory Entitlement/Exploitativeness failed to exhibit its expected contribution (λ = .30; Table 2). These factor analytic results suggest that our observation of substantial association between psychopathy and self-centered antagonism may only be tethered to a particular operationalization of self-centered antagonism expressed by the FFNI. Second, psychopathy was assessed only using self-report and thus analyses involving self-reported psychopathy and narcissism data were likely inflated due to common method variance. Finally, although the samples were adequately powered, the sample was restricted in terms of age, education, and ethnic and racial diversity.

Conclusions and Future Directions

Narcissistic traits related to self-centered antagonism are well-instantiated across self-report psychopathy measures in line with classical theoretical conceptualizations, expert-ratings, and empirical work, and may be fully subsumed within psychopathy’s structure. Narcissistic traits related to agentic extraversion and neuroticism/reactivity were more variable across measures, but were meaningfully instantiated in two of the more recently developed, trait-based models of psychopathy, the TriPM and EPA. This may be a natural product of the less central role of traits such as attention seeking, vanity, and exhibitionism within conceptualizations of psychopathy. Given the theoretical and empirical overlap between psychopathy and narcissism, it behooves researchers to be aware of the degree to which psychopathy measures capture narcissistic content that seems to hold considerable relevance to the construct.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-asm-10.1177_1073191120916797 – Supplemental material for Evaluating the Instantiation of Narcissism Components in Contemporary Measures of Psychopathy

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-asm-10.1177_1073191120916797 for Evaluating the Instantiation of Narcissism Components in Contemporary Measures of Psychopathy by Brandon Weiss, Chelsea E. Sleep, Donald R. Lynam and Joshua D. Miller in Assessment

Footnotes

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

ORCID iDs

Brandon Weiss

Chelsea E. Sleep

Joshua D. Miller

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Anderson

Snider

Sellbom

Krueger

Hopwood

(2014). A comparison of the DSM-5 Section II and Section III personality disorder structures. Psychiatry Research, 216(3), 363-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.01.007

Blagov

P. S.

Patrick

C. J.

Oost

K. M.

Goodman

J. A.

Pugh

A. T.

(2016). Triarchic Psychopathy Measure: Validity in relation to normal-range traits, personality pathology, and psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2015_29_182

Cain

N. M.

Pincus

A. L.

Ansell

E. B.

(2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: Phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(4), 638-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.09.006

Christian

Sellbom

(2016). Development and validation of an expanded version of the three-factor Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(2), 155-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1068176

Cleckley

(1976). The mask of sanity. Mosby. (Original work published 1941)

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. PAR.

Crowe

Edershile

E. A.

Wright

A. G. C.

Campbell

W. K.

Lynam

D. R.

Miller

J. D.

(2018). Development and validation of the Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale: An adjective rating scale. Psychological Assessment, 30(7), 978-983. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000578

Crowe

M. L.

Lynam

D. R.

Campbell

W. K.

Miller

J. D.

(2019). Exploring the structure of narcissism: Towards an integrated solution. Journal of Personality, 87(6), 1151-1169. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12464

10.

Crowe

M. L.

Weiss

Lynam

D. L.

Campbell

W. K.

Miller

J. D.

(in press). Narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Moving toward a trifurcated model. In Widiger

T. A.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personality disorders. Oxford University Press.

11.

Feldt

L. S.

(2004). Estimating the reliability of a test battery composite or a test score based on weighted item scoring. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37(3), 184-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2004.11909759

12.

Fossati

Beauchaine

T. P.

Grazioli

Carretta

Cortinovis

Maffei

(2005). A latent structure analysis of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Narcissistic Personality Disorder criteria. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 46(5), 361-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2004.11.006

13.

Gentile

Miller

J. D.

Hoffman

B. J.

Reidy

D. E.

Zeichner

Campbell

W. K.

(2013). A test of two brief measures of grandiose narcissism: The Narcissistic Personality Inventory–13 and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory–16. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1120-1136. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033192

14.

Glover

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

Crego

Widiger

T. A.

(2012). The five-factor narcissism inventory: A five-factor measure of narcissistic personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(5), 500-512. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.670680

15.

Hare

R. D.

(2003). Manual for the revised psychopathy checklist (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems.

16.

Hendin

H. M.

Cheek

J. M.

(1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reexamination of Murray’s Narcissism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(4), 588-599. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2204

17.

Karpman

(1948). The myth of the psychopathic personality. American Journal of Psychiatry, 104(8), 523-534. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.104.9.523

18.

Kernberg

O. F.

(1970). Factors in the psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personalities. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 18(1), 51-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/000306517001800103

19.

Klipfel

K. M.

Kosson

D. S.

(2018). The relationship between grandiosity, psychopathy, and narcissism in an offender sample. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(9), 2687-2708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17734784

20.

Krizan

Herlache

A. D.

(2018). The narcissism spectrum model: A synthetic view of narcissistic personality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316685018

21.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Smith

S. F.

Sauvigne

K. C.

Patrick

C. J.

Drislane

L. E.

Latzman

R. D.

Krueger

R. F.

(2015). Is boldness relevant to psychopathic personality? Meta-analytic relations with non-psychopathy checklist-based measures of psychopathy. Psychological Assessment, 28(10), 1172-1185. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000244

22.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Widows

M. R.

(2005). Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

23.

Lykken

D. T.

(1995). The antisocial personalities. Lawrence Erlbaum.

24.

Lynam

D. R.

Miller

J. D.

(2015). Psychopathy from a basic trait perspective: The utility of a five-factor model approach. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 611-626. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12132

25.

Lynam

D. R.

Miller

J. D.

Derefinko

K. J.

(2018). Psychopathy and personality: An articulation of the benefits of a trait-based approach. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 259-280). Guilford Press.

26.

Lynam

D. R.

Sherman

Samuel

Miller

J. D.

Few

L. R.

Widiger

T. A.

(2013). Development of a short form of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. Assessment, 20(6), 659-669. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113502072

27.

Lynam

D. R.

Widiger

T. A.

(2001). Using the five-factor model to represent the DSM-IV personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(3), 401-412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.110.3.401

28.

Maples

J. L.

Lamkin

Miller

J. D.

(2014). A test of two brief measures of the dark triad: The dirty dozen and the short dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 326-331. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035084

29.

McCord

(1964). The psychopath: An essay on the criminal mind. Van Nostrand Reinhold.

30.

Miller

J. D.

Hoffman

B. J.

Campbell

W. K.

Pilkonis

P. A.

(2008). An examination of the factor structure of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, narcissistic personality disorder criteria: One or two factors? Comprehensive Psychiatry, 49(2), 141-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2007.08.012

31.

Miller

J. D.

Hoffman

B. J.

Gaughan

E. T.

Gentile

Maples

Campbell

W. K.

(2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality, 79(5), 1013-1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x

32.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2003). Psychopathy and the five-factor model of personality: A replication and extension. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81(2), 168-178. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8102_08

33.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2012). An examination of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory’s nomological network: A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(3), 305-326. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024567

34.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

Hyatt

C. S.

Campbell

W. K.

(2017). Controversies in narcissism. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 291-315. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045244

35.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

McCain

J. L.

Few

L. R.

Crego

Widiger

T. A.

Campbell

W. K.

(2016). Thinking structurally about narcissism: An examination of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory and its components. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30, 1-18.

36.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

Vize

Crowe

Sleep

Maples-Keller

J. L.

Few

L. R.

Campbell

W. K.

(2018). Vulnerable narcissism is (mostly) a disorder of neuroticism. Journal of Personality, 86(2), 186-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12303

37.

Miller

J. D.

Lyman

D. R.

Widiger

T. A.

Leukefeld

(2001). Personality disorders as extreme variants of common personality dimensions: Can the five factor model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69(2), 253-276. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00144

38.

Miller

J. D.

Sleep

C. E.

Crowe

M. L.

Lynam

D. R.

(2020). Psychopathic boldness: Narcissism, self-esteem, or something in between? Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 1-5.

39.

Muris

Merckelbach

Otgaar

Meijer

(2017). The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the dark triad (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 183-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070

40.

O’Boyle

E. H.

Forsyth

D. R.

Banks

G. C.

Story

P. A.

White

C. D.

(2015). A meta-analytic test of redundancy and relative importance of the dark triad and five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 644-664. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12126

41.

Patrick

C. J.

(2010). Operationalizing the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Preliminary description of brief scales for assessment of boldness, meanness, and disinhibition. https://patrickcnslab.psy.fsu.edu/wiki/images/b/b2/TPMmanual.pdf

42.

Patrick

C. J.

Fowles

D. C.

Krueger

R. F.

(2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Developmental and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913-938. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492

43.

Paulhus

D. L.

Neumann

C. S.

Hare

R. D.

(2009). Manual for the self-report psychopathy scale. Multi-Health Systems.

44.

Pincus

A. L.

Lukowitsky

M. R.

(2010). Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 421-446. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131215

45.

Rosenthal

S. A.

Hooley

J. M.

Steshenko

(2007). Distinguishing grandiosity from self-esteem: Development of the Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale [Unpublished Manuscript]. Yale University.

46.

Samuel

D. B.

Widiger

T. A.

(2004). Clinicians’ personality descriptions of prototypic personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18(3), 286-308. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.18.3.286.35446

47.

Samuel

D. B.

Widiger

T. A.

(2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(8), 1326-1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002

48.

Sherman

E. D.

Miller

J. D.

Few

L. R.

Campbell

W. K.

Widiger

T. A.

Crego

Lynam

D. R.

(2015). Development of a short form of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory: The FFNI-SF. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 1110-1116. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000100

49.

Sleep

C. E.

Weiss

Lynam

D. R.

Miller

J. D.

(2019). An examination of the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy’s nomological network: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 71(July), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.04.005

50.

Thomas

K. M.

Wright

A. G.

Lukowitsky

M. R.

Donnellan

M. B.

Hopwood

C. J.

(2012). Evidence for the criterion validity and clinical utility of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Assessment, 19(2), 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112436664

51.

Vize

C. E.

Collison

K. L.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2020). The “core” of the dark triad: A test of competing hypotheses. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 11(2), 91-99.

52.

Vize

C. E.

Lynam

D. R.

Collison

K. L.

Miller

J. D.

(2018). Differences among dark triad components: A meta-analytic investigation. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9(2), 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000222

53.

Watters

C. A.

Bagby

R. M.

Sellbom

(2019). Meta-analysis to derive an empirically based set of personality facet criteria for the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 10(2), 97-104. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000307

54.

Weiss

Campbell

W. K.

Lynam

D. L.

Miller

J. D.

(2019). A trifurcated model of Narcissism: On the pivotal role of trait Antagonism. In Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(Eds.), The handbook of antagonism: Conceptualizations, assessment, consequences, and treatment of the low end of agreeableness (pp. 221-236). Elsevier.

55.

Weiss

Miller

J. D.

(2018). Distinguishing between grandiose narcissism, vulnerable narcissism, and narcissistic personality disorder. In Foster

J. D.

Brunell

Hermann

(Eds.), The handbook of trait narcissism: Key advances, research methods, and controversies (pp. 3-13). Springer.

56.

Wygant

D. B.

Sellbom

Sleep

C. E.

Wall

T. D.

Applegate

K. C.

Krueger

R. F.

Patrick

C. J.

(2016). Examining the DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model operationalization of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in a male correctional sample. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(3), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000179

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

0.13 MB