مشکل پیش رو، پشت پرده مشکلات: خودشیفتگی و طرحواره های ناسازگار اولیه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|32227||2011||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7380 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, Volume 42, Issue 1, March 2011, Pages 96–103
Narcissism is a multifaceted construct that is inconsistently defined and assessed between clinical psychology and social-personality psychology. The purpose of the present study was to examine the similarities and differences in the cognitive schemas underlying various forms of narcissism. This was accomplished by examining the associations of normal and pathological forms of narcissism with the early maladaptive schemas. The results showed important similarities in these associations (e.g., all of the narcissism scales were positively associated with the entitlement schema) as well as differences (e.g., vulnerable narcissism was the only form of narcissism that was positively associated with subjugation). Discussion focuses on the implications of these results for the ways in which individuals with these forms of narcissism perceive and navigate their social environments.
The personality construct of narcissism – which takes its name from the ancient Greek myth of Narcissus (Ellis, 1898) – refers to a pervasive pattern of grandiosity and self-importance. Narcissism is a construct that has been of considerable interest to both clinical and social-personality psychology in recent years. Attempts to integrate these bodies of literature, however, have been hampered by inconsistencies in the definition and measurement of narcissism between these disciplines (Cain et al., 2008, Miller and Campbell, 2008 and Pincus et al., 2009). Clinical psychologists tend to conceptualize narcissism as a personality disorder characterized by arrogant or haughty behaviors, feelings of entitlement, a lack of empathy, and a willingness to exploit other individuals (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The form of narcissism studied by clinical psychologists is often associated with emotional instability and the tendency to experience negative emotions. In contrast, social-personality psychologists often consider subclinical levels of narcissism as a normally distributed personality feature. This form of narcissism tends to be more emotionally resilient and extraverted than the form of narcissism that is generally considered by clinical psychologists (Miller & Campbell, 2008). These differences lead clinical psychologists to emphasize the pathological elements of narcissism, whereas social-personality psychologists focus more of their attention on the somewhat “normal” aspects of narcissism (see Miller & Campbell, 2008 or Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010, for extended discussions). Consistent with the previous literature (e.g., Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010), we will refer to these types of narcissism as pathological narcissism and normal narcissism, respectively. It is important to note that normal narcissism consists of both adaptive and maladaptive elements, so it is certainly not a completely “healthy” form of narcissism. That is, both normal and pathological forms of narcissism have maladaptive elements but they differ in terms of the emphasis that each places on these features. The distinction between pathological and normal forms of narcissism is further complicated by the possibility that pathological narcissism may be a heterogeneous construct consisting of both a grandiose and a vulnerable form (e.g., Akhtar and Thompson, 1982, Cooper, 1998, Dickinson and Pincus, 2003, Gabbard, 1989, Gabbard, 1998, Gersten, 1991, Hendin and Cheek, 1997, Kohut, 1971, Pincus and Lukowitsky, 2010, Rathvon and Holmstrom, 1996, Rose, 2002, Rovik, 2001, Wink, 1991 and Wink, 1996). Grandiose narcissism is the most easily recognized form of pathological narcissism because it is characterized by maladaptive self-enhancement strategies such as holding an overly positive self-image, exploiting others, and engaging in exhibitionistic behaviors (Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010). This form of narcissism is clearly represented by the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Vulnerable narcissism is the second phenotypic expression of pathological narcissism and it may either be the primary form of expressed narcissism or displayed in alternation with the grandiose form of narcissism. The vulnerable form of pathological narcissism is characterized by self and emotional dysregulation including a negative self-image, self-criticism, negative affective experiences (e.g., anger, shame, dysphoria), interpersonal sensitivity, and social withdrawal (Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010). The existence of grandiose and vulnerable phenotypic expressions of pathological narcissism has been supported by a number of studies using various measures of pathological narcissism (e.g., Rathvon and Holmstrom, 1996 and Wink, 1991; see Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010, for a review). The development and maintenance of narcissistic personality features may be due, at least in part, to the cognitive schemas that individuals rely on to organize and make sense of the events that occur during the course of their lives (Beck, Freeman, & Davis, 2003). Along these lines, Young (1990) proposed a model in which circumstances that interfere with the development of autonomy, connectedness, worthiness, or realistic expectations and limits (e.g., markedly traumatic interactions or repeated negative interactions with caregivers) may lead individuals to develop schemas that support maladaptive styles of perceiving themselves, others, and relationships. For example, individuals may find relationships threatening (connectedness), become overly dependent on others (autonomy), feel defective (worthiness), or feel superior to others (unrealistic expectations and limits). Young developed the concept of early maladaptive schemas in an attempt to better understand the relationships between negative interactions early in life and the various manifestations of personality pathology that are expressed in adulthood. Early maladaptive schemas refer to deeply rooted negative beliefs about oneself, others, and the world that may develop during the earliest years of life and result in erroneous and dysfunctional perceptions, emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. Early maladaptive schemas influence the interpretation of subsequent events as these experiences are viewed through the negative lenses of schemas which serve to selectively incorporate corroborating information and discount conflicting information ( McGinn and Young, 1996 and Schmidt et al., 1995). Once these schemas are formed, they are extended and elaborated throughout the course of the individual’s life and often result in negative automatic thoughts and subjective distress because of their maladaptive nature. The concept of early maladaptive schemas retains the information-processing component that was central to earlier definitions of cognitive schemas (e.g., Beck, 1967) but places more focus on thematic content and early development ( Young, 1990). Young (1990) originally identified 16 early maladaptive schemas but more recent research has suggested that there may actually be only 15 schemas (e.g., Lee et al., 1999 and Schmidt et al., 1995). Further analyses suggested that these early maladaptive schemas cluster within the following higher-order schema domains (Hoffart et al., 2005): disconnection (emotional deprivation, emotional inhibition, mistrust, social isolation, and defectiveness), impaired autonomy (subjugation, dependence, failure to achieve, vulnerability to harm, abandonment, and enmeshment), impaired limits (insufficient self-control and entitlement), and exaggerated standards (self-sacrifice and unrelenting standards). Table 1 presents a description of each domain and its associated schemas.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The results of the present study found that aspects of normal and pathological narcissism differed in their associations with the early maladaptive schemas. These results are consistent with previous distinctions between normal and pathological forms of narcissism as well as providing additional support for the existence of two expressions of pathological narcissism (i.e., grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism). Normal narcissism had somewhat inconsistent associations with these schemas which is consistent with previous findings showing that some of the NPI subscales reflect adjustment whereas others capture maladjustment (e.g., Miller and Campbell, 2008 and Pincus and Lukowitsky, 2010). In contrast, the pathological forms of narcissism had more consistent associations with these early maladaptive schemas which may suggest that individuals with high levels of pathological narcissism may experience conflicting motivations concerning their interactions with others that may result in elevated levels of distress and uncertainty. These results provide additional support for treating these different facets of narcissism as distinct constructs that are worthy of further research examining their importance and clinical relevance.