خودخدمتی تعصب یا صرفا در خدمت خود؟ مدارک و شواهد برای یک رویکرد بعدی به خودشیفتگی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|32244||2012||5 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 52, Issue 8, June 2012, Pages 942–946
Previous research has suggested that narcissism can be conceptualized as a multidimensional construct consisting of the related, but unique, dimensions of grandiosity and entitlement. The current studies examined the divergent associations of grandiosity and entitlement with respect to different types of self-serving strategies. In Study 1, we found that narcissistic grandiosity, but not entitlement, was positively associated with a self-enhancing strategy of unrealistic optimism. This association was not mediated by self-esteem. In Study 2, narcissistic entitlement, but not grandiosity, was predictive of unethical decision-making, an interpersonal self-promotional strategy that advances the self at the expense of others. Together, both studies support a model of narcissism consisting of a relatively intrapersonal dimension of grandiosity and a relatively interpersonal dimension of entitlement.
Narcissism has been described as a paradoxical construct (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). On one hand, narcissists tend to think very highly of themselves and have an inflated sense of self-worth. On the other hand, they often behave in ways that suggest an underlying vulnerability of the self (Jordan et al., 2003 and Zeigler-Hill, 2006). In part because of this paradox, many researchers have either distinguished between multiple forms of narcissism (e.g., Watson and Biderman, 1993 and Wink, 1991) or identified various subfactors of narcissism (e.g., Emmons, 1984 and Raskin and Terry, 1988). Others have also characterized narcissism as a combination of high agentic and low communal traits (Campbell & Foster, 2007) or high extraversion and low agreeableness (Paulhus, 2001). Despite these seemingly different ways of categorizing narcissism, many conceptualizations make a distinction between components of narcissism generally characterized by a grandiose and inflated sense of self-worth and components characterized by high levels of entitlement, exploitation, and similar traits (Emmons, 1984, Emmons, 1987, Raskin and Novacek, 1989 and Watson and Biderman, 1993). Consistent with these interpretations of narcissism, the entitlement/exploitativeness subscale (E/E) of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979) diverges from the remaining subscales of the NPI with respect to a host of variables associated with narcissism (see Brown & Tamborski, 2012, for a discussion). Given this trend, Brown, Budzek, and Tamborski (2009) suggested a conceptualization of narcissism as comprising two overarching dimensions: a predominantly intrapersonal dimension of grandiosity and a predominantly interpersonal dimension of entitlement. Brown et al. (2009) argued that the grandiosity dimension orients the narcissist toward maintaining an internal sense of self-importance, whereas the entitlement dimension orients the narcissist toward maintaining the status of the self vis-à-vis others. Brown and colleagues demonstrated that grandiosity, but not entitlement, predicted mental health (an intrapersonal outcome). Furthermore, they found that entitlement, but not grandiosity, predicted overt cheating, when behavior unambiguously violated social norms to satisfy self-interest. When cheating was more subtle and rationalizable, grandiosity, but not entitlement, predicted cheating. Previous research has clearly demonstrated a link between narcissism (as measured by the NPI) and a variety of intrapersonal strategies. For example, narcissists tend to report lower actual/ideal self discrepancies (Emmons, 1984, Raskin et al., 1991 and Rhodewalt and Morf, 1995), display greater confidence in their responses to general knowledge questions (but not greater accuracy; Campbell, Goodie, & Foster, 2004), overestimate the potential benefits from risky ventures (Foster, Shenesey, & Goff, 2009), and discount the importance of a task after receiving negative feedback (e.g., Campbell et al., 2000 and Farwell and Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998). Narcissists are also more willing than non-narcissists are to violate pro-social norms in order to protect their ego or to promote their own self-interests (i.e., interpersonal strategies). In particular, narcissism is associated with responding aggressively to insults, even if the victim is not responsible for the insult (Martinez et al., 2008 and Twenge and Campbell, 2003). Narcissism is also positively associated with vengeance seeking (Brown, 2004), and punitiveness (Bushman, Bonacci, van Dijk, & Baumeister, 2003). Fewer studies have reported correlations between self-enhancement tendencies and the NPI subscales, but those that do support a grandiosity/entitlement distinction. For example, Rhodewalt and Morf (1995, Study 3) found that the non-E/E subscales of the NPI were positively correlated with self-evaluative ratings in various domains (e.g., intelligence) and the certainty of those ratings. However, E/E was uncorrelated with both. In the same study, the composite NPI was negatively correlated with actual/ideal self-discrepancies, yet E/E was positively correlated with this discrepancy. Additional studies have reported a similar divergence between E/E and the rest of the NPI in predicting self-esteem (Bogart et al., 2004 and Rose, 2002) and positive illusions (Hickman, Watson, & Morris, 1996). In contrast with intrapersonal self-enhancement, studies that have examined the associations between the NPI subscales and interpersonal strategies suggest that they are primarily driven by E/E. Using a version of the NPI with seven subscales (Raskin & Terry, 1988), Reidy, Zeichner, Foster, and Martinez (2008) found that only entitlement and exploitativeness uniquely predicted the intensity and duration of an electric shock that participants administered to a competitor. Similarly, Antes et al. (2007) demonstrated that E/E was the only NPI subscale that consistently predicted unethical decisions. Finally, Exline, Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, and Finkel (2004) showed a negative relationship between entitlement and forgiveness, but no relationship between the remaining NPI subscales and forgiveness. Thus, the composite E/E or the singular entitlement subscale of the NPI appears to be associated with promoting the self at the expense of others. Likewise, the remaining subscales are specifically associated with intrapersonal self-enhancing biases, such as overly positive self-evaluations and smaller actual/ideal self-discrepancies. In the following studies, we examine the distinction between grandiosity and entitlement by exploring their roles in predicting a relatively intrapersonal self-enhancing strategy (i.e., unrealistic optimism) and a more interpersonal strategy that focuses on self-promotion without regard for the well-being of others (i.e., unethical decision-making). Previous research has already suggested such a dissociation using the NPI subscales (Antes et al., 2007 and Hickman et al., 1996). However, these subscales suffer from unacceptably low internal reliabilities, questionable item content, and ambiguity regarding the most appropriate number of subscales (Tamborski & Brown, 2012). Furthermore, none of the aforementioned studies investigated whether E/E might interact with the remaining subscales. Therefore, we assessed grandiosity and entitlement with reliable and highly face-valid scales specifically designed to measure these two dimensions of narcissism.