2019
DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000190
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Agentic narcissism, communal narcissism, and prosociality.

Abstract: Grandiose narcissism and prosociality are important topics in personality and social psychology, but research on their interplay is lacking. We present a first large-scale, systematic, and multimethod investigation linking the two. In 2 studies (N 1 ϭ 688, N 2 ϭ 336), we assessed grandiose narcissism comprehensively (i.e., agentic and communal narcissism) and examined its relations with instantiations of prosociality, namely, objective prosociality (actual behavior in Study 1; round-robin informant-reports in … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
70
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 75 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 167 publications
(279 reference statements)
1
70
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Consistent with prior research, we operationalized communal SE in terms of Gebauer, Sedikides, et al’s (2012) Communal Narcissism Inventory (following Gebauer, Sedikides, et al, 2012; Nehrlich, Gebauer, Sedikides, & Schoel, in press), Crowne and Marlowe’s (1960) Social Desirability Scale (following Paulhus, 2002; Paulhus & Trapnell, 2008), Hathaway and McKinley’s (1989) Lie Scale from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Questionnaire (following Paulhus, 2002; Paulhus & Trapnell, 2008), Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1964) Lie Scale from the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (following Paulhus, 2002; Paulhus & Trapnell, 2008), Paulhus’s (1988) Impression Management Scale from the Balanced Inventory of Socially Desirable Responding (following Paulhus, 2002; Paulhus & Trapnell, 2008), and self-serving social comparisons as well as inflated self-evaluations pertaining to warmth and morality (following Abele et al, 2016; Campbell et al, 2002).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Consistent with prior research, we operationalized communal SE in terms of Gebauer, Sedikides, et al’s (2012) Communal Narcissism Inventory (following Gebauer, Sedikides, et al, 2012; Nehrlich, Gebauer, Sedikides, & Schoel, in press), Crowne and Marlowe’s (1960) Social Desirability Scale (following Paulhus, 2002; Paulhus & Trapnell, 2008), Hathaway and McKinley’s (1989) Lie Scale from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Questionnaire (following Paulhus, 2002; Paulhus & Trapnell, 2008), Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1964) Lie Scale from the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (following Paulhus, 2002; Paulhus & Trapnell, 2008), Paulhus’s (1988) Impression Management Scale from the Balanced Inventory of Socially Desirable Responding (following Paulhus, 2002; Paulhus & Trapnell, 2008), and self-serving social comparisons as well as inflated self-evaluations pertaining to warmth and morality (following Abele et al, 2016; Campbell et al, 2002).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Indeed, empirical results corroborate this claim, as whenever explicit communal self‐views are strongly correlated with communal narcissism, implicit communal self‐views are not (Fatfouta et al, ; Fatfouta & Schröder‐Abé, ). Whenever communal narcissism is positively related to self‐viewed prosociality, it is unrelated to objective prosociality as assessed by actual behaviour and other informant reports in real‐life settings (Nehrlich, Gebauer, Sedikides, & Schoel, ), and moreover, the neuropsychological reactions do not match communal narcissists behaviour (Yang et al, ). Because our study was based solely on explicit self‐reports, the presence of communal narcissism in the upper quadrant of the circumplex is not surprising; however, if the current study used implicit or objective assessments of communal narcissism, we would expect it to be located near the Delta‐Minus/Sensation Seeking metatrait.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A series of studies showed that grandiose narcissists were less generous and less willing to help others than did non-narcissists. 65 Worse yet, employees working for narcissistic leaders are more likely to withhold information, engage in shirking, absenteeism, and even sabotage. 66 There are estimates that these counter-productive behaviors may cost firms more than $20 billion annually.…”
Section: Consequences Of Grandiose Narcissists For Organizationsmentioning
confidence: 99%