Cited by 219Personality Traits and PsychologyEmotions and Moral BehaviorPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

Narcissistic Subtypes and Contingent Self‐Esteem: Do All Narcissists Base Their Self‐Esteem on the Same Domains?

Zeigler‐Hill, Virgil, Clark, C. Brendan, Pickard, Jessica D.·2008·Journal of Personality

Abstract

ABSTRACT It has been suggested that there are two forms of narcissism: a grandiose subtype and a vulnerable subtype. Although these forms of narcissism share certain similarities, it is believed that these subtypes may differ in the domains upon which their self‐esteem is based. To explore this possibility, the present study examined the associations between these narcissistic subtypes and domain‐specific contingencies of self‐worth. The results show that vulnerable narcissism was positively associated with contingencies of self‐worth across a variety of domains. In contrast, the associations between grandiose narcissism and domain‐specific contingencies of self‐worth were more complex and included both positive and negative relationships. These results provide additional support for the distinction between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism by showing that the domains of contingent self‐esteem associated with grandiose narcissism may be more limited in scope than those associated with vulnerable narcissism.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00503.x

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Vulnerable narcissism and self-esteem are substantially negatively related (e.g., r = -0.57, r = -.45, r = -.32).

    “Empirically, vulnerable narcissism and self-esteem are substantially negatively related to one another, e.g., r = -0.57(Barnett & Womack 2015), r = -.45 (Miller et al. 2010a), and r = -.32 (Zeigler-Hill et al. 2008).”

    From Controversies in Narcissism (2017) · cites this paper as Zeigler-Hill et al. 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zeigler‐Hill, V., Clark, C. B., & Pickard, J. D.
Affiliations
University of Southern Mississippi (US)
Corresponding author
Zeigler‐Hill, Virgil
Venue
Journal of Personality
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-07-08
Volume
76
Issue
4
Pages
753-774
ISSN
  • 0022-3506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6494
OpenAlex
W2141779547
Cited by
219
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 9
FWCI
10.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aquila Digital Community (University of Southern Mississippi) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
narcissism, grandiose narcissism, vulnerable narcissism, contingent self-esteem
MeSH terms
Defense Mechanisms, Humans, Internal-External Control, Interpersonal Relations, Narcissism, Personality Disorders, Personality Inventory, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Self Concept, Social Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review