Cited by 206Personality Traits and PsychologyHistory, Medicine, and LeadershipEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

The Double-Edged Sword of Grandiose Narcissism: Implications for Successful and Unsuccessful Leadership Among U.S. Presidents

Watts, Ashley L., Lilienfeld, Scott O., Smith, Sarah Francis, Miller, Joshua D., Campbell, W. Keith, Waldman, Irwin D., Rubenzer, Steven J., Faschingbauer, Thomas J.·2013·Psychological Science

Abstract

Recent research and theorizing suggest that narcissism may predict both positive and negative leadership behaviors. We tested this hypothesis with data on the 42 U.S. presidents up to and including George W. Bush, using (a) expert-derived narcissism estimates, (b) independent historical surveys of presidential performance, and (c) largely or entirely objective indicators of presidential performance. Grandiose, but not vulnerable, narcissism was associated with superior overall greatness in an aggregate poll; it was also positively associated with public persuasiveness, crisis management, agenda setting, and allied behaviors, and with several objective indicators of performance, such as winning the popular vote and initiating legislation. Nevertheless, grandiose narcissism was also associated with several negative outcomes, including congressional impeachment resolutions and unethical behaviors. We found that presidents exhibit elevated levels of grandiose narcissism compared with the general population, and that presidents' grandiose narcissism has been rising over time. Our findings suggest that grandiose narcissism may be a double-edged sword in the leadership domain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0956797613491970

Cites

62 of 62 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Smith, S. F., Miller, J. D., Campbell, W. K., Waldman, I. D., Rubenzer, S. J., & Faschingbauer, T. J.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Concord, New Hampshire
  • Foundation for the Study of Personality in History, Houston, Texas
Corresponding author
Watts, Ashley L.
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2013-10-08
Volume
24
Issue
12
Pages
2379-2389
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2107485453
Cited by
206
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4
FWCI
8.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › History, Medicine, and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
grandiose narcissism, vulnerable narcissism, presidential leadership, American presidents, leadership behavior, presidential performance, crisis management, agenda setting, impeachment, unethical behavior
MeSH terms
Aged, Famous Persons, Humans, Leadership, Male, Middle Aged, Narcissism, Personality, Politics, Task Performance and Analysis, United States

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