Cited by 287Personality Traits and PsychologyPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyEmotions and Moral Behavior

Thinking structurally about narcissism: an examination of the five-factor narcissism inventory and its components.

Miller, Joshua D., Lynam, Donald R., McCain, Jessica L., Few, Lauren R., Crego, Cristina, Widiger, Thomas A., Campbell, W. Keith·2016·Journal of Personality Disorders

Abstract

The Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory (FFNI) is a self-report measure of the traits linked to grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, as well as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), from a five-factor model perspective (FFM). In the current studies, the factor structure of the FFNI was explored and the results supported the extraction of three factors: Antagonism (e.g., Arrogance), Neuroticism (e.g., Need for Admiration), and Agentic Extraversion (e.g., Authoritativeness). In Study 2, the FFNI factors manifested convergent validity with their corresponding Big Five domains and diverging relations with measures of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, NPD, and self-esteem. Ultimately, the FFNI factors help explicate the differences between various expressions of narcissism such that all are related to Antagonism but differ with regard to Neuroticism (relevant to vulnerable narcissism and NPD) and Agentic Extraversion (relevant to grandiose narcissism and NPD). The results also highlight the complex relation between self-esteem and the traits that comprise narcissism measures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1521/pedi_2015_29_177

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • Neuroticism is frequently reported to correlate negatively with grandiose narcissism and positively with vulnerable narcissism.

    “Neuroticism is also frequently reported to correlate negatively with grandiose, but positively with vulnerable narcissism (e.g., Miller et al., 2011, 2015; see also Gore and Widiger, 2016).”

    From The Relationship between Grandiose and Vulnerable (Hypersensitive) Narcissism (2017) · cites this paper as Miller et al., 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., McCain, J. L., Few, L. R., Crego, C., Widiger, T. A., & Campbell, W. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality Disorders
Published
2016-02
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
1-18
ISSN
0885-579X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2073869708
Cited by
287
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
22.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
Keywords
narcissism, grandiose narcissism, vulnerable narcissism, narcissistic personality disorder, factor structure, antagonism, neuroticism, self-esteem, Big Five personality traits, convergent validity
MeSH terms
Neuroticism, Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Delusions, Extraversion, Psychological, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Hostility, Humans, Male, Narcissism, Personality Disorders, Personality Inventory, Self Concept, Reproducibility of Results, Self Report

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