CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 154Personality Traits and PsychologyPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyEmotions and Moral Behavior

The Relationship between Grandiose and Vulnerable (Hypersensitive) Narcissism

Open access
Jauk, Emanuel, Weigle, Elena, Lehmann, Konrad, Benedek, Mathias, Neubauer, Aljoscha C.·2017·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01600PMC PMC5601176
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Narcissistic grandiosity is characterized by overt expressions of feelings of superiority and entitlement, while narcissistic vulnerability reflects hypersensitivity and introversive self-absorbedness. Clinical evidence suggests that grandiosity is accompanied by vulnerable aspects, pointing to a common foundation. Subclinical personality research, however, views grandiose and vulnerable narcissism as independent traits. Grandiose narcissism displays substantial correlation with extraversion, while vulnerable narcissism correlates highly with introversion. We investigated if (1) controlling for intro-/extraversion might reveal a “common core” of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, and if (2) the correlation between both aspects might be higher at higher levels of narcissism. Latent variable structural equation modeling and segmented regression analysis confirmed these hypotheses in a large nonclinical sample (N = 1,006). Interindividual differences in intro-/extraversion mask the common core of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. The association between both aspects increases at high levels (10th percentile) of grandiose narcissism, which suggests a possible transition to clinically relevant (pathological) narcissism.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a non-clinical sample (N = 1,006), grandiose and vulnerable narcissism were essentially uncorrelated (latent r = −0.09) until controlling for intro-/extraversion, which raised the latent correlation to r = 0.53. Segmented regression found a breakpoint at NPI raw score 24.17 (top 10%), above which the association became positive (r = 0.20), suggesting high grandiose narcissism may include vulnerable aspects.

Key findings

  • Latent SEM showed grandiose narcissism correlated with extraversion (r = 0.65, p < 0.001) and vulnerable narcissism with introversion (r = −0.62, p < 0.001); the grandiose–vulnerable latent correlation was r = −0.09 (p = 0.22), rising to r = 0.53 (p < 0.001) when controlling intro-/extraversion.
  • Controlling neuroticism raised the grandiose–vulnerable correlation only to r = 0.21 (p = 0.01); with intro-/extraversion and neuroticism controlled simultaneously, it rose to r = 0.63 (p < 0.001).
  • Segmented regression estimated a breakpoint at NPI raw score 24.17 (SE = 2.14, 95% CI = 19.96–28.37), with a significant change in slope (Davies test p = 0.012); below the breakpoint r = −0.09 (n = 910, p = 0.007), above it r = 0.20 (n = 94, p = 0.054), and the difference was significant (Steiger z = −2.66, p = 0.004). The breakpoint aligned with the top 10% of the NPI distribution (raw score 24 = 90% cumulative frequency).

Methods

  • Combined four studies (two offline, two online) at the University of Graz; total N = 1,006 (550 women), mean age 24.06 (SD = 5.03); intro-/extraversion was available for N = 605 and neuroticism for N = 406.
  • Grandiose narcissism was measured with the German Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; 40 dichotomous forced-choice items; α = 0.84); vulnerable narcissism with a German translation of the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS; 10 items; α = 0.66); intro-/extraversion and neuroticism with HEXACO-60 scales (α = 0.81 and 0.73, respectively).
  • Analyses used latent variable SEM in Mplus 7 with MLR estimation, including tests of measurement invariance across studies and models controlling intro-/extraversion and neuroticism; segmented regression in R tested a breakpoint in the NPI–HSNS relationship, with an initial guess of ψ0 = 15, Davies test with K = 7, and one outlier excluded by Mahalanobis distance at p < 0.001.

Limitations

  • The paper states that it cannot directly test intro-/extraversion as a developmental moderator; intro-/extraversion data were available for fewer than 50 individuals beyond the NPI breakpoint, so the authors could not test whether controlling for intro-/extraversion has less effect above the threshold.
  • The paper states that results are restricted to the specific measures used (NPI and HSNS), that other narcissism measures/conceptions might yield different findings, and that the sample, although large, did not allow a powerful test of possible sex differences.
  • Evident from the text: the design is cross-sectional, non-clinical, and self-report, so it cannot establish causality or a developmental transition to pathological narcissism; the sample is university-based/young adult, limiting generalizability, and the top-10% subgroup analysis (n = 94) had a borderline p = 0.054 correlation.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01600

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

10 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 47 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The latent correlation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism is r = -0.09, p = 0.22 in the correlational model.

    “The latent correlation of r = -0.09 between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism is insignificant in the correlational model (p = 0.22).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The latent correlation between intro-/extraversion and vulnerable narcissism is r = -0.62, p < 0.001.

    “The latent correlations between intro-/extraversion and grandiose (r = 0.65, p < 0.001) as well as vulnerable (r = -0.62, p < 0.001) narcissism are of similar magnitude, but in opposing directions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The constrained model did not fit the data significantly worse than the unconstrained model.

    “The constrained model (coefficients constrained to equality across studies) displayed similar fit to the data [χ2(102) = 223.60, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.11] and did not fit the data significantly worse according to the Satorra–Bentler – scaled difference test for MLR estimation [Δχ2(30) = 39.39, p = 0.12].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The latent correlation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism rises to r = 0.53, p < 0.001 when controlling for intro-/extraversion.

    “This correlation rises to r = 0.53 (p < 0.001) as soon as differences in intro-/extraversion are controlled in the regression model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The latent correlation between intro-/extraversion and grandiose narcissism is r = 0.65, p < 0.001.

    “The latent correlations between intro-/extraversion and grandiose (r = 0.65, p < 0.001) as well as vulnerable (r = -0.62, p < 0.001) narcissism are of similar magnitude, but in opposing directions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 31
  • May combine two claims. 16

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001.

    “All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Our data are in very good accordance with the Narcissism Spectrum Model, as controlling for intro-/extraversion reveals a common core of measures oriented toward narcissistic grandiosity (NPI) and vulnerability (HSNS), as predicted by the model.

    “Our data are in very good accordance with this model, as we found that controlling for intro-/extraversion reveals a common core of measures oriented toward narcissistic grandiosity (NPI) and vulnerability (HSNS); as predicted by the model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The correlation below the breakpoint was slightly negative and resembled previous findings as well as those from the whole-sample SEM analysis.

    “While the correlation below this breakpoint was slightly negative and resembled previous findings (e.g., Ksinan and Vazsonyi, 2016) as well as those from our whole-sample SEM analysis”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ksinan and Vazsonyi, 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Segmented regression analysis confirmed the hypothesis that high grandiose narcissism would go along with increased vulnerable aspects, as there was a significant change in slope at the onset of the top 10% of the NPI distribution.

    “Segmented regression analysis confirmed this hypothesis, as we observed a significant change in slope at the onset of the top 10% of the NPI distribution.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The top 10% of the NPI distribution represents high narcissism.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The percentage of missing data was low (not exceeding 1.5% for any single item).

    “The percentage of missing data was low (not exceeding 1.5% for any single item).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Little is known about the transition from normal to pathological narcissism.

    “However, to date, little is known about the transition from normal to pathological narcissism (Pincus and Lukowitsky, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pincus and Lukowitsky, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The reliability of the HSNS was α = 0.66 for the manifest scale.

    “The reliability of the 10-item scale was α = 0.66 for the manifest scale (like in the original publication; 0.63 < α < 0.75; Hendin and Cheek, 1997).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hendin and Cheek, 1997 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Clinical evidence suggests that grandiose narcissism is always accompanied by vulnerable aspects.

    “Clinical evidence suggests that grandiosity is accompanied by vulnerable aspects, pointing to a common foundation.”
    • Also stated in: § Introduction · boosted
      “In contrast, clinical evidence suggests that grandiose narcissism is always accompanied by vulnerable aspects (Kernberg, 1975; Pincus and Lukowitsky, 2010; Roberts and Huprich, 2012; Pincus et al., 2014; Gore and Widiger, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kernberg, 1975

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Pincus and Lukowitsky, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gore and Widiger, 2016 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    One individual exceeded Mahalanobis distance at p < 0.001 and was excluded from further analyses.

    “One individual (scoring high on both the NPI and the HSNS) exceeded Mahalanobis distance at p < 0.001 and was thus excluded from further analyses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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).”
    • Also stated in: § Intro-/Extraversion Masks the Common Core of Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissism · plain
      “Above all, 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).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites Miller et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Miller et al., 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gore and Widiger, 2016 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Miller et al., 2011, 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The NPI and HSNS have very good concurrent validity with expert ratings of narcissism.

    “The NPI and the HSNS can be considered the long-time standard measures of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism in non-clinical personality research and were found to have very good concurrent validity with expert ratings of narcissism (Miller et al., 2014a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Miller et al., 2014a

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The internal consistency of the neuroticism scale was α = 0.73.

    “the internal consistencies were α = 0.81 for intro-/extraversion and α = 0.73 for neuroticism at manifest level.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Subclinical personality research views grandiose and vulnerable narcissism as independent traits.

    “Subclinical personality research, however, views grandiose and vulnerable narcissism as independent traits.”
    • Also stated in: § Introduction · boosted
      “Population-based studies using non-clinical samples further show that grandiose and vulnerable narcissism are essentially unrelated (Hendin and Cheek, 1997; Miller et al., 2011; Ng et al., 2011; Brown et al., 2016; Ksinan and Vazsonyi, 2016), why they are commonly viewed as two independent traits in subclinical personality research.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hendin and Cheek, 1997 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Miller et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Ksinan and Vazsonyi, 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The internal consistency of the intro-/extraversion scale was α = 0.81.

    “the internal consistencies were α = 0.81 for intro-/extraversion and α = 0.73 for neuroticism at manifest level.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The internal consistency of the NPI was α = 0.84 at manifest level.

    “The internal consistency of the scale was α = 0.84 at manifest level.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Many previous studies found substantial sex differences in the association between narcissism and emotion regulation, suggesting that primarily men display emotional deficits associated with narcissism.

    “Lastly, many previous studies found substantial sex differences in the association between narcissism and emotion regulation, suggesting that primarily men display emotional deficits associated with narcissism (Morf and Rhodenwalt, 2001; Edelstein et al., 2010; Reinhard et al., 2012; Jauk et al., 2016a, 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Morf and Rhodenwalt, 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Edelstein et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Reinhard et al., 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Narcissism is thought to be more driven by social influences such as parenting style.

    “while narcissism is thought to be more driven by social influences such as parenting style (e.g., Otway and Vignoles, 2006; Brummelmann et al., 2015a,b).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Otway and Vignoles, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Brummelmann et al., 2015a,b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The different conceptions (subclinical vs. pathological narcissism) of the measures used in both studies are likely to account for the different findings, as neuroticism might be more relevant to the maladaptive aspects associated with pathological narcissism.

    “The different conceptions (subclinical vs. pathological narcissism) of the measures used in both studies are likely to account for the different findings, as neuroticism might be more relevant to the maladaptive aspects associated with pathological narcissism.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Narcissism Spectrum Model assumes that phenotypical differences in the expression of narcissism can be organized on a spectrum ranging from grandiosity to vulnerability; at the core stand entitlement and self-importance.

    “This model assumes that phenotypical differences in the expression of narcissism can be organized on a spectrum ranging from grandiosity to vulnerability; at the core stand entitlement and self-importance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Krizan and Herlache, 2017 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These opposing tendencies will presumably lead to experiences of cognitive and affective dissonance, which parallels previous findings showing that high narcissism goes along with discrepancies such as high explicit but low implicit self-esteem.

    “These opposing tendencies will presumably lead to experiences of cognitive and affective dissonance, which parallels previous findings showing that high narcissism goes along with discrepancies such as high explicit but low implicit self-esteem (Jordan et al., 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jordan et al., 2003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    At high levels of narcissism (upper 10% of the NPI distribution), narcissistic grandiosity is more likely to be accompanied by narcissistic vulnerability, which could indicate a possible transition to pathological narcissism.

    “However, at high levels of narcissism (upper 10% of the NPI distribution), narcissistic grandiosity is more likely to be accompanied by narcissistic vulnerability, which could indicate a possible transition topathological narcissism.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The top 10% of the NPI distribution represents high narcissism.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    When exposed to parenting styles and sociocultural factors that convey core narcissistic beliefs, extraverted and introverted individuals might respond differently, either developing a more extraverted (grandiose) or introverted (vulnerable) narcissistic personality.

    “When exposed to parenting styles and sociocultural factors that convey core narcissistic beliefs (“I am superior”), extraverted and introverted individuals might respond differently, either developing a more extraverted (grandiose; “I am superior and I will let you know it”) or introverted (vulnerable; “Secretly, I know that I am superior”) narcissistic personality.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Grandiosity and vulnerability may also be understood in terms of states, not only traits.

    “Also, as Gore and Widiger (2016) emphasize, grandiosity and vulnerability may also be understood in terms of states, not only traits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gore and Widiger, 2016 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    These states can fluctuate in the way that grandiose narcissists experience episodes of increased vulnerability and social withdrawal.

    “These states can fluctuate in the way that grandiose narcissists experience episodes of increased vulnerability and social withdrawal (ibid.).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gore and Widiger, 2016 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Other research suggests parental overvaluation and parental coldness during childhood as possible candidates for common social-developmental factors that might promote both narcissistic personality tendencies.

    “However, other research suggests parental overvaluation (Brummelmann et al., 2015a,b) and parental coldness (Otway and Vignoles, 2006) during childhood as possible candidates.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brummelmann et al., 2015a,b

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Otway and Vignoles, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Our data cannot directly test the moderation hypothesis that intro-/extraversion acts as a moderating variable in the development of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, as it cannot speak to the common social-developmental factor(s) that might promote both narcissistic personality tendencies.

    “Our data cannot directly test this moderation hypothesis, as it cannot speak to the common social-developmental factor(s) that might promote both narcissistic personality tendencies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    From the state perspective, one would not expect a very high but rather a moderate correlation between the two trait measures, as the individual's self-concept may still be dominated by grandiosity and vulnerable aspect might be reported with greater reluctance.

    “From this point of view, one would not expect a very high but rather a moderate correlation between the two trait measures, as the individual’s self-concept may still be dominated by grandiosity and vulnerable aspect might be reported with greater reluctance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The interpretation of the results reported here is restricted to the specific personality measures used: the NPI and the HSNS.

    “Importantly, the interpretation of the results reported here is restricted to the specific personality measures used: we used the NPI and the HSNS, which can be conceived the long-time standard measures of grandiose and vulnerable (hypersensitive) narcissism.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The NPI and HSNS are valid measures of grandiose and vulnerable (hypersensitive) narcissism, respectively.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Miller et al. (2017) found that neuroticism was suited better than extraversion to differentiate narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability.

    “Recently, however, Miller et al. (2017) found that neuroticism was suited better than extraversion to differentiate narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Miller et al., 2017 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Grandiose and vulnerable aspects are intrinsically correlated in the PNI.

    “For instance, grandiose and vulnerable aspects are intrinsically correlated in the PNI (Pincus et al., 2009)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pincus et al., 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Controlling for interindividual differences in intro-/extraversion can be viewed as a removal of variance that cannot only be attributed to the specific narcissism measures, but also to the more fundamental personality trait of intro-/extraversion (in terms of general self- or other-orientation).

    “As argued above, however, controlling for differences in intro-/extraversion can also be viewed as a removal of variance that cannot only be attributed to the specific narcissism measures, but also to the more fundamental personality trait of intro-/extraversion (in terms of general self- or other-orientation).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The majority of previous studies reported zero correlation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism.

    “However, the majority of previous studies reported zero correlation”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The differentiation of grandiose and vulnerable aspects might depend more upon neuroticism.

    “and their differentiation might depend more upon neuroticism (Miller et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Miller et al., 2017 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Grandiose and vulnerable (hypersensitive) narcissism are not distinct traits, but rather different manifestations of the same phenomenon, which aligns well with clinical theories of narcissism.

    “From this study, it can be concluded that grandiose and vulnerable (hypersensitive) narcissism are not distinct traits, but rather different manifestations of the same phenomenon, which aligns well with clinical theories of narcissism.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The NPI and HSNS are valid measures of grandiose and vulnerable (hypersensitive) narcissism, respectively.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Intro-/extraversion is a highly genetically determined trait with a clear biological basis.

    “As argued above, intro-/extraversion is a highly genetically determined trait with a clear biological basis (Eysenck, 1967; McCartney et al., 1990; Loehlin, 1992)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Eysenck, 1967

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites McCartney et al., 1990 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Loehlin, 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The sample investigated in this study, although large, did not allow for a powerful test of the hypothesis that the association between grandiose and vulnerable aspects toward the upper end of the distribution is stronger in men.

    “The sample investigated in this study, although large, did not allow for a powerful test of this hypothesis, but future studies could address this question.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Another prominent model of (grandiose) narcissism distinguishes narcissistic admiration from rivalry.

    “Another prominent model of (grandiose) narcissism distinguishes narcissistic admiration from rivalry (Back et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Back et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Rivalry encompasses some features of narcissistic vulnerability but appears to tap more into the antagonistic aspects.

    “Though rivalry encompasses some features of narcissistic vulnerability, it appears to tap more into the antagonistic aspects (Krizan and Herlache, 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Krizan and Herlache, 2017 source

      Not checked in the free run.

38 of 38

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The NPI and HSNS are valid measures of grandiose and vulnerable (hypersensitive) narcissism, respectively.

    “we used the NPI and the HSNS, which can be conceived the long-time standard measures of grandiose and vulnerable (hypersensitive) narcissism.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The top 10% of the NPI distribution represents high narcissism.

    “at high levels of narcissism (upper 10% of the NPI distribution)”
2 of 2

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 is characterized by defensiveness, withdrawal, emotional dysregulation, and hypersensitivity to others' evaluations.

    “In contrast, the vulnerable type is characterized by defensiveness, withdrawal, emotional dysregulation, and hypersensitivity to others’ evaluations [38].”

    From “It’s not you, it’s me”: identity disturbance as the main contributor to interpersonal problems in pathological narcissism (2023) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Introduction describes vulnerable narcissists as defensive, introverted, and avoidant, supporting defensiveness and withdrawal. The Abstract describes hypersensitivity, but does not specify sensitivity to others’ evaluations. The Introduction discusses an association with neuroticism and a possible emotionally unstable form of narcissism, but does not establish emotional dysregulation as a defining feature. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism may reflect both sides of a narcissistic 'coin' that may be regularly oscillating, inter-related and state dependent.

    “While the differences in presentation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism appear manifest, it has been argued that they reflect both sides of a narcissistic ‘coin’ [9] that may be regularly oscillating, inter-related and state dependent [6, 18–22].”

    From Living with pathological narcissism: a qualitative study (2020) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Conclusion describes grandiose and vulnerable narcissism as different manifestations of the same phenomenon. The Introduction reports co-occurring or oscillating states in patients with narcissistic personality disorder, and Discussion > Limitations and Prospects says these states can fluctuate. Neither passage establishes that oscillation occurs regularly or across narcissism generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: χ2(10) = 15.46, p = .11

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .11 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .116. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .11 · recomputed p = .116

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upχ²(10) = 15.46reported p = .11 · recomputed p = .116

    “χ2(10) = 15.46, p = .11”

  • Not confirmedz = -2.66reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .008

    “(z = -2.66, p = .004”

  • Consistentχ²(72) = 187.73reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(72) = 187.73, p < .001”

  • Consistentχ²(102) = 223.6reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(102) = 223.60, p < .001”

  • Consistentχ²(30) = 39.39reported p = .12 · recomputed p = .117

    “χ2(30) = 39.39, p = .12”

  • Consistentχ²(66) = 192.81reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(66) = 192.81, p < .001”

  • Consistentχ²(56) = 178.38reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(56) = 178.38, p < .001”

  • Consistentχ²(119) = 339.51reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(119) = 339.51, p < .001”

  • Consistentχ²(140) = 351.53reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(140) = 351.53, p < .001”

  • Consistentχ²(21) = 18.12reported p = .64 · recomputed p = .641

    “χ2(21) = 18.12, p = .64”

10 of 10

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Reported z-test p-value is one-tailed despite a two-tailed testing rule

    Minor

    For z = -2.66, the two-tailed p-value is approximately 0.008; 0.004 is the one-tailed value. The methods state that significance tests were performed two-tailed. The difference remains significant at α = 0.05.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Kagan, 1994, Galen’s Prophecy.
  2. Kohut, 1977, The Restoration of the Self.
  3. Paulhus, 2001, Normal narcissism: two minimalist accounts., Psychol. Inq., 12, 228

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jauk, E., Weigle, E., Lehmann, K., Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C.
Affiliations
University of Graz (AT)
Corresponding author
Jauk, Emanuel
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2017-09-13
Volume
8
Pages
1600-1600
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01600
PMC
PMC5601176
OpenAlex
W2755118073
Semantic Scholar
e947b6f87c84c4298f5a34726a2a5d748d199e12
Cited by
154
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8
FWCI
14.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Unipub UB Graz (Universität Graz) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Austrian Science Fund (P 23914)
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
grandiose narcissism, vulnerable narcissism, hypersensitive narcissism, introversion, extraversion, pathological narcissism

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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