Meta-cognitive and interpersonal difficulties in overt and covert narcissism
Introduction
The conflict between meta-cognitive processes1 and interpersonal relationships are considered central to the maintenance of narcissism (Dimaggio et al., 2002, Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001a), whereby inner experience of affect, perception of self (identity-impairment), perception of others (empathy) negatively impact interpersonal functioning (APA, 2000).
Two explanatory models of narcissism link meta-cognitive processes and interpersonal difficulties. Morf and Rhodewalt’s (2001a) ‘Dynamic Self-Regulatory Processing Model of Narcissism’ (DSRM-N) proposes that the interaction of intrapersonal processes, interpersonal strategies and social feedback influence narcissistic behavioral patterns. Vulnerability, due to limited self-knowledge and inability to self-regulate, is juxtaposed by a sense of grandiosity and entitlement, resulting in internal conflict. Meta-cognitive deficits prevent this conflict being recognized or resolved. Consequently those with narcissistic traits seek social approval to bolster self-esteem. Similarly interpersonal difficulties mean attempts to engineer positive feedback fail, which increases aversive affect-states and further oscillations between grandiosity and vulnerability. Dimaggio et al.’s (2002) Integrated Narcissism Model (INM) also suggests that a non-integrated mind state and inability to self-reflect leave narcissistic individuals excessively dependent on others to confirm a sense of identity and regulate their negative affective states. However, an inability to express their inner states or decentrate2 results in problematic interpersonal relations. This interpersonal cycle maintains narcissistic dysfunction.
However, Wink (1991) distinguished between two statistically independent forms of narcissism, Overt (ON) characterized by grandiosity, entitlement and self-absorption and Covert (CN) characterized by hypersensitivity, vulnerability and dependence on others. Both forms are thought to share common meta-cognitive deficits which result in conflicting feelings of grandiosity and vulnerability, however they cope by suppressing one and projecting the other, resulting in different presentations (McWilliams, 1994).
This suggests that beneath the grandiose exterior of ON, a vulnerable depleted inner-self exists, while CN project emotional vulnerability and suppress entitlement (Akhtar and Thomson, 1982, Broucek, 1991, Kohut, 1971).
Hence, although both models outline the interplay between meta-cognitive and interpersonal difficulties, neither distinguishes between ON and CN. Similarly, understanding of the relationship between meta-cognitive and interpersonal presentation in ON and CN is limited to fairly descriptive accounts. This paper aims to investigate whether presentational differences between ON and CN lead to different meta-cognitive processes (affect-dysregulation, empathy and identity cohesion) and interpersonal difficulties. It also explores whether meta-cognition mediates interpersonal presentation.
Section snippets
Meta-cognitive factors
Affect Regulation is defined as conscious or unconscious procedures which maximize pleasant and minimize unpleasant emotions (Westen, 1995). Poor affect regulation leads to increased affective intensity, lability and distress (Mendoza-Denton, Ayduk, Mischel, Shoda, & Testa, 2001). Difficulty regulating affect is considered a central feature of narcissism, although empirical findings remain inconclusive (Krystal, 1998). Some studies suggest emotional lability is associated with ON (Emmons, 1987,
Method
Participants (n = 177) were recruited from two samples; 68 undergraduates and 109 from local communities incentivized with a draw-prize.
Mean age was 27.56 years (SD = 11.94, range 18–76). 72% of participants were Australian, were proficient in English, and had completed secondary-school education.
Measures
ON was measured using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988) a 40-item inventory. Items are based on DSM-III criteria for NPD, however are sensitive to differences in non-clinical populations. Reliability (α = .83 to .85) and construct validity are established (Emmons, 1987). Test–retest reliability was established (r = .72) (Emmons, 1987).
CN was measured with the Hypersensitivity Narcissism Scale (HSNS; Hendin & Cheek, 1997), a 10-item measure of narcissistic
Results
The two measures of narcissism were normally distributed; the mean for the NPI was 17.5 (SD = 6.97, range 3–36), and 4.1 (SD = 2.18, range 0–9) for the HSNS.
Construct Independence: Zero-order correlations confirmed the presence of linear composite variables, representing ON (NPI) and CN (HSNS) that could be treated as independent. A significant but weak relationship was detected between ON and CN (r = .267, p < 0.0005), however the 7.1% overlap (R2 = .071 × 100) was considered to result from high power,
Discussion
This study supported assertions that there are two independent forms of narcissism characterized by stable, but different, meta-cognitive styles. Both share identity difficulties but differ in patterns of association with affect-dysregulation, empathy and interpersonal problems. Meta-cognitive factors do appear to influence interpersonal style differently in ON and CN. These findings have implications for future theory and understanding of narcissism.
Most striking is that ON and CN were both
Conclusion
This research has contributed empirically to understanding of narcissism and further delineates between ON and CN. Findings demonstrate that meta-cognitive factors do indeed appear to impact interpersonal difficulties, however shows an important distinction between the different presentations of ON and CN. While both ON and CN appear to experience impaired identity, their meta-cognitive processes and interpersonal interactions are markedly different. By considering ON and CN independently, it
References (34)
- et al.
Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reexamination of Murray’s narcism scale
Journal of Research in Personality
(1997) - et al.
Statistical methods for the social sciences
(1997) - et al.
Overview: Narcissistic personality disorder
American Journal of Psychiatry
(1982) - APA (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington,...
- et al.
Regulating affect interpersonally: When low self-esteem leads to greater enhancement
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1989) IASC. Inventory of altered self-capacities: Professional manual
(2000)Shame and the self
(1991)Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1983)- Davis, M., & Kraus, L. (1991). Dispositional empathy and social relationships. In W. H. Jones, & Perlman, D. (Eds.),...
- et al.
Metacognition, states of mind, cognitive biases, and interpersonal cycles: Proposal for an integrated narcissism model
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration
(2002)
Narcissism: Theory and measurement
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Personality and forgiveness
Emotional conflict and well-being: Relation to perceived availability, daily utilization, and observer reports of social support
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Inventory of interpersonal problems manual. The Psychological Corporation
A contemporary reading of “On narcissism”
The analysis of the self
Affect regulation and narcissism: Trauma, alexithymia and psychosomatic illness in narcissistic patients
Cited by (51)
Narcissistic vulnerability and binge eating in adolescence: The mediating role of emotion dysregulation and dissociative experiences
2024, Journal of Affective Disorders ReportsThe metacognitive abilities of narcissists: Individual differences between grandiose and vulnerable subtypes
2024, Personality and Individual DifferencesNarcissism and academic performance: A case of suppression
2022, Personality and Individual DifferencesThe interplay between vulnerable and grandiose narcissism, emotion dysregulation, and distress tolerance in adolescents
2021, Personality and Individual DifferencesCitation Excerpt :Poor emotion regulation specifically may hinder these social goals. Prior research with adults has found a positive relation between vulnerable narcissism and dysregulation, but results pertaining to grandiose narcissism are mixed (Cheshure, Zeigler-Hill, Sauls, Vrabel, & Lehtman, 2020; Given-Wilson, McIlwain, & Warburton, 2011; Jonason & Krause, 2013; H. Zhang, Luo, Zhao, Zhang, & Wang, 2017; H. Zhang, Wang, You, Lü, & Luo, 2015). Emotion regulation is important for adolescent social functioning (e.g., peer relationships, prosocial behaviors, social competence), and dysregulation is implicated in the development and maintenance of psychopathology (i.e., anxiety, depression, aggression; Mclaughlin, Hatzenbuehler, Mennin, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2011).
Automatic imitation is reduced in narcissists but only in egocentric perspective-takers
2021, Acta PsychologicaCitation Excerpt :Reduced empathy and reduced perspective taking have both been proposed to lie at the heart of the interpersonal difficulties associated with narcissism (Hepper et al., 2014; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; P.J. Watson, Grisham, Trotter, & Biderman, 1984; P.J. Watson & Morris, 1991). This view is strongly supported by the consistent finding of a negative association between narcissism and self-reported measures of empathy and perspective taking (Delič, Novak, Kovačič, & Avsec, 2011; Given-Wilson, McIlwain, & Warburton, 2011; Hepper et al., 2014; P.K. Jonason & Krause, 2013; Munro, Bore, & Powis, 2005; Ritter et al., 2011; Vonk, Zeigler-hill, Mayhew, & Mercer, 2013; P.J. Watson et al., 1984; P.J. Watson & Biderman, 1994; P.J. Watson, Biderman, & Sawrie, 1994; P.J. Watson, Little, Sawrie, & Biderman, 1992; P.J. Watson & Morris, 1991) and performance-based measures of empathy (Mota et al., 2019; Vonk et al., 2013; M. Zajenkowski, Maciantowicz, Szymaniak, & Urban, 2018). Yet, empathy and perspective taking are complex multifaceted constructs encompassing distinct mechanisms ranging from basic sensory-motor coupling to high-level social reasoning (e.g., Bukowski, 2014; Decety, 2004; Lamm, Bukowski, & Silani, 2016; Preston & de Waal, 2002) and therefore the question of which specific social-cognitive mechanism are altered in narcissists remains open.
Justifications of entitlement in grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: The roles of injustice and superiority
2021, Personality and Individual DifferencesCitation Excerpt :Thus, individuals high in vulnerable narcissism may sometimes report superiority, or feeling inherently deserving, but what distinguishes them from grandiose narcissism is their relatively stronger tendency to focus on ways they feel subjectively worse off. This focus may be fostered by the discrepancy that individuals high in vulnerable narcissism are so sensitive to where their grandiose fantasies of importance are met with a lack of validation or recognition (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Given-Wilson et al., 2011). Their high uncertainty, insecurity, and prevention focus (Freis, 2018) likely further this rumination making concerns of subjective injustice a more feasible way to consistently defend their feelings of entitlement.