Narcissistic Omnipotence and Uniqueness: Promising Measures of the Narcissism Phenotype

1. Narcissistic Omnipotence and Uniqueness: Promising Measures of the Narcissism Phenotype Paul C. Stey, Ashleigh A. Renteria, Guanqi Hang, & Daniel K. Lapsley Available at: www.nd.edu/~dlapsle1/Lab Background There is an emerging consensus that the narcissism phenotype includes both grandiosity and vulnerability types, although DSM criteria have narrowed to focus exclusively on “overt” grandiosity, primarily assessed by the NPI (Rasin & Hall 1979) . The NPI may not be particularly tailored to capture narcissism in adolescence. Further, the construct validity of the NPI has also been called into question (Brown, Budzik, & Tamborski, 2009). To this end, Lapsley and colleagues have argued that adolescent narcissism may be of a different kind than that which is captured by a pathological perspective (Hill & Lapsley, in press). In this view, normal adolescent narcissism takes the form of subjective omnipotence characterized by "grandiose ideas, plans and views of the self" (Sarnoff, 1988, p. 26). On the other hand, narcissistic vulnerability has been called the “covert” form of narcissism, and is associated with hypersensitivity, along with “a proneness to embarrassment and shame, acute self-consciousness and shyness, and painful questions about self-esteem and self-worth” (Bleiberg, 1994, p. 31). Recent theory (Lapsley & Stey, in press) suggests that narcissistic vulnerability may be particularly crucial for understanding adolescents, particularly when manifested as a pronounced sense of personal uniqueness (“Mom, you don’t know how it feels!”) Purpose (i.) Explore promising new measures of the vulnerability and grandiose narcissism phenotypes. The Personal Uniqueness Scale (PUS) assesses the conviction that one’s subjective experience cannot be understood by others or meaningfully shared. The Subjective Omnipotence Scale (SOS) is designed to measure the grandiose phenotype of narcissism (ii.) Examine the structural and psychometric properties of the PUS and SOS. We determine their convergent and discriminant validity and evaluate the construct-valid pattern of association with indices of mental health and adaptation. Method Participants: 269 undergraduates (144 females; Mage = 20.3) Instruments and Reliabilities: Grandiose Narcissism: Subjective Omnipotence Scale (SOS) α = .93 Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979) α = .72 Vulnerable Narcissism: Personal Uniqueness Scale (PUS; α = .91 Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS; Hendin & Cheek, 1997) α =.74 Table 1. Association among Indices of Grandiosity and Vulnerability Narcissism and Adjustment Problems and Positive Adjustment • Results • As Table 1 indicates, Subjective Omnipotence and Personal Uniqueness show strong evidence of convergent validity with grandiose (NPI) and vulnerable (Hypersensitive) narcissism. • In addition, hierarchical regression analysis (Table 2) indicates Subjective Omnipotence predicts psychological well-being even after accounting for the influence of the NPI. • Finally, Personal Uniqueness demonstrated a similar pattern—accounting for variance beyond the influence of Hypersensitive Narcissism when predicting Depression, Somatization, and Phobic Anxiety. • Conclusions and Implications The results indicate that the Subjective Omnipotence Scale and the Personal Uniqueness Scale are reliable and valid assessments of the grandiose and vulnerable dimensions of narcissism, respectively. Omnipotence is a robust predictor of numerous positive dimensions of well-being, self-esteem and college adjustment, while counterindicating indices of psychological symptoms. In turn personal uniqueness is a strong predictor of college adjustment problems and psychological symptoms and predicts a poor profile of self-esteem and psychological well-being. Moreover, these new scales predict these variables over and above other indices of grandiosity and vulnerable narcissism. Table 2. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Psychological Well-Being Midwestern Psychological Association Chicago, April 2011