Search

Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism share some core features (e.g., entitlement, self-absorption) but differ in other important ways (e.g., self-esteem). To reconcile these differing characteristics, we predicted that differences in perceived agency mediate the association between narcissistic subtypes and differences in self-esteem. One hundred college students completed self-report measures of grandiose narcissism, vulnerable narcissism, explicit global self-esteem, and perceived agency. As predicted, grandiose narcissism was positively associated with agency and self-esteem, whereas vulnerable narcissism was negatively associated with agency and self-esteem. Perceived agency also mediated the associations between each narcissistic subtype and self-esteem. Furthermore, a partial correlation showed that when controlling for agency, the previously null correlation between measures of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism became significantly positive. These findings indicate that agency serves as a primary differentiator between the narcissistic subtypes.

Lack of effort is a common index of self-handicapping. Yet, withholding effort is subject to a number of other interpretations. In two studies, we tested whether men would engage in effortful self-handicapping (practice more) and how this compares to effort withdrawal. When men believed that practice could be harmful to future performance, those high in trait self-handicapping were expected to behaviorally self-handicap by exerting effort. This prediction was confirmed in both a novel non-contingent-success setting (Study 1) and a more realistic contingent-success setting (Study 2). We suggest that to achieve a strong and clear indication of behavioral self-handicapping, researchers consider effort expenditure, as it is less susceptible to alternative explanations than effort withdrawal. Implications for refinements to self-handicapping theory are discussed.

Regulatory focus theory [Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). New York: Academic Press.] argues that concerns with growth and nurturance (i.e., a promotion focus) and concerns with safety and security (i.e., a prevention focus) produce different motives and perception. The current studies test whether regulatory focus also affects individuals’ strivings for self-evaluation. Specifically, we argue that a promotion or a prevention focus directs the self-evaluation process to self-esteem or self-certainty, respectively. Two studies supported this prediction by demonstrating that regulatory focus affects the strength of self-evaluation goals and individuals’ reactions to goal failure. In Study 1, we found that a promotion focus led to a stronger self-esteem goal (as measured by greater accessibility of esteem-related words), whereas a prevention focus led to a stronger self-certainty goal (as measured by greater accessibility of certainty-related words). In Study 2, a promotion failure led to lower self-esteem than a prevention failure, but a prevention failure led to lower self-certainty than a promotion failure. This research suggests an unrecognized role of nurturance and safety concerns in understanding the self-evaluation process.

Self-report distributions of self-evaluations are proposed to convey information beyond unidimensional (e.g., Likert-type) measures. Two studies tested the hypothesis that the shape of a distribution-type measure of self-evaluation of intellectual ability, as well as the central tendency and variability, is a meaningful indicator of individual differences. Specifically, one correlational study showed that measures of central tendency, variability, and skew were uniquely associated with self-ratings of ability level, self-certainty, and implicit theories of intelligence, respectively. An experiment explored the finding that incremental theorists (Dweck, 1999) reported more negatively skewed distributions than entity theorists. Only incremental theorists who wrote essays about recent intellectual growth created negatively skewed distributions; entity theorists did not. Evidence supports the hypotheses that self-report distributions are multiply informative and idiographic measures of self-evaluation, that negative skew on intellectual ability distributions can represent perceptions of growth, and that incremental theorists typically take this perspective when evaluating their own intellectual ability.

An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that actors' causal attributions for success and failure would be affected by the degree of perceived choice they had in taking an action. Actors either were assigned, or selected one of four therapeutic outlines which were expected to have either a positive or a negative effect, and which actually had either a positive or negative outcome on a purportedly phobic person. For negative outcomes, it was predicted that perceived choice would induce a sense of personal responsibility when a positive outcome was expected, and lead actors to attribute more responsibility to themselves as a result. Results supported this prediction. For positive outcomes, however, actors attributed responsibility to themselves regardless of expectancy or choice. Actors were also found to attribute generally more responsibility to themselves for positive than negative outcomes. Results were discussed in terms of self-esteem motivation and the information available to the actor.

An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that actors' and observers' causal attributions are a function of their focus of attention. In the presence of observer-subjects, actor-subjects made a choice among several art works in a supposed decision-making study. The experiment was a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design with the factors (1) source of attribution (actors, observers); (2) camera (actor videotaped, actor not videotaped); and (3) situational stability (stable, dynamic environment). As predicted by the focus of attention-causal attribution notion, it was found that actors attributed more causality to the situation than observers under normal circumstances, when the camera was not operative, but that videotaping the actor reversed the usual actor-observer pattern such that actors attributed less causality to the situation than did observers. Further, when the environment was stable, actors attributed more causality to the situation in the no camera condition than in the camera condition, while observers attributed less to the situation in the no camera conditions than in the camera conditions. Additionally, both actors and observers attributed more causality to the situation when the environment was dynamic than when the environment was stable.

Several years ago a debate appeared in this journal concerning the utility of the “bogus pipeline” attitude measurement technique. Cherry, Byrne, and Mitchell ( Journal of Research in Personality , 1976, 10 , 69–75) found that the bogus pipeline technique was vulnerable to demand characteristics, especially among persons high in social desirability. However, Gaes, Quigley-Fernandez, and Tedeschi ( Journal of Research in Personality , 1978, 12 , 189–192) criticized this study on methodological grounds. The present conceptual replication failed entirely to produce the Cherry et al. finding; indeed, the present data show a tendency for responsiveness to demand characteristics only among subjects responding via “paper and pencil.” This finding is consistent with the traditional conceptualization of the bogus pipeline procedures and supports the meaningfulness of data obtained using the technique within the impression management literature. Interestingly, social desirability did not enter in any way into the effects; this fact raises some intriguing questions about the social desirability construct itself.