Personality and Mental Health 8: 209–217 (2014) Published online 14 April 2014 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/pmh.1262
A Big Five facet analysis of sub-clinical narcissism: Understanding boldness in terms of well-known personality traits
ADRIAN FURNHAM1 AND JOHN CRUMP2, 1Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK; 2UCL, London, UK ABSTRACT This study aimed to examine a Big Five ‘bright-side’ analysis of a sub-clinical personality disorder, i.e. narcissism. A total of 6957 British adults completed the NEO-PI-R, which measures the Big Five Personality factors at the domain and the facet level, as well as the Hogan Development Survey (HDS), which has a measure of Narcissism called Bold as one of its dysfunctional interpersonal tendencies. Correlation and regression results confirmed many of the associations between the Big Five domains and facets (NEO-PI-R) and sub-clinical narcissism. The Bold (Narcissism) scale from the HDS was the criterion variable in all analyses. Bold individuals are disagreeable extraverts with very low scores on facet Modesty but moderately high scores on Assertiveness, Competence and Achievement Striving. The study confirmed work using different population groups and different measures. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Introduction This study looks at the relationship between ‘normal’ personality traits measured at the facet level and sub-clinical narcissism, which at the clinical level is one of the most studied personality disorders (Dimaggio, 2014). Many recent studies have attempted to compare normal and pathological personality (Aluja, Blanch, & Balada, 2013). Some have compared the five-factor ‘normal’, ‘bright-side’ traits with the Axis II ‘pathological’, ‘dark-side personality disorders’ (Henriques-Calado, Duarte-Silva, Junqueira, Sacoto, & Keong, 2014), as will be performed in this study. This study attempts to replicate and extend previous studies in this area (Bastiaansen, Rossi,
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Schotte, & De Fruyt, 2011; De Fruyt et al., 2009; Samuel & Widiger, 2008) by using a different but now widely used measure of sub-clinical narcissism (called boldness) and the most widely used personality questionnaires and on a large, non-clinical, non-student population (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). Differential psychologists nearly always feel the need to ‘locate’ all individual difference measures (both normal and abnormal) in five-factor personality space, which has been for 20 years and remains currently the most accepted model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Furnham & Crump, 2005). The focus of this research is on sub-clinical narcissism. Problems arise in this area because of the popular use of the term, which may be used
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
210
Furnham and Crump
carelessly and inaccurately with almost exclusive derogatory and demeaning implications. The term narcissism will be used in this paper to discuss the psychiatric use of the term and research, which used specific tests to assess it, whereas the term bold will be used when discussing the measure used here and the studies using the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) measure used in this study (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). Narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), as described in DSM-IV and DSM V (APA, 2000, 2013), is pathological personality trait (or disorder). Individuals with heightened narcissistic scores often cause serious interpersonal, organizational and societal problems for others. It is a widely researched personality disorder with a large number of clinically anchored and psychometrically evaluated measures designed to assess it (Furnham, Milner, Akhtar, & De Fruyt, 2014). There is, however, considerable disagreement surrounding whether the classical portrayal of NPD is valid. For example, narcissists with low self-esteem who are threatened show less anger than narcissists with high self-esteem. This has resulted in the suggestion that the classical account of NPD has two dimensions (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Wink, 1991). The two dimensions of NPD are often referred to as grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Miller et al. (2011) argued that the primary feature shared by both dimensions of narcissism is a tendency to act antagonistically towards others and that they differ on many other features. However, vulnerable narcissism seems less common in adults than with adolescents. Further, few of the well-used measures of Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), including the one used in this study, differentiate between the two types. In the management literature, it has been argued that there is only a fine line between ‘everyday hubris’ and ‘sub-clinical narcissism’ (Owen & Davidson, 2009). An issue of particular interest to work psychologists is the detection of sub-clinical as well as clinical narcissism in
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
successful people. It has been suggested that some of the features of narcissism can be, at least in the short term, beneficial in working life (Bollaert & Petit, 2010; Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007, 2011; Craig & Amernic, 2011; Furnham, Hyde, & Trickey, 2014; Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012). Indeed, there is now a rich literature on the dark triad of personality, which includes (clinical) narcissism as one of the three factors and which has been shown to be predictive of long-term (poor) job performance (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). Personality traits and disorders There have been various attempts to integrate ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ personality theories/ structures usually conceived of as personality traits and personality disorders (Widiger, 2011). Indeed, there are numerous important papers that attempt to link together these two systems (Widiger, Costa, & McCrae, 2001). Widiger (2011) attempted a theoretical analysis of the relationship between personality disorders and the Big Five, at both domain and facet level. In it, he indicated the hypothetical association between the possible 30 facets and (clinical) Narcissism. Four facets are highlighted as high: N6 (Vulnerability), E3 (Assertiveness), C1 (Competence) and C4 (Achievement Striving). Two facets were posited as being negatively associated with narcissism: A5 (Modesty) and A6 (Tender-Minded). This ‘speculative’ work was updated in an important review by Samuel and Widiger (2008) who combined the data from 16 studies with a total N of 3207. Most of the participants were students (12 groups) and some outpatients. Further, they had completed very different personality disorder instruments, yet nearly always the same personality instrument (NEO-PI-R) that was used in this study. They analysed their results at both the domain and facet level and compared their results with those of an earlier and similar study by Saulsman and Page (2004). They showed that
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
Big Five facet analysis
Narcissism was correlated modestly positively with Neuroticism (r = 0.11) but highly negatively with Agreeableness (r = 0.37). The facet level analysis showed that Narcissism was correlated positively with N2: Angry Hostility (0.23) but negatively with all six Agreeableness facets particularly A2: Straightforward ( 0.31) and Modesty ( 0.37). More recently, Bastiaansen et al. (2011) hypothesized the relationship between NPD and the Big Five at the facet level on the basis of three earlier studies, which showed reasonable agreement, but also some disagreement, around some facets of Neuroticism and Extraversion. The review suggested agreed positive correlations with four facets (N2, N4, O1 and C4) and negative correlations with three (A3, A5 and A6). Their analysis showed that NPD was most closely related to low Agreeableness. This study sought to confirm these results with a sub-clinical measure of NPD not previously investigated in the aforementioned studies. This study This study attempts to replicate these findings on the basis of a large adult sample completing a standard measure of ‘normal’ personality: the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1985) and the now extensively used HDS (Hogan & Hogan, 2009), which is a measure based on the Personality Disorders categories but useful with normal populations and has a Narcissism scale labelled ‘Bold’ (Furnham & Trickey, 2011). The Hogan ‘dark-side’ measure is now extensively used in organizational research and practice to measure personality disorders in the ‘normal population’ (Carson et al., 2012; De Fruyt et al., 2009; Furnham & Crump, 2005). Its aim is partly to help selectors and individuals themselves diagnose how they typically react under work stress. It has the advantage of being psychometrically valid, of measuring all the personality disorders and being appropriate for a ‘normal’ population. The HDS was explicitly based on the DSM-IV-TR Axis II Personality Disorder descriptions, but it was not developed for the assessment of all DSM-IV-TR disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1994,
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2000). The HDS focuses only on the core construct of each disorder from a dimensional perspective (Hogan & Hogan, 2001, p. 41). An overview of the item selection guidelines can be found in the work of Hogan and Hogan (2001, 2009). The HDS has been cross-validated with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) personality disorder scales. Fico, Hogan, and Hogan (2000) reported coefficient α’s between 0.50 and 0.70 with an average of 0.64 and test–retest reliabilities (n = 60) over a 3-month interval ranging from 0.50 to 0.80, with an average of 0.68. There were no mean-level differences between sexes, racial/ethnic groups, and younger vs. older persons (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Various relatively small-scale studies have used the HDS and have shown it to be a robust, reliable and valid instrument (De Fruyt et al., 2009; Furnham & Crump, 2005; Rolland & De Fruyt, 2003). This study was concerned with the Bold measure derived from the HDS. The HDS gives scores that are labelled ‘no risk, low risk, moderate risk and high risk’. The concept is that high scores can be an indicator of business derailment, because under pressure, a successful and functioning person may resort to having inflated views of one’s competence and worth. The competency analysis suggests that those with high or very high scores have too great a confidence in their convictions and tend not to seek the opinions of others, are not open to feedback regarding their core issues and values, and appear demanding and too task oriented rather than people oriented. Hogan and Hogan (2001) noted that bold people expect to be liked, admired, respected, attended to, praised, complimented and indulged. Their most important and obvious characteristic is a sense of entitlement, excessive self-esteem and quite often an expectation of success that often leads to real success. What is most distinctive about very bold people is their self-assurance that often gives them charisma. Hogan and Hogan (2009) argued that they are the first to speak in a group and they hold forth with great confidence, even when they are wrong. They so completely expect to succeed, and take more credit for success
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
211
212
Furnham and Crump
than is warranted or fair, that they refuse to acknowledge failure, errors or mistakes. Bold individuals can be energetic, charismatic, leader-like and willing to take the initiative to get projects moving. They can be relatively successful in management, sales and entrepreneurship, but usually only for short periods. They are, however, often arrogant, vain, overbearing, demanding, selfdeceived and pompous; yet they are so colourful and engaging that they often attract followers. Their self-confidence is attractive. Naively, people believe they have to have something to be so confident about. As a result of their inability to acknowledge failure or even mistakes and the way they resist coaching and ignore negative feedback, they are unable to learn from experience. Bold individuals can function at high levels. Indeed, for many jobs, boldness and self-confidence as defined by this measure are highly valued. Indeed, Furnham, Trickey, and Hyde (2012) found that Bold scores were associated with managerial potential and success in private sector jobs. Recently, in a longitudinal study of over 900 American army cadets, Harms, Spain, and Hannah (2011) found the HDS Bold score positively associated with numerous positive judgements. This study is concerned with which of the 30 facets (six for each of the Big Five Personality scores) is related to Boldness, the HDS concept of NPD. This study could be seen, in part, as a validation of that measure. Studies using ‘clinical’ measures of narcissism (such as the NPI) suggest that it is predominantly the facets of Agreeableness (negatively) and Neuroticism (positively) that will be associated with NPD. This study seeks to replicate finding a different measure of NPD and in a large ‘normal’ adult population. Method Participants A total of 6957 British working adults took part in this study of which 1493 were female and 5464 male. Their mean age was 42.36 years (standard deviation (SD) = 7.12 years) with the range between 23 and
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
65 years. They were nearly all (over 95%) graduates and in middle-class occupations, with English as their mother tongue. Measure NEO-PI-R. The NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240-item inventory, assessing the five-factor model domains of Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness to experience (O), Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness (C), with six facets (eight items each) structured under the domains. Respondents are requested to provide self-descriptions using a 5-point Likert scale. Its psychometric properties and validity have been well documented cross-culturally (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005). No item-level information was available for the current sample, but Cronbach α coefficients for the domains with the facets as the indicators were 0.84, 0.79, 0.74, 0.72 and 0.82 for N, E, O, A and C respectively. The means were in the normal range for adults. Hogan Development Survey. Hogan Development Survey (Hogan & Hogan, 2009) consists of 154 items that are concerned with how the respondent typically interacts with family, friends and co-workers. There are 11 scales, each grouping 14 items. Respondents are requested to ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with the items. Higher scores on the scales correspond to an increased risk on specific interpersonal problems in the workplace. The HDS has been cross-validated with the MMPI personality disorder scales as well as ‘normal traits’ (Furnham & Crump, 2005). It is increasingly used to predict leadership and management failure (Carson et al., 2012; Harms et al., 2011). The mean was 7.40 (SD = 2.76), and the α for the scale was 0.71. There are extensive data on the narcissism/Bold scale in the manual. The α on an N of 106,769 people was 0.67; the test–retest reliability over 12 months was 0.75; and there is considerable evidence of concurrent validity with other established measures such as the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) and the CPI.
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
Big Five facet analysis
Procedure Participants were tested by a British-based psychological consultancy over a 10-year period. Each participant was given personal feedback on their score. They were nearly all employed as middle to senior managers in British companies. They took this test as part of an assessment exercise, run by an external psychological consultancy. Inevitably, this could have affected their results because of issues such as impression management and dissimulation. However, there are two reasons to suspect that this did not affect the results. First, the HDS has a ‘lie scale’, which can be used to control for this problem. In this study, it was used in the regressions and used as partialling out factor in correlations. Second, given the size of the group, even if a few hundred people were prone to moderate faking (positive impression management), it is unlikely to substantially affect the results. Results N’s differed in various analyses because of missing data. Further, with a large sample size, many coefficients will be significant, but effect sizes are small. This, together with the issue of type I errors occurring, only results p < 0.001, which will be considered. Correlations and regressions were performed. Bold correlated with Neuroticism ( 0.13), Extraversion (0.30), Openness (0.13), Agreeableness ( 0.24) and Conscientiousness (0.21). A moderator analysis showed that the relationship between the Big Five and Bold was not moderated by gender. These results are different from those of Samuel and Widiger (2008) and Bastiaansen et al. (2011) who found that Agreeableness by far is the most powerful Big Five correlate of NPD. Table 1 also shows the results of a hierarchical regression where sex and age were entered in the first step, the HDS social desirability scale in the second step and the Big Five in the third step. The demographic variables accounted for none of the variance, and social Boldness was associated with Disagreeableness, Extraversion and Conscientiousness.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Table 1: Regressions with the Bold scale as the criterion scale and demographics and the Bright-Side variables as the predictor scales Correlation Gender Age Social desirability Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
0.03 0.04 0.15*** 0.13*** 0.30*** 0.13*** 0.24*** 0.21***
β
t
0.02 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.23 0.03 0.28 0.16
1.39 1.02 9.88*** 3.54*** 14.55*** 4.08*** 20.45*** 10.59***
Correlations are partial correlations partialling out age, sex and social desirability. F(8, 4753) = 152.83, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.20. ***p < 0.001.
Thereafter, the facet scores were investigated by partial correlations (partialling out sex, age and social desirability) and regressions. Correlations between facets within each domain were examined and found to be around r = 0.30. Table 2 shows the partial correlations between bold and the 30 facets. Ten of them were r > 0.20. Two Neuroticism (N1 and N6) and two Agreeableness (A2 and A5) were negatively correlated, whereas four Extraversion (E2, E3, E4 and E4) and two Conscientiousness facets (C1 and C4) were positively correlated. Then a regression was performed with the Bold score as the criterion score and the 30 facet scores as the predictor variables. Most of the betas were significant because of the size of the N. Four facets had β’s 0.09. They were A5 (Modesty), C1 (Competence), E3 (Assertiveness) and C4 (Achievement Striving). This analysis has problems given the number of predictor variables (instability and multicollinearity); therefore, further analyses were carried out. Five further regressions were then carried out. In each regression, Bold was the criterion variable. First, sex, age and social desirability were entered and then the six facets of each of the five factors. The regression for the six Neuroticism factors was significant (F(8, 4925) = 62.02, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.09). Three of the six facets were significant,
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
213
214
Furnham and Crump
Table 2: Regressions with the Bold scale as the criterion scale and demographics and the 30 facets as the predictor scales Model N1 Anxiety N2 Angry Hostility N3 Depression N4 Self-Consciousness N5 Impulsiveness N6 Vulnerability E1 Warmth E2 Gregariousness E3 Assertiveness E4 Activity E5 Excitement Seeking E6 Positive Emotions O1 Fantasy O2 Aesthetics O3 Feelings O4 Actions O5 Ideas O6 Values A1 Trust A2 Straightforwardness A3 Altruism A4 Compliance A5 Modesty A6 Tender-Mindedness C1 Competence C2 Order C3 Dutifulness C4 Achievement Striving C5 Self-Discipline C6 Deliberation
Correlations
β
0.27 0.01 0.18 0.17 0.01 0.27 0.17 0.20 0.34 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.03 0.16 0.40 0.07 0.27 0.08 0.11 0.26 0.16 0.00
0.03 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.31 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.00
t 2.13 0.44 3.99*** 3.57 1.81 4.24 2.45 0.62 6.75*** 1.45 5.61*** 1.20 1.31 1.98 3.12 3.41*** 3.09 7.16*** 1.99 5.08*** 2.82 2.38 25.29*** 0.16 7.99*** 0.40 0.89 5.76*** 1.39 0.15
Correlations are partial correlations partialling out age, sex and social desirability. F(30, 6772) = 88.18; Adj. R2 = 0.28, p < 0.001. ***p < 0.001.
the biggest of which were N6: Vulnerability (β 0.28, t = 14.87, p < 0.001), N2: Angry Hostility (β 0.16, t = 9.69, p < 0.001) and N4: Self-Consciousness (β 0.05, t = 2.82, p < 0.001). The regression for the six Extraversion factors was significant (F(8, 4925) = 98.75, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.14). Three of the six facets were significant, the biggest of which were E3: Assertiveness (β 0.27, t = 16.84, p < 0.001), E4: Activity (β 0.06,
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
t = 3.62, p < 0.001) and E5: Excitement Seeking (β 0.10, t = 6.55, p < 0.001). The regression for the six Openness factors was significant (F(8, 4925) = 39.03, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.06). Four of the six facets were significant, the biggest of which were O2: Aesthetics (β 0.06, t = 3.24, p < 0.001), O3: Feelings (β 0.18, t = 10.97, p < 0.001), O5: Ideas (β 0.16. t = 9.44, p < 0.001) and O6: Values (β 0.09, t = 6.01, p < 0.001). The regression for the six Agreeableness factors was significant (F(8, 4925) = 141.60, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.19). Five of the six facets were significant, the biggest of which were A1: Trust (β 0.03, t = 2.24, p < 0.05), A2: Straightforward (β 0.09, t = 5.79, p < 0.001), A3: Altruism (β 0.14, t = 8.96, p < 0.001), A4: Compliance (β 0.09, t = 6.10, p < 0.001) and A5: Modesty (β 0.37, t = 26.26, p < 0.001). The regression for the six Conscientious factors was significant (F(8, 4925) = 79.71, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.12). Four of the six facets were significant, the biggest of which were C1: Competence (β 0.26, t = 14.32, p < 0.001), C4: Achievement Striving (β 0.20, t = 11.61, p < 0.001), C5: SelfDiscipline (β 0.06, t = 3.04, p < 0.01) and C6: Deliberation (β 0.10, t = 6.24, p < 0.001). Two further regressions were carried out. The first regressed the highest loading facets (six) in all shown in the Samuel and Widiger (2008) paper after sex, age and social desirability. This was significant (F(9, 4737) = 135.67, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.20). Next, a similar regression was performed using the seven highest identified facets noted by Bastiaansen et al. (2011). This was also significant (F(10, 4732) = 141.20, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.23). Discussion The results of this study confirm more the hypotheses of Widiger et al. (2001) than the results of Samuel and Widiger (2008), although they do not contradict the latter. Three of the four scales that Widiger et al. (2001) identified as highly related to (Clinical) Narcissism (E3, C1 and C4)
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
Big Five facet analysis
were indeed related to the Bold score, as was one of the two scales identified as scoring low (A5). The major difference between these results and that of Samuel and Widiger (2008) was that in their study, all facets of Agreeableness were strongly negatively correlated with Narcissism, whereas in this study, four were negatively correlated with Boldness, but only A5: Modesty strongly associated. Moreover, none of the Openness facets seemed to be related to NPD in the Samuel and Widiger (2008) paper, although in this study, two were related to the Bold score. Comparing these results with the hypotheses of Bastiaansen et al. (2011), it seems there was general agreement around the facets from three Domain traits, namely Agreeableness, in that three facets were strongly negatively correlated with Boldness; Conscientiousness, in that one facet (C4: Achievement Striving) was positively correlated; and Openness, where there were few associations. Differences lay more clearly in Neuroticism for two reasons: first, that the correlations were negative in this study not positive as suggested by Bastiaansen et al. (2011), and second, that it was N1 and N6 rather than N2 and N6 that showed the strongest relationship. The other big difference lay in the correlations with the Extraversion facets: In this study, all correlations were positive and between 0.17 < r < 0.34, whereas the only two reviewers agreed about E3 (Assertiveness) being associated with NPD. These results show rather different patterns when compared with a clinical population. The clinical studies appear to show that NPD is predominantly associated with low trait Agreeableness, whereas this study showed HDS Boldness to be related to four of the five domain factors. The domain level correlate shows the Bold person to be Conscientious, Stable and Extravert with low Agreeableness. To a large extent, this has been established as the profile of a successful manager (Furnham, 2010; Howard & Howard, 2001). Thus, low Agreeableness is associated with ‘taking tough decisions’ and ‘confronting poor performance’; low Neuroticism with ability to deal with stress; high
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Extraversion with people skills; and high Conscientiousness with being hard-working, well organized and achievement oriented. It is therefore no surprise that HDS Bold scores are associated with managerial success rather than failure (Furnham et al., 2012; Harms et al., 2011). However, the facet analysis may be more instructive. The NEO-PI-R Professional manual has seven adjective check list indicators of those with a low Modesty (A5) score: show-off, clever, assertive, argumentative, self-confident, aggressive and idealistic. Some of these words are picked up in the description of Competence (C1) (as well as efficient, resourceful and thorough) and Achievement Striving (as well as enterprising, ambitious and industrious). The ‘problematic’ side of high Bold scorers is more manifest in the facet regressions where there was an indication of Angry Hostility (N2) and lack of Straightforwardness (A2). Thus, although there seems considerable agreement and evidence that Narcissism or Boldness is associated strongly with Disagreeableness, there remains more disagreement about how it relates to the facets in the other domain traits, particularly Neuroticism and Extraversion. The question is why these results differed from others in the area, although it should be acknowledged that there was also some disagreement between them. This study differed from others primarily in two ways: both the measure of NPD and the population, which was ‘normal’ adults. Both could account for these differences, which merit further analysis. This study, like all others, had limitations. This was a large, but not a community, sample that has implications for generalization of the data. Next, the NPD measure, although reliable and valid, was uni-dimensional, and it may be very valuable to explore a multi-dimensional measure, particularly one that measured the two types of narcissism. Third, it would have been desirable to investigate other individual differences (values, morality, lifestyle, self-assessed intelligence and attractiveness) to see to what extent personality factors have
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
215
216
Furnham and Crump
incremental validity over and above these measures. More importantly, longitudinal studies would help to understand the role of personality traits in the genesis and development of narcissism (Twenge & Campbell, 2009). Conflict of interest We declare that there is no conflict of interest in this research and paper.
References Aluja, A., Blanch, A., & Balada, F. (2013). Normal personality versus pathological personality. Personality and Mental Health, 7, 288–297 American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental Disorders (3rd ed. rev.). Washington, DC: APA. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental Disorders (4th ed. rev.). Washington, DC: APA. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: APA. Bastiaansen, L., Rossi, G., Schotte, C., & De Fruyt, F. (2011). The structure of personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 378–396. Bollaert, H., & Petit, V. (2010). Beyond the dark side of executive psychology. European Journal of Management, 28, 362–376. Carson, M., Shannock, L., Heggestad, E., Andrew, A., Pugh, S., & Walter, M. (2012). The relationship between dysfunctional interpersonal tendencies, derailment potential behaviour, and turnover. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 291–304. Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. (2007). It’s all about me: narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 351–386. Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. (2011). Executive personality, capability cues and risk taking. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 202–237. Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and Five-Factor Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Craig, R., & Amernic, J. (2011). Detecting linguistic traces of destructive narcissism at-a-distance in a CEO’s letter to shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 563–575. De Fruyt, F., De Clercq, B., Milley, J., Rolland, J. P., Jung, S. C., Taris, R., Furnham, A., & Hiel, A. (2009). Assessing personality at risk in personnel selection and development. European Journal of Personality, 23, 51–69. Dickinson, K., & Pincus, A. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 188–207. Dimaggio, G. (2014). Narcissistic personality disorder and becoming old. Personality and Mental Health, 8, 89–90. Fico, J., Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2000). Interpersonal compass manual and interpretation guide. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment System. Furnham, A. (2010). The elephant in the boardroom: The psychology of leadership derailment. Bracknell: Palgrave MacMillan. Furnham, A, & Crump, J. (2005). Personality traits, types and disorders. European Journal of Personality, 19, 167–184. Furnham, A., Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (2014). Do your dark side traits fit? Dysfunctional personalities in different work sectors. Applied Psychology, in press. Furnham, A., Milner, R., Akhtar, R., & De Fruyt, F. (2014). A review of the measure designed to assess DSM-V personality disorders. Under Review. Furnham, A., & Trickey, G. (2011). Sex differences in the dark side traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 517–522. Furnham, A., Richards, S., & Paulhus, D. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Compass, 7, 199–216. Furnham, A., Trickey, G., & Hyde, G. (2012). Bright aspects to dark side traits: Dark side traits associated with work success. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 908–913. Harms, P., Spain, S., & Hannah, S. (2011). Leadership development and the dark side of personality. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 495–509. Henriques-Calado, J., Duarte-Silva, M., Junqueira, D., Sacoto, C., & Keong, A. (2014). Five-factor model personality domains in the prediction of Axis II personality Disorders. Personality and Mental Health, 8, 115–127. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40–51. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2009). Hogan Development Survey manual. Tulsa, OK: HAS. Howard, P. J., & Howard, J. M. (2001). The owner’s manual for personality at work. Austin, Atlanta: Bard Press. Judge, T., LePine, J., & Rich, B. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762–776. McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
Big Five facet analysis
from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547–561. Miller, J., Hoffman, N., Gaughan, E., Gentile, B., Maples, J., & Cambell, K. (2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality, 79, 1013–1042. O’Boyle, E., Forsyth, D., Banks, G., & McDaniel, M. (2012). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557–579. Owen, D., & Davidson, J. (2009). Hubris syndrome: An acquired personality disorder? Brain, 132, 1396–1406. Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2012). How “dark” are the dark triad traits? Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 884–889. Rolland, J. P., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). The validity of FFM personality dimensions and maladaptive traits to predict negative affect at work. European Journal of Personality, 17, 101–121. Samuel, D., & Widiger, T. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between the five-factor model and the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326–1342.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Saulsman, L., & Page, A. (2004). The five factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1055–1085. Twenge, J., & Campbell, W. (2009). The narcissism epidemic. New York: Free Press. Widiger, T. (2011). Integrating normal and abnormal personality structure: A proposal for DSM-V. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 338–363. Widiger, T. A., Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Proposals for Axis II: Diagnosing personality disorders using the five factor model. In P. T. Costa, & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 432–456). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 590–597.
Address correspondence to: Adrian Furnham, Department of Psychology, University College London, London, UK. Email: [email protected]
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
217
A Big Five facet analysis of sub-clinical narcissism: Understanding boldness in terms of well-known personality traits
ADRIAN FURNHAM1 AND JOHN CRUMP2, 1Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK; 2UCL, London, UK ABSTRACT This study aimed to examine a Big Five ‘bright-side’ analysis of a sub-clinical personality disorder, i.e. narcissism. A total of 6957 British adults completed the NEO-PI-R, which measures the Big Five Personality factors at the domain and the facet level, as well as the Hogan Development Survey (HDS), which has a measure of Narcissism called Bold as one of its dysfunctional interpersonal tendencies. Correlation and regression results confirmed many of the associations between the Big Five domains and facets (NEO-PI-R) and sub-clinical narcissism. The Bold (Narcissism) scale from the HDS was the criterion variable in all analyses. Bold individuals are disagreeable extraverts with very low scores on facet Modesty but moderately high scores on Assertiveness, Competence and Achievement Striving. The study confirmed work using different population groups and different measures. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Introduction This study looks at the relationship between ‘normal’ personality traits measured at the facet level and sub-clinical narcissism, which at the clinical level is one of the most studied personality disorders (Dimaggio, 2014). Many recent studies have attempted to compare normal and pathological personality (Aluja, Blanch, & Balada, 2013). Some have compared the five-factor ‘normal’, ‘bright-side’ traits with the Axis II ‘pathological’, ‘dark-side personality disorders’ (Henriques-Calado, Duarte-Silva, Junqueira, Sacoto, & Keong, 2014), as will be performed in this study. This study attempts to replicate and extend previous studies in this area (Bastiaansen, Rossi,
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Schotte, & De Fruyt, 2011; De Fruyt et al., 2009; Samuel & Widiger, 2008) by using a different but now widely used measure of sub-clinical narcissism (called boldness) and the most widely used personality questionnaires and on a large, non-clinical, non-student population (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). Differential psychologists nearly always feel the need to ‘locate’ all individual difference measures (both normal and abnormal) in five-factor personality space, which has been for 20 years and remains currently the most accepted model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Furnham & Crump, 2005). The focus of this research is on sub-clinical narcissism. Problems arise in this area because of the popular use of the term, which may be used
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
210
Furnham and Crump
carelessly and inaccurately with almost exclusive derogatory and demeaning implications. The term narcissism will be used in this paper to discuss the psychiatric use of the term and research, which used specific tests to assess it, whereas the term bold will be used when discussing the measure used here and the studies using the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) measure used in this study (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). Narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), as described in DSM-IV and DSM V (APA, 2000, 2013), is pathological personality trait (or disorder). Individuals with heightened narcissistic scores often cause serious interpersonal, organizational and societal problems for others. It is a widely researched personality disorder with a large number of clinically anchored and psychometrically evaluated measures designed to assess it (Furnham, Milner, Akhtar, & De Fruyt, 2014). There is, however, considerable disagreement surrounding whether the classical portrayal of NPD is valid. For example, narcissists with low self-esteem who are threatened show less anger than narcissists with high self-esteem. This has resulted in the suggestion that the classical account of NPD has two dimensions (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Wink, 1991). The two dimensions of NPD are often referred to as grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Miller et al. (2011) argued that the primary feature shared by both dimensions of narcissism is a tendency to act antagonistically towards others and that they differ on many other features. However, vulnerable narcissism seems less common in adults than with adolescents. Further, few of the well-used measures of Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), including the one used in this study, differentiate between the two types. In the management literature, it has been argued that there is only a fine line between ‘everyday hubris’ and ‘sub-clinical narcissism’ (Owen & Davidson, 2009). An issue of particular interest to work psychologists is the detection of sub-clinical as well as clinical narcissism in
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
successful people. It has been suggested that some of the features of narcissism can be, at least in the short term, beneficial in working life (Bollaert & Petit, 2010; Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007, 2011; Craig & Amernic, 2011; Furnham, Hyde, & Trickey, 2014; Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012). Indeed, there is now a rich literature on the dark triad of personality, which includes (clinical) narcissism as one of the three factors and which has been shown to be predictive of long-term (poor) job performance (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). Personality traits and disorders There have been various attempts to integrate ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ personality theories/ structures usually conceived of as personality traits and personality disorders (Widiger, 2011). Indeed, there are numerous important papers that attempt to link together these two systems (Widiger, Costa, & McCrae, 2001). Widiger (2011) attempted a theoretical analysis of the relationship between personality disorders and the Big Five, at both domain and facet level. In it, he indicated the hypothetical association between the possible 30 facets and (clinical) Narcissism. Four facets are highlighted as high: N6 (Vulnerability), E3 (Assertiveness), C1 (Competence) and C4 (Achievement Striving). Two facets were posited as being negatively associated with narcissism: A5 (Modesty) and A6 (Tender-Minded). This ‘speculative’ work was updated in an important review by Samuel and Widiger (2008) who combined the data from 16 studies with a total N of 3207. Most of the participants were students (12 groups) and some outpatients. Further, they had completed very different personality disorder instruments, yet nearly always the same personality instrument (NEO-PI-R) that was used in this study. They analysed their results at both the domain and facet level and compared their results with those of an earlier and similar study by Saulsman and Page (2004). They showed that
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
Big Five facet analysis
Narcissism was correlated modestly positively with Neuroticism (r = 0.11) but highly negatively with Agreeableness (r = 0.37). The facet level analysis showed that Narcissism was correlated positively with N2: Angry Hostility (0.23) but negatively with all six Agreeableness facets particularly A2: Straightforward ( 0.31) and Modesty ( 0.37). More recently, Bastiaansen et al. (2011) hypothesized the relationship between NPD and the Big Five at the facet level on the basis of three earlier studies, which showed reasonable agreement, but also some disagreement, around some facets of Neuroticism and Extraversion. The review suggested agreed positive correlations with four facets (N2, N4, O1 and C4) and negative correlations with three (A3, A5 and A6). Their analysis showed that NPD was most closely related to low Agreeableness. This study sought to confirm these results with a sub-clinical measure of NPD not previously investigated in the aforementioned studies. This study This study attempts to replicate these findings on the basis of a large adult sample completing a standard measure of ‘normal’ personality: the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1985) and the now extensively used HDS (Hogan & Hogan, 2009), which is a measure based on the Personality Disorders categories but useful with normal populations and has a Narcissism scale labelled ‘Bold’ (Furnham & Trickey, 2011). The Hogan ‘dark-side’ measure is now extensively used in organizational research and practice to measure personality disorders in the ‘normal population’ (Carson et al., 2012; De Fruyt et al., 2009; Furnham & Crump, 2005). Its aim is partly to help selectors and individuals themselves diagnose how they typically react under work stress. It has the advantage of being psychometrically valid, of measuring all the personality disorders and being appropriate for a ‘normal’ population. The HDS was explicitly based on the DSM-IV-TR Axis II Personality Disorder descriptions, but it was not developed for the assessment of all DSM-IV-TR disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1994,
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2000). The HDS focuses only on the core construct of each disorder from a dimensional perspective (Hogan & Hogan, 2001, p. 41). An overview of the item selection guidelines can be found in the work of Hogan and Hogan (2001, 2009). The HDS has been cross-validated with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) personality disorder scales. Fico, Hogan, and Hogan (2000) reported coefficient α’s between 0.50 and 0.70 with an average of 0.64 and test–retest reliabilities (n = 60) over a 3-month interval ranging from 0.50 to 0.80, with an average of 0.68. There were no mean-level differences between sexes, racial/ethnic groups, and younger vs. older persons (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Various relatively small-scale studies have used the HDS and have shown it to be a robust, reliable and valid instrument (De Fruyt et al., 2009; Furnham & Crump, 2005; Rolland & De Fruyt, 2003). This study was concerned with the Bold measure derived from the HDS. The HDS gives scores that are labelled ‘no risk, low risk, moderate risk and high risk’. The concept is that high scores can be an indicator of business derailment, because under pressure, a successful and functioning person may resort to having inflated views of one’s competence and worth. The competency analysis suggests that those with high or very high scores have too great a confidence in their convictions and tend not to seek the opinions of others, are not open to feedback regarding their core issues and values, and appear demanding and too task oriented rather than people oriented. Hogan and Hogan (2001) noted that bold people expect to be liked, admired, respected, attended to, praised, complimented and indulged. Their most important and obvious characteristic is a sense of entitlement, excessive self-esteem and quite often an expectation of success that often leads to real success. What is most distinctive about very bold people is their self-assurance that often gives them charisma. Hogan and Hogan (2009) argued that they are the first to speak in a group and they hold forth with great confidence, even when they are wrong. They so completely expect to succeed, and take more credit for success
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
211
212
Furnham and Crump
than is warranted or fair, that they refuse to acknowledge failure, errors or mistakes. Bold individuals can be energetic, charismatic, leader-like and willing to take the initiative to get projects moving. They can be relatively successful in management, sales and entrepreneurship, but usually only for short periods. They are, however, often arrogant, vain, overbearing, demanding, selfdeceived and pompous; yet they are so colourful and engaging that they often attract followers. Their self-confidence is attractive. Naively, people believe they have to have something to be so confident about. As a result of their inability to acknowledge failure or even mistakes and the way they resist coaching and ignore negative feedback, they are unable to learn from experience. Bold individuals can function at high levels. Indeed, for many jobs, boldness and self-confidence as defined by this measure are highly valued. Indeed, Furnham, Trickey, and Hyde (2012) found that Bold scores were associated with managerial potential and success in private sector jobs. Recently, in a longitudinal study of over 900 American army cadets, Harms, Spain, and Hannah (2011) found the HDS Bold score positively associated with numerous positive judgements. This study is concerned with which of the 30 facets (six for each of the Big Five Personality scores) is related to Boldness, the HDS concept of NPD. This study could be seen, in part, as a validation of that measure. Studies using ‘clinical’ measures of narcissism (such as the NPI) suggest that it is predominantly the facets of Agreeableness (negatively) and Neuroticism (positively) that will be associated with NPD. This study seeks to replicate finding a different measure of NPD and in a large ‘normal’ adult population. Method Participants A total of 6957 British working adults took part in this study of which 1493 were female and 5464 male. Their mean age was 42.36 years (standard deviation (SD) = 7.12 years) with the range between 23 and
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
65 years. They were nearly all (over 95%) graduates and in middle-class occupations, with English as their mother tongue. Measure NEO-PI-R. The NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240-item inventory, assessing the five-factor model domains of Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness to experience (O), Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness (C), with six facets (eight items each) structured under the domains. Respondents are requested to provide self-descriptions using a 5-point Likert scale. Its psychometric properties and validity have been well documented cross-culturally (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005). No item-level information was available for the current sample, but Cronbach α coefficients for the domains with the facets as the indicators were 0.84, 0.79, 0.74, 0.72 and 0.82 for N, E, O, A and C respectively. The means were in the normal range for adults. Hogan Development Survey. Hogan Development Survey (Hogan & Hogan, 2009) consists of 154 items that are concerned with how the respondent typically interacts with family, friends and co-workers. There are 11 scales, each grouping 14 items. Respondents are requested to ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with the items. Higher scores on the scales correspond to an increased risk on specific interpersonal problems in the workplace. The HDS has been cross-validated with the MMPI personality disorder scales as well as ‘normal traits’ (Furnham & Crump, 2005). It is increasingly used to predict leadership and management failure (Carson et al., 2012; Harms et al., 2011). The mean was 7.40 (SD = 2.76), and the α for the scale was 0.71. There are extensive data on the narcissism/Bold scale in the manual. The α on an N of 106,769 people was 0.67; the test–retest reliability over 12 months was 0.75; and there is considerable evidence of concurrent validity with other established measures such as the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) and the CPI.
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
Big Five facet analysis
Procedure Participants were tested by a British-based psychological consultancy over a 10-year period. Each participant was given personal feedback on their score. They were nearly all employed as middle to senior managers in British companies. They took this test as part of an assessment exercise, run by an external psychological consultancy. Inevitably, this could have affected their results because of issues such as impression management and dissimulation. However, there are two reasons to suspect that this did not affect the results. First, the HDS has a ‘lie scale’, which can be used to control for this problem. In this study, it was used in the regressions and used as partialling out factor in correlations. Second, given the size of the group, even if a few hundred people were prone to moderate faking (positive impression management), it is unlikely to substantially affect the results. Results N’s differed in various analyses because of missing data. Further, with a large sample size, many coefficients will be significant, but effect sizes are small. This, together with the issue of type I errors occurring, only results p < 0.001, which will be considered. Correlations and regressions were performed. Bold correlated with Neuroticism ( 0.13), Extraversion (0.30), Openness (0.13), Agreeableness ( 0.24) and Conscientiousness (0.21). A moderator analysis showed that the relationship between the Big Five and Bold was not moderated by gender. These results are different from those of Samuel and Widiger (2008) and Bastiaansen et al. (2011) who found that Agreeableness by far is the most powerful Big Five correlate of NPD. Table 1 also shows the results of a hierarchical regression where sex and age were entered in the first step, the HDS social desirability scale in the second step and the Big Five in the third step. The demographic variables accounted for none of the variance, and social Boldness was associated with Disagreeableness, Extraversion and Conscientiousness.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Table 1: Regressions with the Bold scale as the criterion scale and demographics and the Bright-Side variables as the predictor scales Correlation Gender Age Social desirability Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
0.03 0.04 0.15*** 0.13*** 0.30*** 0.13*** 0.24*** 0.21***
β
t
0.02 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.23 0.03 0.28 0.16
1.39 1.02 9.88*** 3.54*** 14.55*** 4.08*** 20.45*** 10.59***
Correlations are partial correlations partialling out age, sex and social desirability. F(8, 4753) = 152.83, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.20. ***p < 0.001.
Thereafter, the facet scores were investigated by partial correlations (partialling out sex, age and social desirability) and regressions. Correlations between facets within each domain were examined and found to be around r = 0.30. Table 2 shows the partial correlations between bold and the 30 facets. Ten of them were r > 0.20. Two Neuroticism (N1 and N6) and two Agreeableness (A2 and A5) were negatively correlated, whereas four Extraversion (E2, E3, E4 and E4) and two Conscientiousness facets (C1 and C4) were positively correlated. Then a regression was performed with the Bold score as the criterion score and the 30 facet scores as the predictor variables. Most of the betas were significant because of the size of the N. Four facets had β’s 0.09. They were A5 (Modesty), C1 (Competence), E3 (Assertiveness) and C4 (Achievement Striving). This analysis has problems given the number of predictor variables (instability and multicollinearity); therefore, further analyses were carried out. Five further regressions were then carried out. In each regression, Bold was the criterion variable. First, sex, age and social desirability were entered and then the six facets of each of the five factors. The regression for the six Neuroticism factors was significant (F(8, 4925) = 62.02, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.09). Three of the six facets were significant,
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
213
214
Furnham and Crump
Table 2: Regressions with the Bold scale as the criterion scale and demographics and the 30 facets as the predictor scales Model N1 Anxiety N2 Angry Hostility N3 Depression N4 Self-Consciousness N5 Impulsiveness N6 Vulnerability E1 Warmth E2 Gregariousness E3 Assertiveness E4 Activity E5 Excitement Seeking E6 Positive Emotions O1 Fantasy O2 Aesthetics O3 Feelings O4 Actions O5 Ideas O6 Values A1 Trust A2 Straightforwardness A3 Altruism A4 Compliance A5 Modesty A6 Tender-Mindedness C1 Competence C2 Order C3 Dutifulness C4 Achievement Striving C5 Self-Discipline C6 Deliberation
Correlations
β
0.27 0.01 0.18 0.17 0.01 0.27 0.17 0.20 0.34 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.03 0.16 0.40 0.07 0.27 0.08 0.11 0.26 0.16 0.00
0.03 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.31 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.00
t 2.13 0.44 3.99*** 3.57 1.81 4.24 2.45 0.62 6.75*** 1.45 5.61*** 1.20 1.31 1.98 3.12 3.41*** 3.09 7.16*** 1.99 5.08*** 2.82 2.38 25.29*** 0.16 7.99*** 0.40 0.89 5.76*** 1.39 0.15
Correlations are partial correlations partialling out age, sex and social desirability. F(30, 6772) = 88.18; Adj. R2 = 0.28, p < 0.001. ***p < 0.001.
the biggest of which were N6: Vulnerability (β 0.28, t = 14.87, p < 0.001), N2: Angry Hostility (β 0.16, t = 9.69, p < 0.001) and N4: Self-Consciousness (β 0.05, t = 2.82, p < 0.001). The regression for the six Extraversion factors was significant (F(8, 4925) = 98.75, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.14). Three of the six facets were significant, the biggest of which were E3: Assertiveness (β 0.27, t = 16.84, p < 0.001), E4: Activity (β 0.06,
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
t = 3.62, p < 0.001) and E5: Excitement Seeking (β 0.10, t = 6.55, p < 0.001). The regression for the six Openness factors was significant (F(8, 4925) = 39.03, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.06). Four of the six facets were significant, the biggest of which were O2: Aesthetics (β 0.06, t = 3.24, p < 0.001), O3: Feelings (β 0.18, t = 10.97, p < 0.001), O5: Ideas (β 0.16. t = 9.44, p < 0.001) and O6: Values (β 0.09, t = 6.01, p < 0.001). The regression for the six Agreeableness factors was significant (F(8, 4925) = 141.60, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.19). Five of the six facets were significant, the biggest of which were A1: Trust (β 0.03, t = 2.24, p < 0.05), A2: Straightforward (β 0.09, t = 5.79, p < 0.001), A3: Altruism (β 0.14, t = 8.96, p < 0.001), A4: Compliance (β 0.09, t = 6.10, p < 0.001) and A5: Modesty (β 0.37, t = 26.26, p < 0.001). The regression for the six Conscientious factors was significant (F(8, 4925) = 79.71, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.12). Four of the six facets were significant, the biggest of which were C1: Competence (β 0.26, t = 14.32, p < 0.001), C4: Achievement Striving (β 0.20, t = 11.61, p < 0.001), C5: SelfDiscipline (β 0.06, t = 3.04, p < 0.01) and C6: Deliberation (β 0.10, t = 6.24, p < 0.001). Two further regressions were carried out. The first regressed the highest loading facets (six) in all shown in the Samuel and Widiger (2008) paper after sex, age and social desirability. This was significant (F(9, 4737) = 135.67, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.20). Next, a similar regression was performed using the seven highest identified facets noted by Bastiaansen et al. (2011). This was also significant (F(10, 4732) = 141.20, p < 0.001; Adj. R2 = 0.23). Discussion The results of this study confirm more the hypotheses of Widiger et al. (2001) than the results of Samuel and Widiger (2008), although they do not contradict the latter. Three of the four scales that Widiger et al. (2001) identified as highly related to (Clinical) Narcissism (E3, C1 and C4)
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
Big Five facet analysis
were indeed related to the Bold score, as was one of the two scales identified as scoring low (A5). The major difference between these results and that of Samuel and Widiger (2008) was that in their study, all facets of Agreeableness were strongly negatively correlated with Narcissism, whereas in this study, four were negatively correlated with Boldness, but only A5: Modesty strongly associated. Moreover, none of the Openness facets seemed to be related to NPD in the Samuel and Widiger (2008) paper, although in this study, two were related to the Bold score. Comparing these results with the hypotheses of Bastiaansen et al. (2011), it seems there was general agreement around the facets from three Domain traits, namely Agreeableness, in that three facets were strongly negatively correlated with Boldness; Conscientiousness, in that one facet (C4: Achievement Striving) was positively correlated; and Openness, where there were few associations. Differences lay more clearly in Neuroticism for two reasons: first, that the correlations were negative in this study not positive as suggested by Bastiaansen et al. (2011), and second, that it was N1 and N6 rather than N2 and N6 that showed the strongest relationship. The other big difference lay in the correlations with the Extraversion facets: In this study, all correlations were positive and between 0.17 < r < 0.34, whereas the only two reviewers agreed about E3 (Assertiveness) being associated with NPD. These results show rather different patterns when compared with a clinical population. The clinical studies appear to show that NPD is predominantly associated with low trait Agreeableness, whereas this study showed HDS Boldness to be related to four of the five domain factors. The domain level correlate shows the Bold person to be Conscientious, Stable and Extravert with low Agreeableness. To a large extent, this has been established as the profile of a successful manager (Furnham, 2010; Howard & Howard, 2001). Thus, low Agreeableness is associated with ‘taking tough decisions’ and ‘confronting poor performance’; low Neuroticism with ability to deal with stress; high
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Extraversion with people skills; and high Conscientiousness with being hard-working, well organized and achievement oriented. It is therefore no surprise that HDS Bold scores are associated with managerial success rather than failure (Furnham et al., 2012; Harms et al., 2011). However, the facet analysis may be more instructive. The NEO-PI-R Professional manual has seven adjective check list indicators of those with a low Modesty (A5) score: show-off, clever, assertive, argumentative, self-confident, aggressive and idealistic. Some of these words are picked up in the description of Competence (C1) (as well as efficient, resourceful and thorough) and Achievement Striving (as well as enterprising, ambitious and industrious). The ‘problematic’ side of high Bold scorers is more manifest in the facet regressions where there was an indication of Angry Hostility (N2) and lack of Straightforwardness (A2). Thus, although there seems considerable agreement and evidence that Narcissism or Boldness is associated strongly with Disagreeableness, there remains more disagreement about how it relates to the facets in the other domain traits, particularly Neuroticism and Extraversion. The question is why these results differed from others in the area, although it should be acknowledged that there was also some disagreement between them. This study differed from others primarily in two ways: both the measure of NPD and the population, which was ‘normal’ adults. Both could account for these differences, which merit further analysis. This study, like all others, had limitations. This was a large, but not a community, sample that has implications for generalization of the data. Next, the NPD measure, although reliable and valid, was uni-dimensional, and it may be very valuable to explore a multi-dimensional measure, particularly one that measured the two types of narcissism. Third, it would have been desirable to investigate other individual differences (values, morality, lifestyle, self-assessed intelligence and attractiveness) to see to what extent personality factors have
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
215
216
Furnham and Crump
incremental validity over and above these measures. More importantly, longitudinal studies would help to understand the role of personality traits in the genesis and development of narcissism (Twenge & Campbell, 2009). Conflict of interest We declare that there is no conflict of interest in this research and paper.
References Aluja, A., Blanch, A., & Balada, F. (2013). Normal personality versus pathological personality. Personality and Mental Health, 7, 288–297 American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental Disorders (3rd ed. rev.). Washington, DC: APA. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental Disorders (4th ed. rev.). Washington, DC: APA. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: APA. Bastiaansen, L., Rossi, G., Schotte, C., & De Fruyt, F. (2011). The structure of personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 378–396. Bollaert, H., & Petit, V. (2010). Beyond the dark side of executive psychology. European Journal of Management, 28, 362–376. Carson, M., Shannock, L., Heggestad, E., Andrew, A., Pugh, S., & Walter, M. (2012). The relationship between dysfunctional interpersonal tendencies, derailment potential behaviour, and turnover. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 291–304. Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. (2007). It’s all about me: narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 351–386. Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. (2011). Executive personality, capability cues and risk taking. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 202–237. Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and Five-Factor Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Craig, R., & Amernic, J. (2011). Detecting linguistic traces of destructive narcissism at-a-distance in a CEO’s letter to shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 563–575. De Fruyt, F., De Clercq, B., Milley, J., Rolland, J. P., Jung, S. C., Taris, R., Furnham, A., & Hiel, A. (2009). Assessing personality at risk in personnel selection and development. European Journal of Personality, 23, 51–69. Dickinson, K., & Pincus, A. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 188–207. Dimaggio, G. (2014). Narcissistic personality disorder and becoming old. Personality and Mental Health, 8, 89–90. Fico, J., Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2000). Interpersonal compass manual and interpretation guide. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment System. Furnham, A. (2010). The elephant in the boardroom: The psychology of leadership derailment. Bracknell: Palgrave MacMillan. Furnham, A, & Crump, J. (2005). Personality traits, types and disorders. European Journal of Personality, 19, 167–184. Furnham, A., Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (2014). Do your dark side traits fit? Dysfunctional personalities in different work sectors. Applied Psychology, in press. Furnham, A., Milner, R., Akhtar, R., & De Fruyt, F. (2014). A review of the measure designed to assess DSM-V personality disorders. Under Review. Furnham, A., & Trickey, G. (2011). Sex differences in the dark side traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 517–522. Furnham, A., Richards, S., & Paulhus, D. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Compass, 7, 199–216. Furnham, A., Trickey, G., & Hyde, G. (2012). Bright aspects to dark side traits: Dark side traits associated with work success. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 908–913. Harms, P., Spain, S., & Hannah, S. (2011). Leadership development and the dark side of personality. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 495–509. Henriques-Calado, J., Duarte-Silva, M., Junqueira, D., Sacoto, C., & Keong, A. (2014). Five-factor model personality domains in the prediction of Axis II personality Disorders. Personality and Mental Health, 8, 115–127. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40–51. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2009). Hogan Development Survey manual. Tulsa, OK: HAS. Howard, P. J., & Howard, J. M. (2001). The owner’s manual for personality at work. Austin, Atlanta: Bard Press. Judge, T., LePine, J., & Rich, B. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762–776. McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
Big Five facet analysis
from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547–561. Miller, J., Hoffman, N., Gaughan, E., Gentile, B., Maples, J., & Cambell, K. (2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality, 79, 1013–1042. O’Boyle, E., Forsyth, D., Banks, G., & McDaniel, M. (2012). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557–579. Owen, D., & Davidson, J. (2009). Hubris syndrome: An acquired personality disorder? Brain, 132, 1396–1406. Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2012). How “dark” are the dark triad traits? Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 884–889. Rolland, J. P., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). The validity of FFM personality dimensions and maladaptive traits to predict negative affect at work. European Journal of Personality, 17, 101–121. Samuel, D., & Widiger, T. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between the five-factor model and the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326–1342.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Saulsman, L., & Page, A. (2004). The five factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1055–1085. Twenge, J., & Campbell, W. (2009). The narcissism epidemic. New York: Free Press. Widiger, T. (2011). Integrating normal and abnormal personality structure: A proposal for DSM-V. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 338–363. Widiger, T. A., Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Proposals for Axis II: Diagnosing personality disorders using the five factor model. In P. T. Costa, & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 432–456). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 590–597.
Address correspondence to: Adrian Furnham, Department of Psychology, University College London, London, UK. Email: [email protected]
8: 209–217 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
217
