The relation between adolescent narcissism and internalizing problems depends on the conceptualization of narcissism

Journal of Research in Personality 44 (2010) 684–690

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/ j rp

The relation between adolescent narcissism and internalizing problemsdepends on the conceptualization of narcissism

Christopher T. Barry ⇑, Mallory L. MalkinThe University of Southern Mississippi, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 15 September 2010

Keywords:NarcissismInternalizing problemsAdolescence

0092-6566/$ - see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.09.001

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of PSouthern Mississippi, 118 College Dr., Box 5025, HaStates. Fax: +1 601 266 5580.

E-mail address: [email protected] (C.T. B

a b s t r a c t

Recent research has reported an association between narcissism in youth and a variety of externalizingbehavior problems. The extent to which narcissism, conceptualized in two ways (i.e., as part of psychop-athy; as a constellation of maladaptive and adaptive features), was related to internalizing problems inadolescents was examined in this study. Participants were 534 at-risk adolescents ages 16–19, attendinga military-style residential program. Psychopathy-linked narcissism was positively associated with self-reported internalizing problems; however, narcissism assessed from the Narcissistic Personality Inven-tory for Children (NPIC; Barry, Frick, & Killian, 2003) was negatively associated with such symptoms.Perceptions of peer relationships appeared to play a role in this latter association. The implications forthe understanding of youth narcissism are discussed.

� 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

‘‘When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. Truestory.” Barney Stinson, How I Met Your Mother.

Despite the confident, even grandiose, presentations of individ-uals with high levels of narcissism, theories concerning the con-struct have posited that a narcissistic presentation conceals anunderlying self-doubting, insecure, and anxious self-perception(e.g., Kernberg, 1975). The theoretical groundwork for a relationbetween narcissism and internalizing problems dates at least toKernberg (1975) but has garnered further support through morerecent work. For example, narcissism has been linked to increasedanxiety after perceived failure (Rhodewalt & Morf, 1998). Morf andRhodewalt (2001) recognized that narcissists could be described as‘‘emotionally labile and prone to extremes of euphoria, despair,and rage” (p. 177).

This picture, however, is complex. Narcissism is associated bothwith a tendency to engage in self-enhancement in a way that ap-pears consistent with self-assuredness and inconsistent with anx-iety but to also engage in self-protection strategies (e.g., seekingpositive feedback) that are actually suggestive of anxiety and inse-curity (Hepper, Gramzow, & Sedikides, 2010). Empirical evidencewith adults has further suggested that narcissism is indicativeof underlying, relatively automatic negative self-views (Jordan,

ll rights reserved.

sychology, The University ofttiesburg, MS 39406, United

arry).

Spencer, Zanna, Hoshino-Browne, & Correll, 2003) or self-esteemthat is fragile and susceptible to environmental events such asfeedback from others (Rhodewalt, Madrian, & Cheney, 1998). Thus,some association between narcissism and internalizing problems,although counterintuitive at first glance, is suggested from boththeory and empirical evidence. Internalizing problems (e.g.,symptoms of anxiety and depression) as associated features ofnarcissism have received minimal attention in comparison toexternalizing (e.g., aggression) correlates of narcissism, particu-larly in youth. The primary goal of the present study was toinvestigate whether an association between narcissism and inter-nalizing problems in an at-risk adolescent sample depends onthe type of narcissism being evaluated. In addition, it was positedthat peer problems might help explain the connection betweennarcissism and internalizing problems.

Some initial evidence suggests a positive association betweencertain features of narcissism and internalizing problems in earlyadolescents (Washburn, McMahon, King, Reinecke, & Silver,2004). As demonstrated by Washburn and colleagues (2004), intheir study of 10–15 year-olds, some aspects of narcissism (e.g.,exhibitionism) may be particularly related to internalizing prob-lems. Washburn and colleagues note that the interpersonal strate-gies employed by individuals with these characteristics may bedesigned to gain admiration from others. However, consistent withMorf and Rhodewalt (2001), they speculate that the strategies maybackfire and promote the development of internalizing problemsin the face of social disapproval. Very little additional researchexists concerning a connection between youth narcissism andinternalizing problems. It is important to consider the possibilitythat youth with narcissistic tendencies may either experience a

C.T. Barry, M.L. Malkin / Journal of Research in Personality 44 (2010) 684–690 685

marked lack of internalizing problems or, in contrast, may experi-ence higher levels of sadness and anxiety, presumably due to theirfragile self-views (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) and the social prob-lems that may result from their interpersonal styles (Twenge &Campbell, 2003). In short, the role of narcissism in youth internal-izing problems is unclear, partly because of the very nature ofnarcissistic presentations.

Another layer of complexity is added by the emergence of dif-ferent approaches to the conceptualization and assessment ofyouth narcissism. Barry and Wallace (in press) found that self-re-port inventories of adolescent narcissism were only moderatelyinterrelated and had somewhat divergent correlates in terms ofbehavioral, emotional, and social functioning. However, internaliz-ing problems were not examined in that study. Thus, it was impor-tant to consider different measures of narcissism in the presentstudy to further inform how different conceptualizations of narcis-sism might relate differently to internalizing problems.

One approach of evaluating narcissism in youth has considerednarcissism itself as a multidimensional construct (e.g., Barry, Frick,Adler, & Grafeman, 2007; Barry et al., 2003), whereas another hasconceptualized narcissism as one domain within the broader mul-tidimensional construct of psychopathy (e.g., Frick, Bodin, & Barry,2000). The former approach is based on the Narcissistic PersonalityInventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979) and a downwardly extendedyouth version of the NPI (Barry et al., 2003). It includes character-istics such as grandiosity, vanity, and an overt sense of entitlement.Psychopathy-linked narcissism, on the other hand, tends to focuson one’s actions (e.g., bragging about accomplishments, becomingangry when corrected or punished) as indicators of narcissism.

1.1. NPI-based narcissism

In adult research, the NPI has been considered primarily a mea-sure of ‘‘grandiose narcissism” (e.g., arrogance, sense of entitle-ment) rather than a form of ‘‘vulnerable narcissism” (e.g., a senseof entitlement that is hidden by a presentation of inhibition andmodesty; see Zeigler-Hill, Clark, & Pickard, 2008). From this per-spective, individuals with high levels of narcissism tend to be quickto take credit for successes and to blame failure on external causes,rather than to internalize blame (Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995). NPI-based narcissism has also been inversely related to feelings of sad-ness in adults (Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult,2004). Thus, overall, the arrogance and grandiose self-assurednesscaptured by the NPI would be expected to inversely relate to inter-nalizing problems.

However, numerous studies have found evidence that NPI-based narcissism is itself multidimensional (e.g., Emmons, 1984;Raskin & Terry, 1988; Watson & Biderman, 1993) which may havefurther implications for how narcissism relates to internalizingproblems. More specifically, dimensions of the NPI assessing one’ssense of authority or leadership as well as one’s sense of self-suffi-ciency are thought of as relatively adaptive based on their associa-tion with qualities such as assertiveness and self-confidence (e.g.,Emmons, 1984; Raskin & Terry, 1988) and thus are not likely tobe associated with self-reported internalizing problems. In con-trast, the exploitativeness, entitlement, and exhibitionism scalesof the NPI are considered indicators of maladaptive narcissismbased on their associations with indicators of social maladjustmentsuch as hostility and difficulty delaying gratification (Raskin & Ter-ry, 1988). As noted above, applying this maladaptive/adaptive dis-tinction to youth, Washburn and colleagues (2004) found thatexhibitionistic features of narcissism were related to internalizingsymptoms. Thus, maladaptive narcissism may demonstrate theparadoxical picture of entitled, attention-seeking individuals whoactually feel sad and afraid.

1.2. Psychopathy-linked narcissism

The characteristics (e.g., thinking of oneself as more importantthan others, bragging) descriptive of psychopathy-linked narcis-sism—along with the callous indifference toward others that is partof the psychopathy construct—might suggest that this form of nar-cissism would correspond to lower concurrent feelings of depres-sion and anxiety. Although narcissism is but one component ofpsychopathy, research suggests that psychopathy-linked narcis-sism is uniquely associated with aggression, delinquency, and con-duct problem symptoms (Barry et al., 2007; Frick, Barry, & Bodin,2000) relative to other domains of psychopathy. Similarly, it ap-pears to be associated with unique variance in externalizing prob-lems when considered along with other measures of adolescentnarcissism (Barry & Wallace, in press). The narcissistic features tiedto psychopathy on the Antisocial Process Screening Device, orAPSD, (e.g., ‘‘You brag about your accomplishments, abilities, orpossessions;” ‘‘You acting charming and nice to get things youwant;” ‘‘You think you are better or more important than otherpeople;” Frick et al., 2000) are suggestive of someone who is self-assured to the point of being impervious to day-to-day worries,the social consequences of his/her actions, or the prospects ofhis/her social status being challenged by others. Nevertheless, theexisting empirical evidence paints an unclear picture, with psycho-pathic tendencies in general having been associated with higherneuroticism (Salekin, Leistico, Trobst, Schrum, & Lochman, 2005)but also with low anxiety (Frick, Lilienfeld, Ellis, Loney, &Silverthorn, 1999) in youth. However, empirical investigations asto the specific relation between psychopathy-linked narcissismand internalizing problems in adolescents are non-existent to date.

As research in this area continues, the theoretical foundationsupon which narcissism is conceptualized will be a necessary con-sideration. Such work has the potential to further our understand-ing of not only the associated problematic behaviors but also theemotional sequelae that appear to be central to the narcissism con-struct (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Both the NPI-based and psychop-athy-linked conceptualizations have enjoyed a vast amount ofattention in the adult literature. Consequently, they provide a use-ful springboard for examining youth narcissism in a broader con-text of behavioral, emotional, and social functioning.

1.3. The role of peer problems in a narcissism-internalizing problemsrelation

As noted above, at face value, grandiose self-perceptions wouldbe expected to indicate low levels of anxiety and depression; how-ever, narcissism has also been described as denoting a fragile self-perception. For the latter scenario, peer rejection may help explainhow someone who presents an inflated self-view may also, seem-ingly in direct contradiction, report feelings of worry, fear, or sad-ness, as negative social feedback appears to elicit strong emotionaland behavioral responses for narcissistic individuals (Bushman &Baumeister, 1998; Papps & O’Carroll, 1998). This rejection mayset in turn a vicious cycle whereby the narcissistic individualblames others for his/her misfortune (Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides,& Elliot, 2000; Stucke, 2002), engages in aggression and other so-cially disdained behaviors in an attempt to restore one’s damagedself-esteem and sense of power (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998;Bushman et al., 2009; Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991), and thusincreases the likelihood of continued peer difficulties and subse-quent internalizing issues.

For the present study, peer problems were thought to perhapspartially explain feelings of depression and anxiety for individualswho present with a strong sense of entitlement and need for atten-tion. This particular issue is most relevant to the maladaptive fac-ets of NPI-based narcissism and not to the adaptive forms of

686 C.T. Barry, M.L. Malkin / Journal of Research in Personality 44 (2010) 684–690

narcissism that are more directly indicative of self-confidence or topsychopathy-linked narcissism. No known studies have yet inves-tigated how perceptions of peer discord might be associated withanxiety or depressive symptoms for individuals with narcissistictendencies.

1.4. Hypotheses

It was hypothesized that overall narcissism scores from theNarcissistic Personality Inventory for Children (NPIC; Barry et al.,2003) would be negatively correlated with internalizing problemsbased on similar patterns of findings with the adult NPI (Rhodewalt& Morf, 1995) and presumably due to the inclusion of manyindicators of grandiosity on this measure (see Pincus et al.,2009). Similarly, adaptive narcissism from the NPIC was expectedto be negatively correlated with internalizing problems. However,it was also hypothesized that maladaptive narcissism from theNPIC would be positively associated with internalizing problemsbased on the association between some of these characteristicsand anxiety in adolescents (Washburn et al., 2004) and based onthe association between analogous NPI dimensions and anxietyin adults (Emmons, 1987). It was expected that psychopathy-linked narcissism would demonstrate negative associations withinternalizing problems based on the notion that individuals withpsychopathic tendencies would report experiencing low levels ofanxiety based on previous research (Frick et al., 1999). It was ex-pected that perceived peer rejection would mediate the positiveassociation between maladaptive narcissism and internalizingproblems, as negative social relationships and feedback arethought to promote feelings of insecurity and attempts to repairdamaged self-esteem for individuals with certain narcissistic fea-tures (see Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Washburn et al., 2004).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants were 534 adolescents (429 male, 105 female), ages16–19 (mean = 16.72 years, sd = .71 years) enrolled in a 22-weekmilitary-style intervention program for youth who have droppedout of school. Participants were recruited from three consecutivecohorts (n = 196, n = 161, and n = 178, respectively). The samplewas 73% Caucasian, 25% African–American, and 2% other. Participa-tion in this study in no way affected the intervention provided inthe program. This study was part of a larger project investigatingrisk and protective factors related to various indicators of psycho-social functioning in at-risk adolescents. There were 583 individu-als who completed the initial portion of data collection. However,data were discarded for any participants who declined to continuetheir participation once the study began. The final sample repre-sents only those 534 participants who completed all measures(which is 91.6% of the individuals who initially agreed toparticipate).

2.2. Materials

Narcissistic Personality Inventory for Children (NPIC; Barry et al.,2003). The 40-item NPIC was developed directly from the 40 itemsof the adult NPI, with item wording being simplified for the NPIC.The NPIC retained the NPI’s forced choice response format but withadditional response points, such that respondents choose onestatement from a pair but then rate the selected statement as being‘‘really true” or ‘‘sort of true” for them. There has been initial sup-port for the reliability and validity of the NPIC (Barry, Frick, et al.,2007; Barry, Grafeman, Adler, & Pickard, 2007; Barry et al., 2003)

As with a previous study (Barry, Grafeman, et al., 2007), one item(i.e., ‘‘I make sure that people appreciate what I do” vs. ‘‘Peopleusually appreciate what I do”) was excluded from analyses dueto a low (i.e., r 6 .05) item-total correlation. The internal consis-tency coefficient for the 39-item scale for this sample wasa = .82. Out of a possible range of 0–117, scores ranged from 0 to95 (M = 54.70, sd = 14.64). Adaptive and Maladaptive narcissismscores were calculated based on previous uses of the NPIC (e.g.,Barry, Grafeman, et al., 2007; Barry et al., 2003). More specifically,items drawn from the Self-sufficiency and Authority scales of theNPI were summed to form the Adaptive narcissism composite.The internal consistency of this composite was a = .68 for the cur-rent sample. The Maladaptive narcissism composite was formedusing items from the exhibitionism, exploitativeness, and entitle-ment scales (a = .65). Previous research (Barry et al., 2003) hasshown the pattern of the interrelations of the NPIC scales to beconsistent with the pattern of relations among NPI scales foundby Raskin and Terry (1988). In addition, the composites appear tohave meaning for differentially predicting current and later prob-lem behaviors among youth (Barry, Frick, et al., 2007; Barryet al., 2003).

Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD; Frick & Hare, 2001).The APSD is a 20-item measure consisting of one item for each psy-chopathy-linked characteristic assessed by the PsychopathyChecklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991), a widely used assessmenttool in adults. The APSD was originally developed in parent- andteacher-report formats. Support was found for a three-factor solu-tion for the parent and teacher versions of the APSD in clinic-re-ferred and community samples of youth (Frick et al., 2000).Subsequent work with the self-report version of the APSD repli-cated this three-factor solution, which includes a 7-item Narcis-sism scale. The Narcissism scale has demonstrated suitableinternal consistency (e.g., Boccaccini et al., 2007) and stability(Frick, Kimonis, Dandreaux, & Farell, 2003), in prior research andwas of particular interest in this study. The internal consistencyof the Narcissism scale was a = .70 in this sample.

Personality Inventory for Youth (PIY; Lachar & Gruber, 1994). ThePIY is a 270-item self-report assessment of a broad range of behav-ioral, emotional, and social domains. The PIY uses a True/False re-sponse format, and research has shown good reliability andconvergent validity for the internalizing scales of interest in thisstudy (Lachar & Gruber, 1994). The Fear and Worry subscale(a = .69 for the present sample) as a measure of anxiety and theDepression subscale (a = .70) were significantly interrelated,r = .42, p < .001, and thus were combined to form a 26-item Inter-nalizing Problems composite for this study (a = .78). The LimitedPeer Status subscale was combined with the Conflict with Peerssubscale to form a composite of peer problems based on the signif-icant relation between these subscales, r = .49, p < .001, and theirconceptual overlap. Two items were excluded from this compositedue to low (i.e., r < .05) item-total correlations. The resulting 22-item composite had an internal consistency of a = .79, which wasconsiderably higher than the internal consistencies of the LimitedPeer Status (i.e., a = .65) and Conflict with Peers (a = .66) subscalesindividually.

2.3. Procedure

The procedures for this study were approved by the Institu-tional Review Board (IRB) at the university with which the authorsare affiliated. The director of the intervention program who servesas guardian ad litem for the youth during their enrollment gaveconsent for the youth to participate and to be informed of thestudy, with the adolescents then choosing whether or not to partic-ipate following a detailed assent procedure. Questionnaire data forthis study and the larger project of which it was a part were

C.T. Barry, M.L. Malkin / Journal of Research in Personality 44 (2010) 684–690 687

collected in a classroom setting in groups of approximately 12–18participants in three to four 45-min sessions over approximately10 days.

3. Results

Descriptive statistics for all study variables are shown in Table 1,and correlations among study variables are shown in Table 2. A fewvariables demonstrated gender differences, with males tending toscore higher than females on APSD narcissism, t(532) = 2.46(Mmales = 4.24, sd = 2.69; Mfemales = 3.53, sd = 2.50), lower thanfemales on internalizing problems, t(532) = �6.95 (Mmales = 7.66,sd = 4.39; Mfemales = 10.97, sd = 4.30), and lower on reported peerproblems, t(532) = �2.26 (Mmales = 5.70, sd = 4.30; Mfemales = 6.76,sd = 4.33). The total score from the NPIC and narcissism from theAPSD were significantly correlated, r = .34, p < .001. This relationwas moderate in magnitude, indicating some overlap but alsosome divergence between these two indices. In addition, APSD nar-cissism was more strongly correlated with maladaptive, r = .43,p < .001, than with adaptive narcissism, r = .20, p < .001, from theNPIC, as demonstrated by Fisher’s transformation for dependentcorrelations, t(531) = 6.68, p < .01.

Internalizing problems were negatively correlated with totalscores from the NPIC, r = �.19, p < .001, but this result should beunderstood in the context of their differential association withmaladaptive and adaptive narcissism. More specifically, maladap-tive narcissism was not significantly correlated with internalizingproblems; thus, the hypothesized positive relation between mal-adaptive narcissism and internalizing problems was not supported.Adaptive narcissism was significantly negatively correlated withinternalizing problems, r = �.27, p < .001. In contrast to ourhypothesis, internalizing problems were positively correlated withAPSD narcissism, r = .16, p < .001, indicating that high levels of psy-chopathy-linked narcissism were actually associated with higher,not lower, levels of internalizing problems.

Lastly, NPIC narcissism was significantly negatively correlatedwith peer problems, r = �.34, p < .001, whereas APSD narcissismwas not related to peer problems. Both adaptive and maladaptivenarcissism evidenced negative correlations with peer difficulties,r = �.38, p < .001, r = �.19, p < .001, respectively.

Table 1Descriptive statistics for main study variables.

Variable (possible range) Mean (sd)

Narcissism-NPIC (0–117) 54.69 (14.65)Adaptive Narcissism-NPIC (0–42) 20.67 (6.38)Maladaptive Narcissism-NPIC (0–51) 21.50 (6.53)Narcissism-APSD (0–14) 4.10 (2.67)Internalizing Problems (0–26) 8.31 (4.56)Peer problems (0–22) 5.91 (4.33)

Table 2Correlations among main study variables.

1 2 3

1. Narcissism (NPIC) – .34*** .85**

2. Narcissism (APSD) – .43**

3. Maladaptive Narcissism (NPIC) –4. Adaptive Narcissism (NPIC)5. Internalizing Problems (PIY)6. Peer Problems (PIY)7. Gender

Note: Gender was coded such that female = 1, and male = 0. N = 534 for all correlations.* p < .05.

*** p < .001.

3.1. Mediational analyses

Peer difficulties were considered as a potential mediator in therelation between narcissism and internalizing symptoms. How-ever, based on the above correlations, the nature of this effectwould appear to depend on the manner in which narcissism is con-ceptualized and measured. For these analyses, APSD narcissismand NPIC adaptive narcissism were considered. Maladaptive nar-cissism could not be examined based on its lack of association withinternalizing problems, and NPIC total scores were not examinedbecause it apparently included subsets of items (i.e., adaptive vs.maladaptive items) that were differentially related to anxiety.These models were tested using the approach described by Baronand Kenny (1986) through regression analyses. Because of the gen-der differences noted above, each of the analyses reported belowcontrolled for gender.

For adaptive narcissism, the effect in the prediction of internal-izing problems, controlling for gender, b = �.25 (95% confidenceinterval = �.31 to �.19), was reduced to b = �.05, p = .13 (95% con-fidence interval = �.10 to .00), when also controlling for peer prob-lems (Fig. 1). Adaptive narcissism also negatively predicted uniquevariance in peer problems when controlling for gender, b = �.38,p < .001 (95% confidence interval = �.43 to �.33). Confidence inter-vals were derived from the Monte Carlo Method for AssessingMediation (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). The indirecteffect for this model was b = �.15 (95% confidence inter-val = �.1956 to �.1032). This model for adaptive narcissism specif-ically indicates that one potential reason for its associated lowerinternalizing problems is at least a perception of lower peer diffi-culties, or perhaps even a perception of popularity.

The same mediational model was investigated for APSD narcis-sism. The effect of APSD narcissism on internalizing problems,when controlling for gender, b = .19 (95% confidence inter-val = .05–.33) was slightly reduced, b = .14, p < .001 (95% confi-dence interval = .02–.26), when peer difficulties were consideredsimultaneously. This model is depicted in Fig. 2. However, furtherexamination of this model indicates that peer difficulties cannot beconsidered a mediator in the relation between APSD narcissismand internalizing problems, primarily due to the low associationbetween APSD narcissism and reports of peer difficulties when

Min. Max. Skewness

0 95 �.120 40 �.090 43 .120 13 .710 22 .530 20 .83

4 5 6 7

* .82*** �.19*** �.34*** �.05* .20*** .16*** .07 �.11*

.56*** �.03 �.19*** �.03– �.27*** �.38*** �.08

– .58*** .29***

– .10*

–

Adaptive

Narcissism

Peer Problems

Internalizing

Problems

β = -.25 (β = -.05)

β = -.38 β = .56

Fig. 1. Peer conflict as a partial mediator in the narcissism (NPIC)-internalizing problems relation. Standardized effects are shown. The effect of narcissism on internalizingproblems when controlling for peer problems is shown in parentheses. Each of these analyses controlled for gender.

APSD

Narcissism

Peer Problems

Internalizing

Problems

β = .19 (β = .14)

β = .08† β = .56

Fig. 2. Peer conflict as a partial mediator in the narcissism (APSD)-internalizing problems relation. Standardized effects are shown. The effect of narcissism on internalizingproblems when controlling for peer problems is shown in parentheses. Each of these analyses controlled for gender. �p < .06.

Table 3Regression analyses including gender and peer problems as moderators in theprediction of internalizing problems.

Adaptivenarcissism

Maladaptivenarcissism

APSDnarcissism

Step 1Adaptive narcissism (NPIC) �.05 – –Maladaptive narcissism (NPIC) – .09** –Narcissism (APSD) – – .14***

Gender .23*** .24*** .25***

Peer problems .54*** .57*** .54***

R2 .39*** .40*** .41***

Step 2Adaptive narcissism (NPIC) �.04 – –Maladaptive narcissism (NPIC) – .09* –Narcissism (APSD) – – .14***

Gender .23*** .24*** .26***

Peer problems .54*** .58*** .54***

Gender � narcissism �.05 �.05 .00

688 C.T. Barry, M.L. Malkin / Journal of Research in Personality 44 (2010) 684–690

controlling for gender, b = .08, p = .06 (95% confidence inter-val = �.06 to .22). In essence, it appears that individuals whoself-reported high levels of APSD narcissism were not necessarilymore or less likely to acknowledge problems with peers.

Although the mediational model was not investigated for mal-adaptive narcissism, it is worth noting that partialling out theshared variance between adaptive and maladaptive narcissism re-sulted in significant, positive partial correlations between mal-adaptive narcissism and internalizing problems, pr = .16, p < .001.Although this effect is rather small, it is consistent with the patternof associations between APSD narcissism and internalizing prob-lems in the present study and consistent with what was hypothe-sized for maladaptive narcissism. In a similar vein, controlling forgender and the shared variance between NPIC narcissism and APSDnarcissism maintained (and even somewhat strengthened) thesame pattern of relations with internalizing problems noted above,b = �.27, p < .001, and, b = .28, p < .001, respectively.

Gender � peer problems �.05 �.04 �.02Peer problems � narcissism .00 .05 .02R2 .39*** .40*** .41***

Step 3Adaptive narcissism (NPIC) �.04 – –Maladaptive narcissism (NPIC) – .09** –Narcissism (APSD) – – .15***

Gender .22*** .23*** .26***

Peer problems .54*** .58*** .54***

Gender � narcissism �.05 �.04 .00Gender � peer problems �.06 �.04 �.03Peer problems � narcissism .00 .05 .01Gender � peer

problems � narcissism�.03 �.05 �.03

R2 .39*** .40*** .41***

Note: Standardized Beta-weights are shown. The narcissism interactions refer to thenarcissism variable noted at the top of the column. Gender was coded as 0 = male,1 = female.

* p < .05.** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

3.2. Moderating role of peer problems

Gender was considered as a moderator in the relations betweeneach form of narcissism (i.e., adaptive, maladaptive, and psychop-athy-linked) and internalizing problems. However, no significantinteraction effects involving gender emerged from these analyses.Peer problems were also explored as a potential moderator, insteadof mediator, of the relation between narcissism and internalizingproblems. That is, peer problems could theoretically heighten therisk of internalizing problems associated with narcissism, and/ora lack of perceived peer problems could provide a buffer againstinternalizing problems for individuals with higher levels of narcis-sism. However, no significant two-way interactions between eitherAPSD narcissism and peer problems or NPIC maladaptive or adap-tive narcissism and peer problems emerged. Gender was consid-ered as an additional moderator in this model, resulting in theexamination of a three-way interaction (i.e., narcissism � peerproblems � gender), but again, no significant interaction effectsemerged (see Table 3).

4. Discussion

The findings of the present study suggest that the behavioraland emotional correlates of adolescent narcissism are not limited

to aggression or antisocial behavior. Indeed, some forms of narcis-sism may correspond to feelings of depression and anxiety in ado-lescents. However, this pattern is not uniform across narcissisticfeatures. Psychopathy-linked narcissism was positively associatedwith internalizing problems in the present study. On the otherhand, narcissism from a scale based on the adult NPI tradition,

C.T. Barry, M.L. Malkin / Journal of Research in Personality 44 (2010) 684–690 689

particularly so-called adaptive narcissism, was negatively associ-ated with such problems.

Furthermore, and unexpectedly, the maladaptive elements ofNPIC narcissism were not correlated with internalizing problems,although previous research would suggest a positive relation(Kubarych, Deary, & Austin, 2004; Washburn et al., 2004). The issuehere may be that although relatively problematic compared toother NPI scales, exploitativeness, a sense of entitlement, and ten-dency toward exhibitionism are still aspects of what is consideredgrandiose narcissism (e.g., Pincus et al., 2009); thus, they may notbe particularly tied to higher anxiety or feelings of depression atleast for this sample of older adolescents. Further examination ofthis issue in more varied samples and through other approachesto the measurement of internalizing problems is necessary todetermine why and how these facets of narcissism relate to inter-nalizing problems.

Although this area of research in youth is just emerging, exist-ing theoretical models and empirical evidence from adult samplesmay help explain how the two measures of narcissism, althoughmoderately related, had divergent associations with internalizingproblems. Most notably, Wink (1991) described ‘‘two faces of nar-cissism,” with one manifestation of narcissism following the com-mon idea of grandiosity and a sense of entitlement. Narcissism,discussed in this manner, is consistent with the NPI and NPIC(see Pincus et al., 2009; Zeigler-Hill et al., 2008). The other ismarked by some signs of arrogance and boastfulness that seemto hide, or coexist with, feelings of anxiety and insecurity. AlthoughWink did not speak to the narcissistic features associated with psy-chopathy, the present empirical findings for psychopathy-linkednarcissism appear to fit this latter description well.

As described earlier, psychopathy has long been considered notonly an indicator of severe and varied antisocial behavior but alsoof persistent behavioral problems, ostensibly due to a lack of re-morse and a lack of anxiety or distress over one’s wrongdoings(Cleckley, 1976). Still, by virtue of being part of the psychopathyconstruct, these narcissistic features may be indicative of impair-ments across a broad array of domains. The present findings indi-cate that narcissistic behaviors such as those captured by the APSDmay also be a means to cope with an underlying, fragile self-worth(Jordan et al., 2003) and concomitant internalizing problems. Fur-thermore, the APSD insofar as it includes attempts to charm othersand a tendency to become angry when corrected (Frick et al., 2000)may be indicative of a sense of worthlessness or hypersensitivitythat is thought to describe some manifestations of narcissism(see Zeigler-Hill et al., 2008). Alternatively, the behavioral prob-lems and associated consequences tied to psychopathic tendenciesmay actually result in the development of internalizing problemsfor some adolescents—a possibility that would need to be ad-dressed longitudinally. In short, whereas NPIC-based narcissismmay particularly capture grandiose narcissism, psychopathy-linked narcissism may actually be a manifestation of vulnerablenarcissism, an issue not yet directly addressed in the empiricalliterature.

As noted above, NPIC narcissism, particularly adaptive narcis-sism, demonstrated the hypothesized negative association be-tween attitudes of superiority or grandiosity and internalizingproblems (i.e., anxiety and depression). Not surprisingly, reportsof these narcissistic characteristics were also associated with fewerreported peer-related problems. It may be that individuals withleadership qualities really do receive positive feedback from peersor that good social relationships encourage an adolescent to adopta sense of leadership and self-sufficiency. Whether the perceptionof fewer peer problems reflects reality is an important consider-ation for future research. Indeed, some evidence suggests that nar-cissism has negative social consequences in terms of peers’perceptions of one’s use of relational aggression and that this effect

extends to adaptive narcissism as well (Golmaryami & Barry,2010). Still, the present findings provide some preliminary indica-tion that positive self-perceptions, especially in the form of adap-tive narcissism, provide some buffer against feelings of anxietyand depression. In contrast, psychopathy-linked narcissism seemsto set the stage for some internalizing issues which may be com-pounded by the developmental demands of adolescence (e.g., aneed to brag about accomplishments to attain higher social status).

A number of limitations must be considered when interpretingthe results of the present study. First, the generalizability of thepresent findings is limited in that the sample consisted of partici-pants who had dropped out of school. Questions pertaining tothe conceptualization and correlates of adolescent narcissismshould be further addressed in a wider variety of populations.Importantly, the data were collected exclusively via self-report.Thus, source invariance may account for some of the relations. Inaddition, the internal consistency of many of the variables usedin this study was moderate. It is also impossible to infer causalityregarding the roles of narcissism and peer problems from ourmethodology. For example, it would be useful to manipulate peerrejection or conflict and examine subsequent internalizing symp-toms as a function of narcissism. Therefore, a wider variety ofmethods should clearly be used in future research in this area.However, adolescent self-report constitutes a valuable vantagepoint from which to examine narcissism, perceived peer difficul-ties, and internalizing problems such as anxiety and depression.Although there may be concerns regarding the validity of such re-ports for some adolescents, the perceptions of adolescents on theseconstructs provide unique, and sometimes even more accurate,information relative to other sources (Frick, Barry, & Kamphaus,2010).

In addition, data regarding internalizing problems were col-lected via the PIY which provides a rich source of information ona variety of areas of youth functioning, yet the Fear and Worryand the Depression scales of the PIY do not map directly ontosymptoms of anxiety and depression as typically assessed in clini-cal settings. Lastly, although a number of findings were statisticallysignificant, it is still important to note that many of the effect sizesreported are relatively small. Rather than point to robust associa-tions (negative or positive) between narcissism and internalizingproblems, the present study raises the issue that the pattern ofsuch associations may depend largely on how narcissism isconceptualized.

The results of the present study regarding the association be-tween narcissism and internalizing problems are mixed, perhapsdue to: (a) the complex relation of narcissism to emotional seque-lae; (b) the disparate approaches used to assess narcissism inyouth; and/or (c) different manifestations of narcissism not unlikewhat has been discussed for grandiose versus vulnerable narcis-sism (e.g., Zeigler-Hill et al., 2008) or overt versus covert narcis-sism (e.g., Atlas & Them, 2008) in adults. In the case of the lastissue, as noted above, NPIC narcissism may reflect grandiose nar-cissism that is not tied to emotional problems, whereas the behav-ioral manifestations of psychopathy-linked narcissism may besigns of a more vulnerable, emotionally fragile form of narcissism.Indeed, much recent attention has been devoted to the NPI’semphasis on grandiosity/entitlement and lack of key indicators ofself pathology and vulnerability (e.g., Pincus et al., 2009). In addi-tion, Pincus and Lukowitsy (2010) highlight the conceptual prob-lems of not clearly delineating between normal and pathologicalnarcissism in approaches to assessment and conceptualization.Until we can clearly differentiate between those characteristicsthat are adaptive, particularly in individualistic societies, and thosethat are markers of problematic psychosocial functioning, therewill likely be a continued lack of coherence in narcissism research.Each of these issues deserves attention in future studies on youth.

690 C.T. Barry, M.L. Malkin / Journal of Research in Personality 44 (2010) 684–690

Narcissism appears to have psychosocial relevance prior toadulthood based on growing evidence. In addition to the need toaddress the above-noted limitations of the current study, furtherwork on the development of narcissism and its correlates acrosschildhood and adolescence would contribute greatly to our under-standing of self-perception and its role in psychological function-ing. Indeed, work has already begun on identifying the earlydevelopmental precursors of adolescent narcissism and its stabilityover time (e.g., Carlson & Gjerde, 2009). As evidenced in the pres-ent study, this work also should include indicators of emotionalfunctioning and the influence of peer relationships and peer statuson the early manifestation of narcissism—both in relatively adap-tive and maladaptive forms.

References

Atlas, G. D., & Them, M. A. (2008). Narcissism and sensitivity to criticism: Apreliminary investigation. Current Psychology, 27, 62–76.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator distinction in socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Barry, C. T., Frick, P. J., Adler, K. K., & Grafeman, S. J. (2007). The predictive utility ofnarcissism among children and adolescents: Evidence for a distinction betweenadaptive and maladaptive narcissism. Journal of Child and Family Studies.

Barry, C. T., Frick, P. J., & Killian, A. L. (2003). The relation of narcissism and self-esteem to conduct problems in children: A preliminary investigation. Journal ofClinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 139–152.

Barry, C. T., Grafeman, S. J., Adler, K. K., & Pickard, J. D. (2007). The relations amongnarcissism, self-esteem, and delinquency in a sample of at-risk adolescents.Journal of Adolescence, 30, 933–942.

Barry, C. T., & Wallace, M. T. (in press). Current considerations in the assessment ofyouth narcissism: Indicators of pathological and normative development.Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment.

Barry, T. D., Thompson, A., Barry, C. T., Lochman, J. E., Adler, K., & Hill, K. (2007). Theimportance of narcissism in predicting proactive and reactive aggression inmoderately to highly aggressive children. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 185–197.

Boccaccini, M. T., Epstein, M., Poythress, N., Douglas, K. S., Campbell, J., Gardner, G.,et al. (2007). Self-report measures of child and adolescent psychopathy aspredictors of offending in four sample of justice-involved youth. Assessment, 14,361–374.

Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead toviolence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219–229.

Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., Thomaes, S., Ryu, E., Begeer, S., & West, S. (2009).Looking again, and harder, for a link between low self-esteem and aggression.Journal of Personality, 77, 427–446.

Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., Sedikides, C., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Narcissism andcomparative self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 3,329–347.

Carlson, K. S., & Gjerde, P. F. (2009). Preschool personality antecedents of narcissismin adolescence and young adulthood: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 43, 570–578.

Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validation of the narcissistic

personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291–300.Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 52, 11–17.Frick, P. J., Barry, C. T., & Bodin, S. D. (2000). Applying the concept of psychopathy to

children: Implications for the assessment of antisocial youth. In C. B. Gacono(Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide(pp. 3–24). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Frick, P. J., Barry, C. T., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2010). Clinical assessment of child andadolescent personality and behavior (3rd ed.). New York: Springer.

Frick, P. J., Bodin, S. D., & Barry, C. T. (2000). Psychopathic traits and conductproblems in community and clinic referred samples of children: Furtherdevelopment of the psychopathy screening device. Psychological Assessment, 12,382–393.

Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2001). The antisocial process screening device (APSD).Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Frick, P. J., Kimonis, E. R., Dandreaux, D. M., & Farell, J. M. (2003). The 4 year stabilityof psychopathic traits in non-referred youth. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 21,713–736.

Frick, P. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., Ellis, M., Loney, B., & Silverthorn, P. (1999). Theassociation of anxiety and psychopathy dimensions in children. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 27, 383–392.

Golmaryami, F. N., & Barry, C. T. (2010). The associations of self-reported and peer-reported relational aggression with narcissism and self-esteem amongadolescents in a residential setting. Journal of Clinical Child and AdolescentPsychology, 39, 128–133.

Hare, R. D. (1991). The hare psychopathy checklist-revised. Toronto: Multi-HealthSystems.

Hepper, E. G., Gramzow, R. H., & Sedikides, C. (2010). Individual differences in self-enhancement and self-protection strategies: An integrative analysis. Journal ofPersonality, 78, 781–814.

Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Correll, J. (2003).Secure and defensive high self-esteem. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 85, 969–978.

Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York:Jason Aronson.

Kubarych, T. S., Deary, I. J., & Austin, E. J. (2004). The narcissistic personalityinventory: Factor structure in a non-clinical sample. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 36, 857–872.

Lachar, D., & Gruber, C. P. (1994). The personality inventory for youth. Los Angeles:Western Psychological Services.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for theindirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.

Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: Adynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196.

Papps, B. P., & O’Carroll, R. E. (1998). Extremes of self-esteem and narcissism and theexperience and expression of anger and aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 24,421–438.

Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G. C., & Levy, K. N.(2009). Initial construction and validation of the pathological narcissisminventory. Psychological Assessment, 21, 365–379.

Pincus, A. L., & Lukowitsy, M. R. (2010). Pathological narcissism and narcissisticpersonality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 421–446.

Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). Narcissistic personality inventory. PsychologicalReports, 45, 590.

Raskin, R., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissism, self-esteem, and defensiveself-enhancement. Journal of Personality, 59, 16–38.

Raskin, R. N., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissisticpersonality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54, 890–902.

Rhodewalt, F., Madrian, J. C., & Cheney, S. (1998). Narcissism, self-knowledgeorganization, and emotional reactivity: The effect of daily experiences on self-esteem and affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 75–87.

Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1995). Self and interpersonal correlates of thenarcissistic personality inventory: A review and new findings. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 29, 1–23.

Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1998). On self-aggrandizement and anger: A temporalanalysis of narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 74, 672–685.

Salekin, R. T., Leistico, A. R., Trobst, K. K., Schrum, C. L., & Lochman, J. E. (2005).Adolescent psychopathy and personality theory – the interpersonal circumplex:Expanding evidence of a nomological net. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,33, 445–460.

Sedikides, C., Rudich, E., Gregg, A., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004). Are normalnarcissists psychologically healthy? Self-esteem matters. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 87, 400–416.

Stucke, T. S. (2002). When a grandiose self-image is threatened: Narcissism andself-concept clarity as predictors of negative emotions and aggression followingego-threat. Journal of Personality, 70, 509–530.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003). ‘Isn’t it fun to get the respect that we’regoing to deserve?’ Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 29, 261–272.

Washburn, J. J., McMahon, S. D., King, C. A., Reinecke, M. A., & Silver, C. (2004).Narcissistic features in young adolescents: Relations to aggression andinternalizing symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 247–260.

Watson, P. J., & Biderman, M. D. (1993). Narcissistic personality inventory factors,splitting, and self-consciousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61, 41–57.

Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,61, 590–597.

Zeigler-Hill, V., Clark, C. B., & Pickard, J. D. (2008). Narcissistic subtypes andcontingent self-esteem: Do all narcissists base their self-esteem on the samedomains? Journal of Personality, 76, 753–774.