Dataset Information

Assessment of fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: Development and initial validation of the FLUX scales.

ABSTRACT: There is a growing interest in the distinction between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, along with a hypothesis of a fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism within individuals. There are several well-validated measures of both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, but research has generally found that they are relatively distinct in their relations with their nomological networks. Further, the existing measures of narcissism do not actually assess for a possible fluctuation. The present study developed three scales of narcissistic fluctuation: fluctuation between indifference and anger, grandiosity and shame, and assertiveness and insecurity. Consistent with expectations, the FLUX scales correlated with both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, displayed convergent and discriminant validity with factor derived-narcissism scales and the five-factor model, and correlated at moderate-to-large effect sizes with measures of affective lability. The three FLUX scales were also reduced to one unidimensional nine-item scale of narcissistic fluctuation (the g-FLUX) that retained the correlational properties for the more specific scales and had incremental validity over the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory and Pathological Narcissism Inventory grandiose and vulnerable scales in accounting for affective lability. Results from the present study suggest that the FLUX scales may provide an informative assessment of a fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

SUBMITTER: Oltmanns JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6265070 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: Development and initial validation of the FLUX scales.

Oltmanns Joshua R JR Widiger Thomas A TA

Psychological assessment 20180621 12

There is a growing interest in the distinction between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, along with a hypothesis of a fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism within individuals. There are several well-validated measures of both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, but research has generally found that they are relatively distinct in their relations with their nomological networks. Further, the existing measures of narcissism do not actually assess for a possible fluctuation. T ...[more]

PMID: 29927302

Similar Datasets

Project description:Narcissism is a truly Janusian phenomenon, consisting of both narcissistic grandiosity, exhibitionism, admiration-seeking, boldness, and dominance on the one hand, and narcissistic vulnerability, introversion, withdrawal, hypersensitivity, and anxiety on the other hand. While there is broad consensus that these two seemingly contradictory faces of narcissism can be empirically discerned and have different implications for psychological functioning and mental health, there is not yet agreement on whether grandiose and vulnerable narcissism should be regarded as independent traits or as two manifestations of one personality trait. Previous research indicates that both views hold true when the level of grandiosity is considered a moderating factor: while grandiose and vulnerable narcissism are largely unrelated in the range of normal personality variation, they are correlated in the range of high grandiosity (Jauk et al., 2017b). Here, we replicate and extend this work in an independent sample (N = 891) using a more comprehensive narcissism inventory grounded in a new trifurcated model of narcissism. The trifurcated model partitions narcissism into three main personality dimensions: agentic extraversion, antagonism, and neuroticism. We found a significant breakpoint in the association between narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability at 75% cumulative frequency of grandiosity. While grandiosity and vulnerability are unrelated below this breakpoint (r = 0.02), they are strongly correlated above (r = 0.45). In the lower range of grandiose narcissism, grandiosity draws more upon agentic extraversion and is largely associated with mental health. In the upper range, however, grandiosity is more strongly linked to antagonism and is substantially associated with fear, negative affect, and depression. These findings provide evidence for the view that grandiose and vulnerable narcissism are distinct traits at lower levels of grandiosity, but blend into an antagonistic core with signs of psychological maladjustment at higher levels. Implications for research on narcissism as a personality trait, as well as clinical practice, are discussed.

Project description:Assessment environment, synonymous with climate or atmosphere, is multifaceted. Although there are valid and reliable instruments for measuring the educational environment, there is no validated instrument for measuring the assessment environment in medical programs. This study aimed to develop an instrument for measuring students' perceptions of the assessment environment in an undergraduate medical program and to examine the psychometric properties of the new instrument.The Assessment Environment Questionnaire (AEQ), a 40-item, four-point (1=Strongly Disagree to 4=Strongly Agree) Likert scale instrument designed by the authors, was administered to medical undergraduates from the authors' institution. The response rate was 626/794 (78.84%). To establish construct validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal component analysis and varimax rotation was conducted. To examine the internal consistency reliability of the instrument, Cronbach's α was computed. Mean scores for the entire AEQ and for each factor/subscale were calculated. Mean AEQ scores of students from different academic years and sex were examined.Six hundred and eleven completed questionnaires were analysed. EFA extracted four factors: feedback mechanism (seven items), learning and performance (five items), information on assessment (five items), and assessment system/procedure (three items), which together explained 56.72% of the variance. Based on the four extracted factors/subscales, the AEQ was reduced to 20 items. Cronbach's α for the 20-item AEQ was 0.89, whereas Cronbach's α for the four factors/subscales ranged from 0.71 to 0.87. Mean score for the AEQ was 2.68/4.00. The factor/subscale of 'feedback mechanism' recorded the lowest mean (2.39/4.00), whereas the factor/subscale of 'assessment system/procedure' scored the highest mean (2.92/4.00). Significant differences were found among the AEQ scores of students from different academic years.The AEQ is a valid and reliable instrument. Initial validation supports its use to measure students' perceptions of the assessment environment in an undergraduate medical program.

Dataset Information

Assessment of fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: Development and initial validation of the FLUX scales.

Publications

Assessment of fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: Development and initial validation of the FLUX scales.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets