Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
3. CNFU .65
.08
4. CCC .65
.10 .94
5. UCC .57
.07 .90
.77
6. AOS .57
.06 .90
.78
.68
p .01.
p .0005.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
338
LEE, GREGG, AND PARK
types of uniquenesssupported it. However, demonstrating links
between trait narcissism and interest in actual consumer products
would provide even stronger evidence. Hence, we sought to show
in Study 2 that narcissists, when given the free choice between two
otherwise equally desirable products, would incline toward the
product more capable of conferring positive distinctiveness.
Method
Participants and procedure. Seventy-five undergraduate
students enrolled at McGill University in Canada participated in
this study. The sample (63% female, 37% male) consisted of
people in their early 20s (no individual age data were collected, but
the experimenter noted no exceptions). All participants were re-
cruited via advertisements posted locally for a 20-minute market-
ing survey. Upon replying, participants were directed to a re-
search room in the business department building, where they
proceeded to complete the survey individually. Following a de-
briefing, all were paid $10 CAD.
As part of the cover story, participants were led to believe that
a marketing survey was being conducted. Its alleged purpose was
to better understand consumer opinions about a new product . . .
launched in the market. Participants were reminded that there
were no right or wrong answers and that their anonymity would be
ensured. They were given a booklet to guide them through the task
and provide space for recording their responses. To reinforce the
cover story, each page of this booklet featured the McGill Univer-
sity and Desautels Faculty of Management logos as a header.
Participants were asked to imagine that the current MP3 player
they owned (whether they owned one in reality or not) no longer
worked and that they had decided to buy a replacement: the
featured product, an Apple iPod Touch. Participants were further
asked to imagine buying the product by accessing the website of an
apparently real, but actually fictitious, online electronics store
(Digital World). They then inspected a realistic color printout of
the alleged online story (see Figure 1). This printout prominently
featured an image of the product and was accompanied by the
description Apple iPod Touch 4th Generation 32GB Black Por-
table Media Player.
Crucially, the product came with one of two supplementary
bonus options. Participants had to imagine choosing either one
or the other. One option was designed to help enhance product
distinctiveness, whereas the other was not. The option that partic-
ipants chose constituted the dependent variable.
The high-distinctiveness option was an ultra-slim genuine
leather case. It was described as being part of a limited edition
and as offering the possibility of personal name engraving. In
contrast, the low-distinctiveness option was an iTunes gift card.
It was described as permitting the free download of various enter-
tainment media (songs, movies, apps, etc.) up to a certain total
value. Thus, the high-distinctiveness option (the leather case) was,
relative to the low-distinctiveness option (the gift card),
appearance-related as opposed to practically useful, in short supply
as opposed to in plentiful supply, and particular to the self as
opposed to generic.
Two precautions were taken to ensure that, apart from the
difference in distinctiveness, the options were otherwise equiva-
lent. First, an identical cash value of $50 was ascribed to each
option. Second, in a pilot study, 38 undergraduates from the same
university rated these two bonus options. They emerged as equiv-
alently desirable (Ms 5.15 vs. 5.24), t(37) 0.89, p .38, as
assessed on a two-item scale (1 dislike a lot, 9 like a lot; 1
not at all attractive, 9 very attractive) but as significantly
Figure 1. Advertisement for iPod options used in Study 2.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
339
NARCISSISTIC CONSUMERISM
different in distinctiveness (Ms 6.42 vs. 3.76), t(37) 7.54, p
.0001, in terms of a one-item scale (1 not at all distinctive, 9
very distinctive).
After inspecting the printout of the website, individuals an-
swered the question: If you decided to buy the iPod Touch shown
on the webpage, which bonus option would you choose? After-
wards, they filled out the same 40-item narcissism questionnaire
( .91) as in Study 1. Finally, they were debriefed, compen-
sated, thanked, and dismissed.
Results and Discussion
Option choice (leather case vs. gift coupon) was logistically
regressed on mean narcissism scores. Relative to a null model, the
overall model was significant,
2
(1) 6.32, p .012, yielding a
Nagelkerkes R
2
of .11. Moreover, the effect lay in the predicted
direction: Participants higher in narcissism were more likely to opt
for the leather case than for the gift coupon, Wald
2
(1) 5.57,
p .019. Predictive success reached 62.7%. Thus, in keeping with
our overall hypothesis, more narcissistic respondents showed
greater interest in a consumer product that could enhance their
positive distinctiveness than in one that could not.
Study 3
Overview
In Study 3, we tested our overall hypothesis in three further
ways.
First, we reasoned that, if our hypothesis were correct, narcis-
sists would display relatively greater interest in a product whose
selling point was its capacity to individuate. This time, we asked
participants to evaluate on continuous scales an item of cloth-
inga dress shirtthat they could customize and personalize so
as to visibly mark themselves out from the crowd.
Second, we reasoned that, if our hypothesis were correct, nar-
cissists would be either (a) more likely to already possess distinc-
tive products or (b) more likely to perceive that the products they
already possessed were more distinctive. Regardless, we predicted
that, if asked to nominate a prized personal possession, and then to
guess how many other people owned it too, narcissists would
provide lower estimates. Accordingly, we had participants list up
to three appearance-relevant possessions and then estimate what
percentage of consumers like them also owned each of these
possessions.
Third, we reasoned that, if our hypothesis were correct, the same
product would hold greater or lesser appeal for narcissists, as
opposed to nonnarcissists, depending on whether it did or did not
exhibit a specific feature implying that it could confer distinctive-
ness. Accordingly, we manipulated whether a product wasby
being part of an exclusive limited edition or notin either short or
plentiful supply, on the grounds that greater product scarcity would
signify greater potential for enhancing positive distinctiveness. In
other words, we predicted an interaction between continuous levels
of dispositional narcissism and the dichotomous manipulation of
product supply.
Method
Participants and procedure. One hundred twenty undergrad-
uate students enrolled at McGill University in Canada participated.
Most of the gender-mixed sample (45% female, 55% male) were
in their early 20s (M 23.29; SD 1.80). They were recruited
and run as in the previous study. All received in compensation an
organic cookie worth $5 (CAD).
The booklets introduction claimed that a marketing survey was
being conducted, whose alleged purpose was to better understand
consumer opinions about new products being launched in the
market. To reinforce this cover story, each page featured McGill/
Desautels Faculty of Management logo as a header. Participants
were reminded that there were no right or wrong answers and that
participation was anonymous.
Stimuli, measures, and manipulation. The following mate-
rials were administered in a fixed order via the booklet.
Product 1: Individuation potential. Participants learned about
a fictitious company called Just for You. This company sold a full
line of clothing and accessories for both men and women. It was
said to have recently launched a new line of custom dress shirts,
available for sale online via the website http://www.justforyou
.com.
4
Participants were asked to inspect a printed screenshot of
this website, designed to look classy and professional (see Figure
2). It featured images of sharply attired models of both genders,
and buzzwords connoting contemporary stylishness. Most images
depicted the websites unique selling proposition: the capacity to
tailor shirts in accord with ones personal preferences. In particu-
lar, online shoppers could select their shirts by fabric, color, style,
and size. Furthermore, they could append a customized label to
each shirtan option flagged by the onscreen button individual-
ize. The capacity to create such a desirably distinctive shirt of
ones own was emphasized by the following accompanying blurb:
Just for You is empowering you to be your own dress shirt designer.
Forget about shopping at your local retail stores to buy a dress shirt
ten thousand other people can get. Design your own custom dress shirt
to fit your style, personality, and body. Customize the collar, cuff,
placket, pockets, shoulders, buttons and more on your dress shirt.
Individualize it with a personalized monogram or a custom label.
To verify that the custom shirt had the capacity to make its
wearers distinctive, we asked 34 undergraduates from the same
university the following question: How would wearing such a
shirt make a person appear in a crowd? They answered by
providing a rating on a 9-point scale (1 not at all distinctive, 9
very distinctive). The mean rating (M 7.15) was significantly
above the midpoint of the scale, t(33) 11.33, p .0005.
Having inspected the screenshot, participants were prompted for
their reactions. In particular, they were asked about their intention
to purchase one of the products depicted (e.g., How likely would
you be to purchase the custom dress shirt?; 1 not at all likely,
9 very likely), their willingness to pay for it (e.g., How much
would you be willing to pay for the custom dress shirt?; $____),
and their overall attitude toward it (In your opinion, the custom
dress shirt is: 1 dislikeable, 9 likeable; 1 bad, 9 good;
1 undesirable, 9 desirable; .89).
Product 2: Prized possessions. Participants were asked to
think of up to three things that you own that are extremely
4
This website actually existed at the timeit advertised Wonderful
Vacation Rentals in the United States. However, all participants were
unaware of this. It now advertises The Amazing Stanley, a Baltimore-
based magician.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
340
LEE, GREGG, AND PARK
important to you. Given that publicly observable goods are a
potent source of distinctiveness, we provided the following further
guidance: We are talking about the things which we can wear on
our bodysuch as clothing and accessories for both men and
women, including jewelry, formal wear, casual clothes, watches,
shoes, sunglasses, handbags, ties, and etc. Participants were ad-
ditionally advised to give precise names and details, NOT just
saying the type of thing it is, so that exemplars, and not merely
categories, would be described. For each prized possession they
reported, participants were asked to write down their own esti-
mate of what percentage of other peopleof about your age and
gender. . . also own each of these things.
Product 3: Manipulated supply. Finally, participants were
asked to imagine that they needed to buy a new watch, and had
seen a relevant advertisement for one displayed in a department
store. A realistic-looking advertisement was shown on the follow-
ing page of the booklet (see Figure 3), which participants were told
to inspect. It depicted a brand of watch called Equinoxe. Images of
several flagship versions, presented at different angles and mag-
nifications, were shown. The accompanying text read, The Equi-
noxe watch was introduced at the iF Design Conference 2009. Add
an accent to your business ensemble with the Equinoxe automatic
chronometer.
Critically, the advertisement came in two subtly different ver-
sions. One version featured the tagline: Exclusive limited edition:
Hurry, stocks limited! The other featured the tagline New addi-
tion: Many items in stock! This constituted the experimental
manipulation of distinctiveness: It was implied that the product
was, respectively, either in short supply or in plentiful supply. Half
the participants received each version of the advertisement.
To verify that manipulating the supply of the Equinoxe watch
rendered it more or less distinctive, we took 40 undergraduates
from the same university and had half rate one version of the
advertisement, half the other, on a 9-point scale (1 not at all
distinctive, 9 very distinctive). The Equinoxe watch in plen-
tiful supply (M 6.15) was rated as significantly more distinc-
tive than the watch in short supply (M 2.55), t(38) 9.42,
p .0005.
Having inspected the screenshot, participants again indicated, as
they had for the dress shirt, their overall attitude ( .83) toward,
intention to purchase, and willingness to pay for a typical Equinoxe
watch. Thereafter, participants completed a two-item manipulation
check (r .51). The items, respectively, read, According to the
ad for Equinoxe, how many watches were available for sale? (1
few, 9 many) and According to the ad for Equinoxe, what was
the availability of Equinoxe watches? (1 low availability, 9
high availability).
Finally, participants completed the same version of the NPI
( .87) as before.
Results and Discussion
Product 1. As hypothesized, narcissism predicted consumer
interest in a product liable to enhance positive distinctivenessa
dress shirt that could be customized and personalized.
In particular, narcissism correlated positively with overall atti-
tude toward that dress shirt, r(122) .24, p .01; intention to
purchase it, r(122) .39, p .0005; and willingness to pay for it,
r(122) .53, p .0005. The last variable, though expressed in
Figure 2. Advertisement for dress shirt used in Study 3.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
341
NARCISSISTIC CONSUMERISM
dollar amounts, was nonetheless relatively symmetrically distrib-
uted (skew .25), so the original metric was kept.
5
In addition, the three indices of consumer interest were them-
selves interrelated: Overall attitude toward the dress shirt corre-
lated with intention to purchase it, r(122) .56, p .0005, and
intention to purchase it correlated with willingness to pay for it,
r(122) .39, p .0005. However, overall attitude toward the
dress shirt did not correlate significantly with willingness to pay
for it, r(122) .11, p .20.
Thus, these new findings complement those of Study 2. There,
more narcissistic participants were more likely to choose a
distinctiveness-enhancing product over nonenhancing alternative.
Here, more narcissistic participants expressed greater interest in a
distinctiveness-enhancing product.
Product 2. As hypothesized, narcissism predicted partici-
pants perceptions of the distinctiveness of their prized possessions
in terms of their estimated ownership prevalence.
The possessions that participants listed met the criteria we
requested: They were liable to be both highly prized and publicly
displayed. Typical items included designer jewelry (e.g., a Bulgari
ring), fashion accessories (e.g., a Hermes handbag), haute couture
(e.g., an Armani suit), portable gadgets (e.g., an iPad), and flam-
boyant vehicles (e.g., a Hyundai sports car). Unexpectedly, how-
ever, only a few participants (24%) reported more than a single
prized possession. Hence, we confined our correlational analyses
solely to estimates of the percentage of other people who owned
the first possession listed. These estimates emerged as positively
skewed (2.71), so we nonlinearly transformed them using natural
logarithms. The transformed scores then emerged as negatively
skewed (1.88). Accordingly, we analyzed both sets of scores.
Results converged for both: More narcissistic participants reported
that a smaller percentage of other people also owned the personal
possessions they prized, r
RAW
(122) .39, p .0005;
r
LN
(122) .45, p .0005.
For exploratory purposes, we also conducted a follow-up analysis
afforded by the unexpected variation in the number of possessions
that participants reported. We reasoned that if narcissists used these
possessions to distinguish themselves, then they should have listed
more of them (on a scale from 1 to 3). They did, r(122) .42, p
.0005. Moreover, listing more possessions correlated negatively with
estimates of the percentage of people who owned the first possession
listed, r
RAW
(122) .23, p .02; r
LN
(122) .22, p .02.
As pointed out earlier, these findings could reflect perceptions
or reality. It could be that narcissists actually buy products that are
more distinctive in that fewer people are liable to buy them, or it
could be that narcissists regard whatever products they buy as
more distinctive, or it could be both. To help settle the matter, we
had five postgraduates, all blind to participants narcissism scores,
independently rate the distinctiveness of each of the possessions
that participants listed first (1 not at all distinctive; 9 very
distinctive). We then averaged those ratings to create an objective
index of possession distinctiveness. We also took and averaged
complementary ratings of the desirability (1 not at all desir-
5
Following transformation of willingness-to-pay scores by a natural
logarithm, the correlation decreases slightly, r(124) .48, p .0005,
likely reflecting the induced skew of 1.51.
Figure 3. Advertisement for Equinoxe watch used in Studies 3 and 4.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
342
LEE, GREGG, AND PARK
ability; 9 very desirable) and value (1 not at all valuable; 9
very valuable) of each of the possessions.
As hypothesized, narcissistic participants reported owning pos-
sessions that were objectively rated as more distinctive, r(122)
.28, p .002. However, participants estimates of the percentage
of people who owned those possessions did not covary with this
objectively rated distinctiveness, r
RAW
(122) .17, p .06;
r
LN
(122) .09, p .33: The two dependent variables were
independent. Moreover, the link between narcissism and partici-
pants estimates of the percentage of people who owned those
possessions persisted after partialing for the objectively rated dis-
tinctiveness of those possessions, r
RAW
(121) .34, p .0005;
r
LN
(121) .44, p .0005, with the same being true when the
target and partialed variables were reversed, r
RAW
(121) .24, p
.01; r
LN
(121) .27, p .002. Thus, the data are consistent with
narcissists distinguishing themselves in terms of consumer prod-
ucts both by actually buying more objectively distinctive products
and by regarding whatever products they buy as being more
distinctive, with the two effects being independent.
Finally, our findings showed an interesting specificity. As re-
gards objective ratings of participants possessions, correlations
unsurprisingly emerged between distinctiveness and likability,
r(122) .49, p .0005; likeability and value, r(122) .28, p
.0005; and value and distinctiveness, r(122) .78, p .0005.
However, although the possessions of more narcissistic partici-
pants were objectively rated as more distinctive (see above), they
were not objectively rated as either more desirable, r(122) .06,
p .50, or as more valuable, r(122) .14, p .12. Indeed, the
correlation between narcissism and objectively rated distinctive-
ness remained almost unchanged after simultaneously controlling
for both objectively rated likeability and objectively rated value,
r(120) .27, p .005. Thus, more narcissistic participants
seemed to own, in the eyes of others, more purely distinctive
possessions. Only in their own eyes may their possessions have
been prized as positive.
Products 1 and 2: Combined analysis. If interest in Product
1, and estimates of ownership of Product 2, both reflected a desire
for positive distinctiveness, then these variables should have cor-
related. Our results partly supported this prediction. On the one
hand, neither intention to purchase the dress shirt nor overall
attitude toward it correlated significantly with ownership estimates
of prized possessions (.03 r[122] .13; .77 p .14). On
the other hand, willingness to pay for the customizable dress shirt
did correlate negatively with ownership estimates of prized pos-
sessions, r
RAW
(122) .29, p .001; r
LN
(122) .27, p
.005. Moreover, the same pattern (in the opposite direction) was
also observed when number of prized possessions listed replaced
ownership estimates: No correlation emerged with intention to
purchase the dress shirt, or with overall attitude toward it (.02
r[122] .06; .87 p .53), but one did emerge with willingness
to pay for it, r
RAW
(122) .27, p .002; r
LN
(122) .26, p
.005. Given that narcissism had earlier shown the highest correla-
tion with willingness to pay for the dress shirt, this may have been
the most sensitive index to capture such a relation.
Furthermore, if narcissism lay behind the quest for positive
distinctiveness, then it should also have largely accounted for the
link between, on the one hand, willingness to pay for the dress shirt
and, on the other hand, ownership estimates of prized possessions
and the number of prized possessions listed. This turned out to be the
case. After partialing for narcissism, the link between willingness to
pay for the dress shirt and ownership estimates of prized possessions
fell substantially and became insignificant, r
RAW
(121) .11, p
.21; r
LN
(121) .05, p .61. So did the corresponding link to
the number of prized possessions listed, r(121) .06, p .51.
Product 3. As hypothesized, the same product held greater
appeal for more narcissistic participants when it was portrayed as
being exclusive and in short supply.
First, the scarcity manipulation worked: Together, fewer Equi-
noxe watches were deemed available in the scarce condition (M
3.65) than in the plentiful condition (M 6.82), t(122) 9.94,
p .001. Moreover, the scarcity manipulation check was signif-
icantly below the scale midpoint (5) in the scarce condition,
t(61) 7.17, p .0005, and significantly above it in the plentiful
condition, t(61) 7.00, p .0005. Nonetheless, if ratings on the
correct side of the scale midpoint are taken as the criterion of
success, then the manipulation worked in only 77% of cases
most, but hardly all. Hence, we report results both (a) across all
participants and (b) across those participants whose ratings of
scarcity were above or below the scale midpoint in the intended
direction (i.e., for whom it worked). Whereas results for (a)
maximized power via sample size, results for (b) maximized power
via true variance.
Given that the Equinoxe watch, whether in short or plentiful
supply, was still arguably a reasonably exclusive product per se, it
would not have been surprising had narcissism simply predicted
consumer interest in it. On two out of three indices, it did. In
particular, although narcissism did not predict overall attitude
toward a typical Equinoxe watch, r(122) .13, p .14 (scarcity
subset: r[93] .14, p .18), it did predict both intention to
purchase it, r(122) .21, p .02 (scarcity subset: r[93] .19,
p .06), and willingness to pay for it, r(122) .46, p . 0005
(scarcity subset: r[93] .44, p .0005). (Note: willingness-to-
pay scores, being positively skewed [1.01], were transformed via
natural logarithm, thereby normalizing their distribution [.04].)
The key question, nonetheless, was whether narcissism would
interact with the manipulation of product scarcity to predict con-
sumer interest. To answer this question, we hierarchically re-
gressed each of the three consumer interest indicesoverall atti-
tude toward a typical Equinoxe watch, intention to purchase it, and
willingness to pay for iton the same three predictor variables
narcissism, the experimental manipulation, and their statistical
interaction. In keeping with standard practice (Aiken & West,
1991), we first centered scores for narcissism and the experimental
manipulation, and the computed interaction term as their multipli-
cative product. Next, we regressed each consumer interest vari-
able, at Step 1, on both narcissism and the experimental manipu-
lation, and at Step 2, on their interaction. A significant interaction
termsuch that the experimental manipulation of scarcity led to
greater consumer interest when narcissism scores were higher
would have confirmed our prediction.
Indeed, for all three consumer interest variables, this significant
interaction emerged. In particular, for overall attitude toward a
typical Equinoxe watch, it was t(1, 120) 3.70, p .0005; for
intention to purchase it, t(1, 120) 4.80, p .0005; and for
willingness to pay for it, t(1, 120) 2.49, p .02. The pattern of
interaction in each case suggested that a difference in consumer
interest among more narcissistic participants was the key driver.
Simple effects analyses confirmed this: The links between the
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
343
NARCISSISTIC CONSUMERISM
scarcity manipulation and the consumer interest indices were con-
sistently significant and substantial when narcissism was plotted
at 1 SD (.42 .67; 3.77 t[120] 5.92; all ps .0005),
but consistently significant and negligible when narcissism was
plotted at 1 SD (.10 .04; .89 t[120] .32; all
ps .38).
Finally, those participants among whom the scarcity manipula-
tion worked showed almost identical results. In particular, the
corresponding values for the three interaction terms were, respec-
tively, t(1, 91) 3.16, p .002; t(1, 91) 3.92, p .0005; and
t(1, 91) 1.98, p .05. Also, the corresponding ranges of values
when plotting narcissism at 1 SD were (.38 .65; 2.77
t[91] 4.86; all ps .004), and when plotting it at 1 SD were
(.13 .05; .94 t[91] .36; all ps .35). To illustrate
these interactions, Figures 4, 5, and 6, respectively, plot the ex-
trapolated means for each dependent variable (overall attitude
toward the Equinoxe watch; intention to purchase it; and willing-
ness to pay for it) at each level of the scarcity manipulation, for
levels of narcissism at 1 SD.
Study 4
Overview
All findings so far have pertained to how narcissism predicts
interest in consumer products intended for the buyer. But we
wondered whether these findings would generalize across product
recipient. In particular, we wondered whether narcissists would
show a preference for products that enhance positive distinctive-
ness, not only when spending their own money on themselves but
also when spending their own money on close others. (When it
comes to consumer products, particularly those that might be
expensive, we assumed that the most common recipients would be
close others.)
One line of argument suggests that the product preference would
not persist. Narcissists are more interested in personal achievement
than in intimate relationships (Foster & Campbel, 2007). Indeed,
they are often prepared to sacrifice close others to satisfy their
thirst for competitive glory (Sedikides et al., 2002). Hence, when
buying gifts for others, narcissists might conceivably refrain from
purchasing products that would enhance the distinctiveness of
close others, lest it obscure their own distinctiveness.
On the other hand, narcissists may often assimilate themselves
to, rather than contrast themselves against, genuinely close others
(Tesser, 1988). Otherwise put, narcissists may habitually include
close others in their own self-concept (Aron et al., 2004). If so,
then close others may be proxy targets for achieving positive
distinctiveness. If so, spending on close others might be psycho-
Figure 4. Extrapolated means representing consumer attitudes toward the
Equinoxe watch in Study 3 as a joint function of manipulated level of supply
(scarce, plentiful) and participants measured level of narcissism (low, high).
Error bars represent 95%confidence intervals around estimated intercepts (i.e.,
the means shown), based on standard errors computed from four derivative
regression equations where levels of narcissism were orthogonally coded at
1 SD or 1SD, and levels of supply as 0 or 1.
Figure 5. Extrapolated means representing intention to purchase the Equi-
noxe watch in Study 3 as a joint function of manipulated level of supply
(scarce, plentiful) and participants measured level of narcissism (low, high).
Error bars represent 95%confidence intervals around estimated intercepts (i.e.,
the means shown), based on standard errors computed from four derivative
regression equations where levels of narcissism were orthogonally coded at
1 SD or 1SD, and levels of supply as 0 or 1.
Figure 6. Extrapolated means representing willingness to pay for the
Equinoxe watch in Study 3 as a joint function of manipulated level of
supply (scarce, plentiful) and participants measured level of narcissism
(low, high). Units are expressed in the natural logarithm (ln) of the dollar
amounts reported. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals around
estimated intercepts (i.e., the means shown), based on standard errors
computed from four derivative regression equations where levels of nar-
cissism were orthogonally coded at 1 SD or 1SD, and levels of supply
as 0 or 1.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
344
LEE, GREGG, AND PARK
logically similar to spending on oneself, and prior findings should
generalize to buying for close others.
Given that gift-giving constitutes a noncompetitive activity, and
narcissists can become communally inclined given the right cues
(Finkel, Campbell, Buffardi, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2009), we
favored the latter reasoning.
Method
Participants and procedure. One hundred undergraduate
students, enrolled at McGill University in Canada, participated in
return for $5 (CAD). The gender split of the sample was roughly
equal (56% female, 44% male). Most participants were in their
early 20s (no individual age data were collected). All were re-
cruited and run as in previous studies. Each was paid $5 (CAD) for
taking part. The cover story for the booklet, and its presentational
format, were identical to those in Study 3.
Stimuli, measures, and manipulation. The booklet came in
two versions. Each featured a version of the advertisement for
Equinoxe watches previously featured in Study 3 (i.e., implying it
was in short or plentiful supply). However, the framing of the
advertisements differed. This time, participants were asked to
imagine that they had a gift certificate for a department store and
that they could use to buy a wrist watch as a gift for someone very
close to you on his or her birthday.
Having inspected the screenshot, participants indicated their
overall attitude toward a typical Equinoxe watch (r .83) and
willingness to pay for it.
6
They then completed the same manip-
ulation check (r .81) as in Study 3, as well as the same version
of the NPI ( .93).
Results and Discussion
The evidence was broadly consistent with our hypothesis. Nar-
cissists showed, or tended to show, more interest in a consumer
product when it was portrayed as exclusive and in short supply,
even when it took the form of a gift for close others.
As before, the scarcity manipulation worked: Together, fewer
Equinoxe watches were deemed available in the scarce condition
(M 3.88) than in the plentiful condition (M 8.36), t(98)
12.69, p .0005. Moreover, the scarcity manipulation check was
significantly below the scale midpoint (5) in the scarce condition,
t(49) 3.62, p .001, and significantly above it in the plentiful
condition, t(49) 19.81, p .0005. Taking ratings on the correct
side of the scale midpoint as the criterion of success, the manip-
ulation worked in 82% of cases. For the sake of completeness,
and to be consistent with Study 3, we again report results both
across all participants and across that subset for whom the scarcity
manipulation worked.
This time, however, narcissism predicted neither overall attitude
toward a typical Equinoxe watch, r(98) .13, p .20 (scarcity
subset: r[80] .09, p .43), nor willingness to pay for it, r(98)
.07, p .49 (scarcity subset: r[80] .01, p .92). (As in Study
3, willingness-to-pay scores, being positively skewed [2.93],
were transformed via a natural logarithm, thereby normalizing
their distribution [.20].) That is, either because the recipient of
the product, or the tastes of the sample, differed, the watch per se
itself held no greater appeal for narcissists than for nonnarcissists.
Next, we tested the critical Narcissism Scarcity interactions
just as in Study 3. Once again, the interaction was significant for
willingness to pay for a typical Equinoxe watch, t(1, 96) 3.47,
p .001, although not for overall attitude toward it, t(1, 96)
1.58, p .12. However, among those participants for whom the
manipulation worked, the interaction was significant both for
the willingness-to-pay index, t(1, 78) 3.26, p .002, and for the
overall attitude index, t(1, 78) 1.96, p .05.
Follow-up simple effects analyses were conducted on this sam-
ple subset to help interpret the pattern of interaction. As in Study
3, the link between the scarcity manipulation and the willingness-
to-pay index was significant and substantial when narcissism was
plotted at 1 SD ( .50), t(78) 3.34, p .001, but not when
narcissism was plotted at 1 SD ( .19), t(78) 1.25, p
.22. However, although the link between the overall attitude was
also insignificant when narcissism was plotted at 1 SD (
.16), t(78) 1.05, p .30, it was only marginally significant
when plotted at 1 SD ( .27), t(78) 1.70, p .09. Yet, the
interaction can be alternatively decomposed as follows: Whereas
participants higher in narcissism did not evaluate the Equinoxe
watch significantly more positively than those lower in narcissism
when it was portrayed as being in plentiful supply ( .13),
t(78) 0.82, p .41, they did evaluate it significantly more
positively when it was portrayed as being in short supply (
.30), t(78) 1.96, p .05.
Subcomponents of narcissism: Reanalysis of Studies 14.
Across various dependent variables in four studies, we obtained
consistent evidence that more narcissistic participants prefer con-
sumer products that enhance their positive distinctiveness. How-
ever, narcissism is not a unifactorial construct. As recurring in-
vestigations have highlighted, narcissism comprises several
subcomponents that may be psychometrically and predictively
distinguished (Kubarych, Deary, & Austin, 2004; Raskin & Terry,
1988), even if the optimal derivation remains debated (Ackerman
et al., 2011; Rosenthal & Hooley 2010). Accordingly, by exam-
ining how such subcomponents predict preferences for consumer
products that enhance positive distinctiveness, more nuanced in-
sight may be gained into why narcissism prompts purchasing.
Here, we follow Ackerman et al. (2011) by splitting full-scale
narcissism (mean .92 across all studies) into three subcom-
ponents that are, respectively, associated with higher, intermediate,
and lower psychosocial adaptiveness: Leadership-Authority (mean
.77), reflecting assertiveness and social potency; Grandiosity-
Exhibitionism (mean .79), reflecting vanity and showiness;
and Entitlement-Exploitativeness (mean .61), reflecting felt
desert and antisocial scheming.
A plausible case can be madeespecially for the first two
subcomponentsthat each should predict interest in achieving
positive distinctiveness via consumer products. First, people
higher in Leadership-Authority should chronically seek to elevate
themselves by pursuing more high-status positions. Here, display-
ing distinctive products as a way of expressing their aspirations, or
of communicating their rising social rank, would help them
achieve this goal. Second, people higher in Grandiosity-
Exhibitionism should chronically seek to individuate themselves
by standing out from the crowd. Displaying products that are
personalizable and customizable would help them achieve this
6
Due to a printing error, the intention-to-purchase index was omitted
from this study.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
345
NARCISSISTIC CONSUMERISM
goal. Finally, people higher in Entitlement-Exploitativenesswho
are keen to manipulate others to their own advantage, so as to
secure what they regard as their duemay use the positive dis-
tinctiveness that consumer products afford to exploit other people
strategically.
Tables 2 and 3 list the links in various studies between the key
dependent variables and the three subcomponents of narcissism.
Table 3 displays links for dependent variables pertaining to the
Equinoxe watch (Studies 3 and 4), and Table 2 for other dependent
variables (Studies 1, 2, and 3). For convenience, the leftmost
column in both tables reproduces links with overall narcissism. To
their right, independent links with each subcomponent of narcis-
sism are displayed. Next, links with each subcomponent after
adjusting for both other subcomponents are displayed. Finally, the
rightmost column indicates associated sample sizes.
Overall, all three subcomponents of narcissism always or nearly
always showed zero-order correlations with the key dependent
variables. Furthermore, adjusting for the other subcomponents,
each subcomponent uniquely predicted at least one key dependent
variable. However, the pattern of unique prediction varied.
In Study 1, only Grandiosity-Exhibitionism continued to predict
scores on the CNFU and on each of its subscales after adjusting for
both other subcomponents. (Interestingly, self-esteem correlated
only with Leadership-Authority, the most adaptive component of
narcissism.) Such specificity is perhaps unsurprising, given that
many of the items of the CNFU explicitly refer to individuation
(e.g., CCC: I actively seek to develop my personal uniqueness by
buying special products or brands; UCC: When I dress differ-
ently, Im often aware that others think Im peculiar, but I dont
care; AOS: I give up wearing fashions Ive purchased once they
become popular among the general public). By the same token, it
makes sense that, in Study 3, Grandiosity-Exhibitionism proved to
be the main predictor of consumer interest in a product designed
to individuate: the Just for You dress shirt that could be tailored
to participants taste. Grandiosity-Exhibitionism also uniquely pre-
dicted participants estimates of the number of people who also
owned the possessions that they prized. Again, this makes sense:
Whether these estimates reflected reality or fancy, the sense of
owning what others do not conveys the impression of being a
distinctive individual.
In other cases, Leadership-Authority emerged as the primary
or unique predictor: of the number of prized possessions par-
ticipants owned (Study 3); of the amount they were willing to
pay for distinctive clothes (Study 3); and of their preferences
for a special-edition product as opposed to a commonplace one
(Study 2). It also uniquely predicted greater interest in a product
(for personal use) that was portrayed as being in short supply
(Study 3).
Although multiple explanations for this last pattern exist, we
suggest two possibilities. First, two of the dependent variables
have a bottom-line character to them (i.e., number of posses-
sions; willingness to pay). People higher in Leadership-
Authority should want to actually get ahead, as opposed to
merely being regarded as standing out. Of course, both goals
are mutually reinforcing, but one can still be prioritized over the
other. If so, higher correlations with more objective indices of
Table 2
Studies 1, 2, and 3: Links Between Narcissism, Narcissism Subcomponents, and Key Dependent Variables Not Involving the
Equinoxe Watch
Simple
coefficients
Regression
coefficients
Variable
Overall
narcissism
Leadership/
Authority
Grandiosity/
Exhibitionism
Entitlement/
Exploitativeness
Leadership/
Authority
Grandiosity/
Exhibitionism
Entitlement/
Exploitativeness N
Study 1
Questionnaires
Self-esteem .27
.37
.49
.69
.54
.02 .67
.05 102
CCC .65
.50
.55
.56
.03 .54
.14 102
UCC .57
.51
.63
.46
.07 .69
.01 102
AOS .57
.52
.60
.45
.01 .61
.00
Study 2
iPhone accessories
Product choice .29
.34
.16 .27
.40
.18 .13 75
Study 3
Individualized shirt
Attitude .24
.14 .23
.17
.03 .20
.10 124
Purchase intent .39
.28
.33
.25
.10 .23
.10 124
Willingness to
pay .53
.46
.45
.33
.27
.26
.09 124
Prized possessions
Others owning .45
.32
.42
.22
.10 .35
.03 124
Number listed .42
.38
.36
.31
.21
p .10.
p .05.
p .01.
p .001.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
346
LEE, GREGG, AND PARK
positive distinctivenessimplying real attainmentwould be
expected for people striving to achieve objectively greater
status. Second, products that convey exclusivity might be par-
ticularly sought by people higher in Leadership-Authority. The
status they seek is necessarily zero-sum: People must divide
into those who have it (the haves, or have-mores) and those who
do not (the have-nots, or have-lesses). Similarly, the ownership
of exclusive products is necessarily zero-sum: People must
divide into those who own them and those who do not. (In
contrast, run-of-the-mill products are for hoi polloi.) Thus, the
keenness of people higher in Leadership-Authority to own
exclusive productsboth the leather case in Study 2 and the
watch in Study 3 having been described as limited edition
may reflect their keenness to attain status. To them, owning
exclusive products may serve either as a coveted symbol of
status or as a self-presentational means of attaining it.
In only one case did Entitlement-Exploitativeness emerge as
the primary or unique predictor: Study 4. Here, only partici-
pants who were higher in Entitlement-Exploitativeness were
prepared to spend more on a product for someone else, when
that product was portrayed as being in short supply (Study 4).
One implication is that our earlier theorizing about why nar-
cissists purchase distinctive products for close others may re-
quire revision. Narcissists goal here may not be as much ego
relatedthat is, to elevate or individuate themselves vicari-
ously by elevating or individuating a close otheras much as it
is pragmaticthat is, to bribe a close other into doing some-
thing for them that they believe they deserve. There is certainly
a precedent for narcissists treating even close others as means
rather than ends (Sedikides et al., 2002) and for having Machi-
avellian inclinations (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Narcissists
may, in particular, pursue gift-giving as a tactical mating strat-
egy (Holtzman & Strube, 2011; Saad & Gill, 2003).
General Discussion
Summary of Findings
We hypothesized that narcissists would prefer consumer prod-
ucts that enhance their positive distinctiveness. Across four studies
and various operationalizations, we found consistent support for
this hypothesis.
First, we found (Study 1) that participants higher in narcissism
reported, on a well-validated inventory, a greater inclination to
purchase products to satisfy their need for uniqueness (uniqueness
being the logical limit of distinctiveness). In particular, such par-
ticipants reported purchasing products to cultivate a personal style,
to defy established conventions, and to avoid looking like others.
Importantly, participants merely higher in self-esteem did not
show the same inclination. This suggests that narcissistic self-
regard, not generic self-worth, lay behind the effects.
Second, we found that more narcissistic participants also
showed greater interest in consumer products liable to confer
positive distinctiveness. In particular (Study 3), more narcissistic
participants rated a shirt that they could customize and personalize
(thereby permitting them to distinguish themselves from wearers
of regular shirts) more favorably than did less narcissistic partic-
ipants. They also indicated they were more likely to buy it and
would be willingly to pay a higher price for it. Furthermore (Study
2), more narcissistic participants, given a choice of free accesso-
ries, were more likely to opt for a leather case over a gift coupon,
where the latter belonged to a limited edition (its scarcity thereby
permitting them, by joining a select class of owners, to distinguish
themselves from nonowners), and could be engraved with their
name (again, offering them the opportunity for distinctiveness via
personalization).
Third, we found that, if the same brand of watch were described
as belonging to an exclusive limited edition, as opposed to being
Table 3
Studies 3 and 4: Links Between Scarcity Narcissism Interactions, Scarcity Narcissism-Subcomponent Interactions, and
Dependent Variables Involving the Equinoxe Watch
Independent
coefficients
Mutually
adjusted
coefficients
Variable
Full-scale
NPI
Leadership/
Authority
Grandiosity/
Exhibitionism
Entitlement/
Exploitativeness
Leadership/
Authority
Grandiosity/
Exhibitionism
Entitlement/
Exploitativeness N
Study 3
Watch for self
Attitude .29
.38
.24
.15 .41
.09 .11 95
Purchase intent .36
.35
.25
.23
.30
.08 .04 95
Willingness to pay .17
.23
.10 .08 95
Study 4
Watch for other
Attitude .22
82
Willingness to pay .35
.29
.27
.43
82
Note. Overall narcissism was operationalized as the full-scale score on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI). Subcomponents of narcissism were
operationalized as partial scale scores derived from the item clusters identified by Ackerman et al. (2011). Independent coefficients are regression beta
weights representing the statistical interaction between the scarcity manipulation and either narcissism or a subcomponent of narcissism, after first
controlling for the main effects of both. Mutually adjusted coefficients are regression beta weights representing the statistical interaction between the
scarcity manipulation and one subcomponent of narcissism, after first controlling for (a) the main effects of both and (b) the interactive effects of the other
two subcomponents of narcissism. All analyses conducted on subsets of participants for whom the scarcity manipulations worked.
p .10.
p .05.
p .01.
p .001.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
347
NARCISSISTIC CONSUMERISM
abundantly available, more narcissistic consumers indicated a
greater consumer interest in it: They evaluated it more favorably
and were willing to pay a higher price for it. Moreover, this effect
held whether the watch was being bought for oneself (Study 3) or
for a close other (Study 4).
Fourth, we found (Study 3) that more narcissistic participants
estimated that the personal possessions they prized were owned by
a smaller percentage of other people and that, independently of
this, those possessions were also objectively more distinctive, as
judged by independent raters. In addition, more narcissistic par-
ticipants listed a greater number of prized personal possessions.
Finally, narcissism explained the link between estimates of rela-
tively exclusive ownership and willingness to pay for the customi-
zable shirt referred to above. This strongly implicates narcissism as
the driver of these effects.
Finally, in a reanalysis of all the above findings, we found that
two subcomponents of narcissism, namely, Grandiosity-Exhibi-
tionismreflecting a striving for social individuationand Lead-
ership-Authorityreflecting a striving for social elevationinde-
pendently predicted, on different occasions, interest in consumer
products intended for oneself (Studies 1, 2, and 3). A third sub-
component, Entitlement-Exploitativeness, independently predicted
interest in consumer products only when they were intended for
others (Study 4), consistent with manipulative intent.
Thus, we found consistent evidence that personalityspecifi-
cally, narcissism or some subcomponent thereofcould intelligi-
bly and powerfully predict interest in a consumer product on the
basis of its power to satisfy one of two self-related symbolic
valuessocial individuation and social elevationand thereby
enhance the positive distinctiveness of the purchaser. Moreover,
there is good reason to believe, based on the cognate research
findings (e.g., Gao et al., 2009), that such agentic purchasing
proclivities ultimately reflect an attempt on the part of narcissists
to strategically regulate their self-regard (Morf & Rhodewalt,
2001), either via self-enhancement (Sedikides & Gregg, 2001) or
via self-protection (Horvath & Morf, 2009).
We close by considering some implications of our findings, both
practical and theoretical.
Practical Implications
First, not only did predicted effects emerge consistently across
our four studies, but their magnitude was often noteworthy. In
Study 1, the NPI and CNFU shared over 40% of their variance
in common. In Study 2, the NPI predicted 25% of the variance in
money participants would spend on a product with high individ-
uation potential. In Studies 3 and 4, the level of manipulated
product supply predicted 25% of the variance in willingness to pay
for it among high NPI scorers. If such results generalize, then
knowledge of consumers narcissism, either at an individual or
group level, could markedly augment the ability of market re-
searchers to predict the purchase of branded or status goods
(Berger & Heath, 2007; Sedikides et al., 2011). This is especially
so given the availability of briefer assessment instruments (Ames,
Rose, & Anderson, 2006), which might even be abbreviated even
further, as has been done for self-esteem (Robins, Hendin, &
Trzesniewski, 2001). Moreover, the fact that narcissism seems to
be on the rise (Twenge & Foster, 2008) increases its relevance as
a basis for purchase predictions.
Second, our findings help to clarify on whom contrasting types
of persuasive appeal might work better. Cialdini and Trost (1998),
in a comprehensive review, noted that people could be swayed,
among other things, by an appeal to social proofthat many other
people are doing something (e.g., buying a product)or by an
appeal to scarcitythat not a lot of something is available (e.g., an
unusual product).
The concept of social proof has been variously addressed under
such headings as bandwagon effects (Leibenstein, 1950) and
multiple-source effects (Harkins & Petty, 1981). What most people
desire most of the time is likely to be what one will desire oneself,
both because human nature is shared (Pinker, 2002) and because
the high demand for a good reflected in mass behavior is a signal
that the good is objectively beneficial. In contrast, the concept of
scarcity derives originally from economics (e.g., Reisman, 1996),
where it designates a property of all goods where demand outstrips
supply. As a rule of thumb, scarcity is also a signal that a good is
objectively beneficial; indeed, it must be, as high demand is built
into its very definition. Much empirical evidence also confirms the
subjective allure of scarce goods (Brock, 1968; Eisend, 2008;
Inman, Peter, & Raghubir, 1997; Lynn, 1989; Verhallen & Rob-
ben, 1994).
Note, however, that it is often the physical properties of a good
that are understood as being demanded. For example, swayed by a
social proof appeal, someone might infer that, if everyone is
buying Acme widgets, then they are in high demand, and do their
job. Similarly, swayed by a scarcity appeal, someone might infer
that if Acme widgets are hard to come by, they are again in high
demand, and also do their job. Either way, someone would do well
to acquire that good. But consider now the supply element in the
question, which is relevant to the symbolic value of these goods. If
everyone is buying Acme widgets, and supply is keeping pace with
demand, then everyone can get them; however, if demand is
outpacing supply, then only a select few people can get them.
Crucially, it is only in the latter case that Acme widgets can
enhance the positive distinctiveness of their owners; in the former
case, indeed, Acme widgets might actually have the opposite
effect. Thus, narcissists, relative to nonnarcissists, should be par-
ticularly susceptible to scarcity appeals, because the physical and
symbolic values of the goods demanded would complement one
another. In contrast, narcissists, relative to nonnarcissists, should
be less susceptible to social proof appeals, because the physical
and symbolic values of the goods demanded would contradict one
another.
Theoretical Implications
Our findings underscore the agentic basis of narcissistic self-
regard (Campbell & Foster, 2007). That narcissists interest in
consumer products is strongly driven by the power of those prod-
ucts to positively distinguish them illustrates their acute concern
with social rank. Presumably, narcissists feel better about them-
selves to the extent that they succeed in individuating or elevating
themselves.
But if so, then narcissistic self-regard operates at odds with
regular self-esteem. For, according to the original version of so-
ciometer theory (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995), the
function of self-esteem is to track levels of social inclusion. In
particular, if inclusion levels fall below a critical minimum, then
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
348
LEE, GREGG, AND PARK
an aversive signala drop in self-esteemensues, prompting
people to redouble their efforts to integrate oneself into society.
This self-regulatory system is alleged to have evolved as an
adaptation because membership of cooperative groups greatly fa-
cilitated the survival and reproduction of ancestral humans. On this
view, self-esteem clearly serves a communal functionthe pro-
motion of greater belonging. Yet, the habit of individuating and
elevating oneself, on which narcissistic self-esteem depends,
hardly seems a sure-fire recipe for inclusion. Indeed, habitually
and visibly indicating how different one is from ones peers or how
superior one is to ones peersincluding via ones purchasesis
liable to jeopardize the likelihood of social acceptance. Little
wonder, then, that, although narcissists win over group members
initially, they end up alienating them (Paulhus, 1998). Narcissistic
self-regard thus seems to serve a function contrary to nonnarcis-
sistic self-esteem: It apparently tracks social status, not social
inclusion.
This paradox can be resolved by an updated version of sociom-
eter theory (e.g., Leary, 2010; see also Kirkpatrick & Ellis, 2001),
which postulates that self-esteem tracks any form of social value.
As such, the social value in question might sometimes be commu-
nal, and more mediated by regular self-esteem, and sometimes
agentic, and more mediated by narcissistic self-regard. Nonethe-
less, the distinction between these broad bases of self-regard is
worth drawing. Recent correlational and experimental research
suggest that there is not only a sociometer tracking how well
people are fitting in and getting along but also a dominometer
tracking how well people are standing out and getting ahead: Not
only do status and inclusion equivalently predict self-esteem, but
status predicts narcissism better than inclusion does (Mahadevan et
al., 2012a; Mahadevan, Gregg, De-Waal Andrews, & Sedikides,
2012b; see also Wojciszke, Baryla, Parzuchowski, Szymkow, &
Abele, 2011). The results of our four studies here, then, underscore
the hyperagentic nature of narcissistic self-regard: Buying prod-
ucts that enhance positive distinctiveness pushes the needle on the
dominometer dial upwards.
References
Aaker, J. L., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Non-profits are seen as
warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of
Consumer Research, 37, 224237. doi:10.1086/651566
Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H.,
Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the narcissistic
personality inventory really measure? Assessment, 18, 6787. doi:
10.1177/1073191110382845
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Ames, D., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure
of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 440450. doi:
10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002
Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Mashek, D., Lewandowski, G., Wright,
S. C., & Aron, E. N. (2004). Including close others in the self. European
Review of Social Psychology, 15, 101132. doi:10.1080/
10463280440000008
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun:
Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer
Research, 20, 644656. doi:10.1086/209376
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 680740).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Narcissism as addiction to
esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 206210.
Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The
mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
62, 229237. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.229
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 15, 139168. doi:10.1086/209154
Bennett, A. M., & Hill, R. P. (2012). The universality of warmth and
competence: A response to brands as intentional agents. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 22, 199204. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.10.005
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others:
Identity-signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research,
34, 121134. doi:10.1086/519142
Bradlee, P. M., & Emmons, R. A. (1992). Locating narcissism within the
interpersonal circumplex and the Five-Factor model. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13, 821 830. doi:10.1016/0191-
8869(92)90056-U
Braun, O. L., & Wicklund, R. A. (1989). Psychological antecedents of
conspicuous consumption. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 161
187. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(89)90018-4
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at
the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475
482. doi:10.1177/0146167291175001
Briol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2003). Overt head movements and persuasion:
A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 84, 11231139. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1123
Brock, T. C. (1968). Implications of commodity theory for value change.
In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological
foundations of attitudes (pp. 243275). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social net-
working web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34,
13031314. doi:10.1177/0146167208320061
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2007). The Narcissistic self: Back-
ground, an extended agency model, and ongoing controversies. In C.
Sedikides & S. Spencer (Eds.), Frontiers in social psychology: The self
(pp. 115138). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (in
press). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Man-
agement Review, 21, 268284.
Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2011). The handbook of narcissism and
narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical
findings, and treatments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-
esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 358368. doi:10.1177/
0146167202286007
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Its all about me: Narcissistic
chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 351386.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms,
conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151
192). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, S. (2003).
Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measure-
ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894908.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894
Dittmar, H. (2008). Consumer culture, identity, and well-being: The search
for the good life and the body perfect (European Monographs in
Social Psychology). London, England: Psychology Press.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
349
NARCISSISTIC CONSUMERISM
Dittmar, H. (2011). Material and consumer identities. In S. J. Schwartz, K.
Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity: Theory and
research (pp. 745769). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-
4419-7988-9_31
Dunning, D. (2007). Self-image motives and consumer behavior: How
sacrosanct self-beliefs sway preferences in the marketplace. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 17, 237249. doi:10.1016/S1057-
7408(07)70033-5
Eisend, M. (2008). Explaining the impact of scarcity appeals in advertising:
The mediating role of perceptions of susceptibility. Journal of Adver-
tising, 37, 3340. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367370303
Ellis, H. (1898). Auto-erotism: A psychological study. Alienist and Neu-
rologist, 19, 260299.
Finkel, E. J., Campbell, W. K., Buffardi, L. E., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult,
C. E. (2009). The metamorphosis of Narcissus: Communal activation
promotes relationship commitment among narcissists. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 12711284. doi:10.1177/
0146167209340904
Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subor-
dination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook
of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 941982). New York, NY: Wiley.
Foster, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2007). Are there such things as Nar-
cissists in social psychology? A taxometric analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,
13211332. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.003
Foster, J. D., & Reidy, D. E. (2011). Narcissism and stock market invest-
ing: Correlates and consequences of cocksure investing. Personality and
Individual Differences, 50, 816821. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.002
Frank, R. (1985). Choosing the right pond: Human behavior and the quest
for status. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Freud, S. (1931). Libidinal types. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The
standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud
(Vol. 11, pp. 217220). London, England: Hogarth Press.
Fromkin, H. L. (1970). Effects of experimentally aroused feelings of
undistinctiveness upon valuation of scarce and novel experiences. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 521529. doi:10.1037/
h0030059
Furby, L. (1978). Possessions: Toward a theory of their meaning and
function throughout the life cycle. In P. B. Baltes (Ed.), Lifespan
development and behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 297336). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Gao, L., Wheeler, S. C., & Shiv, B. (2009). The shaken self: Product
choices as a means of restoring self-view confidence. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 36, 2938. doi:10.1086/596028
Gregg, A. P., Sedikides, C., & Gebauer, J. E. (2011). Dynamics of identity:
Between self-enhancement and self-assessment. In S. J. Schwartz, K.
Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and
research (Vol. 1, pp. 305327). New York, NY: Springer.
Grubb, E. L., & Grathwhohl, H. L. (1967). Consumer self-concept, sym-
bolism, and market behavior: A theoretical approach. Journal of Mar-
keting, 31, 2227.
Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The multiple source effect in
persuasion: The effects of distraction. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 7, 627635. doi:10.1177/014616728174019
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption:
Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing,
46, 92101. doi:10.2307/1251707
Holtzman, N. S., & Strube, M. J. (2010). Narcissism and attractiveness.
Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 133136. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009
.10.004
Holtzman, N. S., & Strube, M. J. (2011). The intertwined evolution of
narcissism and short-term mating: An emerging hypothesis. In W. K.
Campbell & J. D. Miller (Eds.), The handbook of narcissism and
narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical
findings, and treatments (pp. 210220). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Holtzman, N. S., Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. (2010). Sounds like a narcis-
sist: Behavioral manifestations of narcissism in everyday life. Journal of
Research in Personality, 44, 478484. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.001
Horvath, S., & Morf, C. (2009). Narcissistic defensiveness: Hypervigilance
and avoidance of worthlessness. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 45, 12521258. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.07.011
Ikeuchi, H., Fujihara, T., & Dohi, I. (2000). Involuntary loss of the
extended self: Survey results on the loss of important possessions by a
great earthquake. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 2738.
Inman, J. J., Peter, A. C., & Raghubir, R. P. (1997). Framing the deal: The
role of restrictions in accentuating deal value. Journal of Consumer
Research, 24, 6879. doi:10.1086/209494
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York, NY:
Henry-Holt. doi:10.1037/11059-000
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 Social Psychology, 85, 969978. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.969
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American Dream:
Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280 287. doi:10.1177/
0146167296223006
Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents
framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand per-
ception. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 166176. doi:10.1016/j
.jcps.2011.09.006
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Ellis, B. J. (2001). An evolutionary-psychological
approach to self-esteem: Multiple domains and multiple functions. In
G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social
psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 411436). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishers.
Kubarych, T. S., Deary, I. J., & Austin, E. J. (2004). The Narcissistic
Personality Inventory: Factor structure in a non-clinical sample. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 36, 857872. doi:10.1016/S0191-
8869(03)00158-2
Leary, M. R. (2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging: The pursuit of
interpersonal connection. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 864897).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995).
Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518530. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518
Leibenstein, H. (1950). Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory
of consumers demand. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64, 183207.
doi:10.2307/1882692
Lynn, M. (1989). Scarcity effects on value: Mediated by assumed expen-
siveness? Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 257274. doi:10.1016/
0167-4870(89)90023-8
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997a). The desire for unique consumer products:
A new individual differences scale. Psychology & Marketing, 14, 601
616. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199709)14:6601::AID-MAR53
.0.CO;2-B
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997b). Individual differences in the pursuit of
self-uniqueness through consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 27, 18611883. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01629.x
Lynn, M., & Snyder, C. R. (2002). Uniqueness seeking. In C. R. Snyder &
S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 395410). Ox-
ford, England: Oxford University Press.
Mahadevan, N., Gregg, A. P., De-Waal Andrews, W., & Sedikides, C.
(2012a). Splitting the sociometer I: Correlational evidence that status
and inclusion independently affect self-regard. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Southampton.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
350
LEE, GREGG, AND PARK
Mahadevan, N., Gregg, A. P., De-Waal Andrews, W., & Sedikides, C.
(2012b). Splitting the sociometer II: Experimental evidence that status
and inclusion independently affect self-regard. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Southampton.
McArthur, L. Z. (1981). What grabs you? The role of attention in the
impression formation and causal attribution. In E. T. Higgins, C. P.
Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario sympo-
sium (Vol. 1, pp. 201246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago. IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Meehl, P. E. (1995). Bootstraps taxometrics: Solving the classification
problem in psychopathology. American Psychologist, 50, 266275. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.50.4.266
Miller, J. D., Gaughan, G. Y., Pryor, L. R., Kamen, C., & Campbell, W. K.
(2009). Is research using the narcissistic personality inventory relevant
for understanding narcissistic personality disorder? Journal of Research
in Personality, 43, 482488. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.001
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Expanding the dynamic self-
regulatory model of narcissism. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 243251.
doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_3
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait
self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 11971208. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1197
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality:
Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in
Personality, 36, 556563. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
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 patho-
logical narcissism inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21, 365379.
doi:10.1037/a0016530
Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature.
New York, NY: Viking.
Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory.
Psychological Reports, 45, 590. doi:10.2466/pr0.1979.45.2.590
Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1981). The narcissistic personality inventory:
Alternate form reliability and further evidence of construct validity.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 159 162. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa4502_10
Raskin, R., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissism, self-esteem, and
defensive self-enhancement. Journal of Personality, 59, 1938. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00766.x
Raskin, R., & Shaw, R. (1988). Narcissism and the use of personal
pronouns. Journal of Personality, 56, 393404. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.1988.tb00892.x
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principle components analysis of the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct
validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890902.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890
Reisman, G. (1996). Capitalism: A treatise on economics. Ottawa, IL:
Jameson Books.
Rhodewalt, F., & Peterson, B. (2009). Narcissism. In M. R. Leary & R. H.
Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp.
547560). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Riketta, M. (2008). Who identifies with which group? The motive-feature
match principle and its limitations. European Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 38, 715735. doi:10.1002/ejsp.534
Roberts, B. W., & Robins, R. W. (2000). Broad dispositions, broad
aspirations: The intersection of the Big Five dimensions and major life
goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 12841296.
doi:10.1177/0146167200262009
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring
global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 27, 151161. doi:10.1177/0146167201272002
Rose, P. (2007). Mediators of the association between narcissism and
compulsive buying: The roles of materialism and impulse control. Psy-
chology of Addictive Behaviors, 21, 576581. doi:10.1037/0893-164X
.21.4.576
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosenthal, S. A., & Hooley, J. M. (2010). Narcissism assessment in
social-personality research: Does the association between narcissism and
psychological health result from a confound with self-esteem? Journal
of Research in Personality, 44, 453465. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.008
Saad, G., & Gill, T. (2003). An evolutionary psychology perspective on
gift giving among young adults. Psychology and Marketing, 20, 765
784. doi:10.1002/mar.10096
Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale across 53 nations: Exploring the universal
and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 89, 623642. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.4
.623
Schultz Kleine, S. S., Kleine, R. E., & Allen, C. T. (1995). How is a
possession me or not me? Characterizing types and an antecedent of
material possession attachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 22,
327343. doi:10.1086/209454
Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G., Elliot, A. J., & Gregg, A. P.
(2002). Do others bring out the worst in narcissists? The others exist for
me illusion. In Y. Kashima, M. Foddy, & M. Platow (Eds.), Self and
identity: Personal, social, and symbolic (pp. 103124). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Sedikides, C., Cisek, S., & Hart, C. M. (2011). Narcissism and brand name
consumerism. In W. K. Campbell & J. Miller (Eds.), The handbook of
narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical ap-
proaches, empirical findings, and treatments (pp. 382392). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2001). Narcissists and feedback: Motiva-
tional surfeits and motivational deficits. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 237
239.
Sedikides, C., Gregg, A., Cisek, S., & Hart, C. (2007). The I that buys:
Narcissists as consumers. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 254
257. doi:10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70035-9
Sedikides, C., Rudich, E. A., Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C.
(2004). Are normal narcissists psychologically healthy? Self-esteem
matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 400416.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.400
Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (2000). On the evolutionary functions of
the symbolic self: The emergence of self-evaluation motives. In A.
Tesser, R. Felson, & J. Suls (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on self
and identity (pp. 91117). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/10357-004
Sirgy, J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review.
Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 287300. doi:10.1086/208924
Sivanathan, N., & Pettit, N. C. (2010). Protecting the self through con-
sumption: Status goods as affirmational commodities. Journal of Exper-
imental Social Psychology, 46, 564570. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.01
.006
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive
characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring
need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 518527.
doi:10.1037/0021-843X.86.5.518
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit
of difference. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Solomon, M. R. (1983). The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic
interactionist perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 319329.
doi:10.1086/208971
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
351
NARCISSISTIC CONSUMERISM
behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of inter-
group relations (pp. 3848). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social
behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-
chology (Vol. 21, pp. 181227). New York, NY: Academic Press.
doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60227-0
Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers need for
uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer
Research, 28, 5066. doi:10.1086/321947
Twenge, J. M., & Foster, J. D. (2008). Mapping the scale of the narcissism
epidemic: Increases in narcissism 20022007 within ethnic groups.
Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 16191622. doi:10.1016/j.jrp
.2008.06.014
University of Southampton. (2011). iSurvey [Computer software]. South-
hamption, UK: Author.
Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. New York, NY:
MacMillan.
Verhallen, T. M. M., & Robben, H. S. J. (1994). Scarcity and preference:
An experiment on unavailability and product evaluation. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 15, 315331. doi:10.1016/0167-
4870(94)90007-8
Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A review and a conceptual
framework of prestige-seeking consumer behavior. Academy of Market-
ing Science Review, 1, 123.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2008). Merely activating the
concept of money changes personal and interpersonal behavior. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 208212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8721.2008.00576.x
Wapner, S., Demick, J., & Redondo, J. P. (1990). Cherished possessions
and adaptation of older people to nursing homes. International Journal
of Aging and Human Development, 31, 219235. doi:10.2190/GJPL-
ATJY-KJA3-8C99
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms:
The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 37, 395412. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.395
Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 61, 590597. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.590
Wojciszke, B., Baryla, W., Parzuchowski, M., Szymkow, A., & Abele, A.
(2011). Self-esteem is dominated by agentic over communal informa-
tion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 617627. doi:10.1002/
ejsp.791
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selectionA selection for a handicap. Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 53, 205214. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3
Received August 17, 2011
Revision received February 15, 2013
Accepted March 21, 2013
New Editors Appointed, 20152020
The Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological Association an-
nounces the appointment of 6 new editors for 6-year terms beginning in 2015. As of January 1,
2014, manuscripts should be directed as follows:
Behavioral Neuroscience (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/bne/), Rebecca Burwell, PhD,
Brown University
Journal of Applied Psychology (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl/), Gilad Chen, PhD,
University of Maryland
Journal of Educational Psychology (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/edu/), Steve Graham,
EdD, Arizona State University
JPSP: Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/),
Kerry Kawakami, PhD, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Psychological Bulletin (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/bul/), Dolores Albarracin, PhD,
University of Pennsylvania
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/adb/), Nancy M. Petry,
PhD, University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Electronic manuscript submission: As of January 1, 2014, manuscripts should be submitted
electronically to the new editors via the journals Manuscript Submission Portal (see the website
listed above with each journal title).
Current editors Mark Blumberg, PhD, Steve Kozlowski, PhD, Arthur Graesser, PhD, Jeffry
Simpson, PhD, Stephen Hinshaw, PhD, and Stephen Maisto, PhD, will receive and consider new
manuscripts through December 31, 2013.
T
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
s
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
n
e
o
f
i
t
s
a
l
l
i
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
u
s
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
352
LEE, GREGG, AND PARK