The mediating role of sensitivity to criticism on the

Eastern Michigan University Eastern Michigan University

DigitalCommons@EMU DigitalCommons@EMU

Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations Master's Theses, and Doctoral Dissertations, and Graduate Capstone Projects

2021

The mediating role of sensitivity to criticism on the relationship The mediating role of sensitivity to criticism on the relationship

between vulnerable narcissism and negative affect between vulnerable narcissism and negative affect

Sneha Shankar

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.emich.edu/theses

Part of the Clinical Psychology Commons, and the Personality and Social Contexts Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Shankar, Sneha, "The mediating role of sensitivity to criticism on the relationship between vulnerable narcissism and negative affect" (2021). Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. 1100. https://commons.emich.edu/theses/1100

This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses, and Doctoral Dissertations, and Graduate Capstone Projects at DigitalCommons@EMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@EMU. For more information, please contact [email protected].

https://commons.emich.edu/

https://commons.emich.edu/theses

https://commons.emich.edu/etd

https://commons.emich.edu/etd

https://commons.emich.edu/theses?utm_source=commons.emich.edu%2Ftheses%2F1100&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/406?utm_source=commons.emich.edu%2Ftheses%2F1100&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/413?utm_source=commons.emich.edu%2Ftheses%2F1100&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://commons.emich.edu/theses/1100?utm_source=commons.emich.edu%2Ftheses%2F1100&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

The Mediating Role of Sensitivity to Criticism on the Relationship Between Vulnerable Narcissism and

Negative Affect

by

Sneha Shankar, M.S.

Thesis

Submitted to the Department of Psychology

Eastern Michigan University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

in

Clinical Psychology

Thesis Committee:

Eamonn P. Arble, Ph.D.

Chong Man Chow, Ph.D.

Stephen Jefferson, Ph.D.

May 12, 2021

Ypsilanti, Michigan

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF SENSITIVITY TO CRITICISM ii

Abstract

Researchers have examined the interpersonal correlates of narcissistic traits through ego-threats

precipitated by experiences of external rejection or criticism. However, few studies have empirically

investigated the role of sensitivity to criticism in the relation between vulnerable narcissism and negative

affect. This study sought to examine this relation through comparing the mediating and moderating

effects of sensitivity to criticism to shame and psychological inflexibility within three feedback

conditions (positive, negative, and none). Three samples were utilized to assess these trait and state

associations. Sensitivity to criticism demonstrated only moderating effects on the relation between

vulnerable narcissism and situational anger in the absence of feedback while psychological inflexibility

demonstrated both mediating and moderating effects on situational anger domains in all feedback

conditions. However, as psychological inflexibility consists of lower-order constructs, future research

may benefit from examining these in comparison with sensitivity to criticism and shame in the relation

between vulnerable narcissism and anger.

Keywords: vulnerable narcissism, mediation, sensitivity to criticism, negative affect

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF SENSITIVITY TO CRITICISM iii

Table of Contents

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………………...v

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………vii

The Mediating Role of Sensitivity to Criticism on the Relationship between Vulnerable Narcissism and

Negative Affect ........................................................................................................................................... 1

Influences of Kohut and Kernberg .............................................................................................................. 2

Heterogeneity Within Narcissism ............................................................................................................... 5

Vulnerable Narcissism and Negative Affect ............................................................................................... 8

Hypothesized Mediators and Moderators ................................................................................................. 11

Sensitivity to Criticism ................................................................................................................. 12

Shame ............................................................................................................................................ 16

Psychological Flexibility .............................................................................................................. 18

The Present Study ..................................................................................................................................... 22

Study 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 24

Methods..................................................................................................................................................... 24

Participants .................................................................................................................................... 24

Measures ....................................................................................................................................... 24

Procedure ...................................................................................................................................... 28

Data Analyses ............................................................................................................................... 28

Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 29

Mediation ...................................................................................................................................... 30

Moderation .................................................................................................................................... 31

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................. 33

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF SENSITIVITY TO CRITICISM iv

Study 2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 35

Methods..................................................................................................................................................... 35

Participants .................................................................................................................................... 35

Measures ....................................................................................................................................... 36

Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 37

Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 37

Mediation ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Moderation .................................................................................................................................... 40

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................. 43

Final Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 44

Clinical Implications ................................................................................................................................. 48

Study Limitations and Future Directions .................................................................................................. 49

References ................................................................................................................................................. 51

Appendix A: Internal Review Board Letter for Study 1 and Study 2 ..................................................... 106

Appendix B: Pathological Narcissism Inventory .................................................................................... 108

Appendix C: Sensitivity to Criticism Scale ............................................................................................ 111

Appendix D: Experience of Shame Scale ............................................................................................... 120

Appendix E: Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II .......................................................................... 122

Appendix F: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule ............................................................................. 123

Appendix G: State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 ........................................................................ 124

Appendix H: Vignettes ........................................................................................................................... 127

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF SENSITIVITY TO CRITICISM v

List of Tables

Table 1: Supplemental Mediation Analyses for Study 1................................................................ 63

Table 2: Supplemental Mediation Analyses for Study 2 (SN )........................................................ 65

Table 3: Supplemental Mediation Analyses for Study 2 (SP )........................................................ 67

Table 4: Correlations Between Variables–Study 1......................................................................... 69

Table 5: Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and State

Anger–Study 1...................................................................................................................70

Table 6: Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation between Vulnerable Narcissism and Trait

Anger–Study 1................................................... ................................................................71

Table 7: Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and

Anger Expression–Study 1................................................................................................72


Negative Affect–Study 1................................................................................................... 73

Table 9: Correlations Between Variables–Study 2 (SN) ................................................................. 74

Table 10: Correlations between variables – Study 2 (SP) ................................................................. 75


Anger–Study 2 (SN) .......................................................................................................... 76


Anger–Study 2 (SP) ........................................................................................................... 77

Table 13: Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Trait

Anger–Study 2 (SN) .......................................................................................................... 78

Table 14: Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Trait

Anger–Study 2 (SP) ........................................................................................................... 79

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF SENSITIVITY TO CRITICISM vi


Anger Expression–Study 2 (SN) ........................................................................................ 80


Anger Expression–Study 2 (SP) ........................................................................................ 81


Negative Affect–Study 2 (SN) ........................................................................................... 82


Negative Affect–Study 2 (SP) ........................................................................................... 83

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF SENSITIVITY TO CRITICISM vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Mediator Model Demonstrating the Hypothesized Relations Between Vulnerable

Narcissism and Negative Affect With Sensitivity to Criticism, Psychological Inflexibility,

and Shame as Mediators ................................................................................................... 84

Figure 2: Three Moderation Model Demonstrating the Hypothesized Alternative Relations Between

Vulnerable Narcissism and Negative Affect With Sensitivity to Criticism, Psychological

Inflexibility, and Shame as Moderators ............................................................................ 84

Figure 3: Standardized Coefficients for the Effect of Sensitivity to Criticism, Psychological

Inflexibility, and Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and State

Anger–Study 1 .................................................................................................................. 86


Inflexibility, and Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Trait

Anger–Study 1 .................................................................................................................. 87


Inflexibility, and Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Anger

Expression–Study 1 .......................................................................................................... 88


Inflexibility, and Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Negative

Affect–Study ..................................................................................................................... 89

Figure 7: Interaction Effect of Vulnerable Narcissism and Psychological Inflexibility for Predicting

State Anger–Study 1 ......................................................................................................... 90


Trait Anger–Study 1 ......................................................................................................... 91

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF SENSITIVITY TO CRITICISM viii


Negative Affect–Study 1................................................................................................... 92



Anger–Study 2 (SN) .......................................................................................................... 93



Anger–Study 2 (SP) ........................................................................................................... 94



Anger–Study 2 (SN) .......................................................................................................... 95



Anger–Study 2 (SP) ........................................................................................................... 96



Expression–Study 2 (SN) ................................................................................................... 97



Expression–Study 2 (SP) ................................................................................................... 98



Affect–Study 2 (SN) .......................................................................................................... 99

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF SENSITIVITY TO CRITICISM ix



Affect–Study 2 (SP) ......................................................................................................... 100


State Anger–Study 2 (SN) ............................................................................................... 101

Figure 19: Interaction Effect of Vulnerable Narcissism and Shame for Predicting State Anger–Study

2 (SN) ............................................................................................................................... 102

Figure 20: Interaction Effect of Vulnerable Narcissism and Shame for Predicting State Anger–Study

2 (SP) ............................................................................................................................... 103


Negative Affect– Study 2 (SN)........................................................................................ 104

1 The Mediating Role of Sensitivity to Criticism on the Relationship Between Vulnerable Narcissism

and Negative Affect

Narcissism has been a construct of interest in psychology for over a century. Ellis (1898), a

British sexologist, first used a derivative of the term to describe an individual’s feelings of sexual

attraction to oneself, modelled after the Greek myth of Narcissus. However, this term has been expanded

to include features aside from self-love and has been examined in relation to other traits and behaviors.

Narcissism was popularized as a psychological variable with Freud’s essay On Narcissism: An

Introduction first published in 1914 (1914/2004). In this paper, he characterized narcissism as a

character trait that can be split into (a) primary narcissism and (b) secondary narcissism. Primary

narcissism was described as a typical part of development where children are unable to empathize with

others and are mainly focused on fulfilling their own needs. Freud theorized that healthy development

resulted in the resolution of this form of narcissism where individuals are eventually able to invest

libidinal energy into others as well as themselves. Secondary narcissism, the second type of narcissism,

occurs when individuals remain egocentric into adulthood and are mainly driven by self-gratifying

needs. This unhealthy form of narcissism was attributed to the lack of reciprocity of care and love from

others or the object to which this care is directed (Freud, 1914/2004). The differentiation between

adaptive and maladaptive narcissism within this theory highlights Freud’s recognition of the importance

of a certain level of narcissism for healthy self-esteem development.

Building on Freud’s work, Wilhelm Reich (1933, 1949, as cited by Levy et al., 2012) described

narcissism as consisting of arrogance, conceitedness, confidence, and aggression. Similar to Freud,

Reich (1933) viewed narcissistic outcomes as adaptive or maladaptive depending on the context in

which it occurs, noting that the environment and social support influences a narcissistic individual’s

ability to be a productive member of society. Although his conceptualization overlapped Freud’s, it is

important to note that this description was the first to link narcissism and direct/indirect aggression in

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF SENSITIVITY TO CRITICISM 2

the context of criticism or rejection. He explained that any threat to a narcissist’s vanity leads to

defensive and aggressive reactions. This link was later expanded upon by Kohut (1972) and Kernberg

(1975).

Karen Horney (1939) further developed narcissism as a character trait that is typified by different

forms. Like Freud, she used healthy narcissism and self-esteem interchangeably (primary narcissism)

and viewed narcissism as a part of typical development. She described pathological narcissism

(secondary narcissism) as a product of a child’s inability to meet their parents’ expectations, resulting in

a need to create a more inflated version of themselves. Dissimilar to Freud, she theorized that narcissists

may actually struggle from an inability to love anyone (including their own traits) rather than excessive

self-love and suggested that pathological narcissism be limited to inflated self-perception.

Influences of Kohut and Kernberg

Similar to Freud (1914/2004) and Horney (1939), Kohut (1971; 1977) viewed narcissism as a

typical part of development that can either be adaptive or maladaptive. He posited that narcissism

occurred at different stages of development with the fulfillment of each stage contributing to healthy

relationships and a stable sense of self while the interruption of this process results in unhealthy

perceptions of the self and other. In other words, narcissism evolves with individual maturity. Unlike

Freud’s theory, Kohut (1966) did not attribute the development of primary narcissism to an individual’s

inability to disengage from one’s own needs and desires but to an individual’s inability to detach oneself

from their relationship with their mother. This fusion can lead to two outcomes: the idealized parent,

where the child strives to be just like the perfect parent image, and the grandiose self, where the child

attempts to embody all positive traits in their identity while all negative traits are viewed as separate

from themselves (Kohut, 1966). In a healthy developmental sequence, the child will distance themselves

from these narcissistic processes, either by recognizing and accepting the imperfections of their

idealized parent or by recognizing and accepting their own imperfections. However, in an unhealthy


developmental sequence, the idealized parent can remain as “an archaic transitional object that is

required for the maintenance of narcissistic homeostasis” (Kohut, 1968, p. 87), and the grandiose self

can lead to a combination of opposing traits, such as heightened self-preoccupation, fragile self-esteem,

emotional lability, and a need for validation and admiration from others. This description of narcissism

as a character trait that can be either healthy or unhealthy was adopted by social-personality theorists

and has informed ongoing conceptualizations of narcissism to this day.

On the other hand, Otto Kernberg (1975), a well-known clinician and theorist, disagreed with the

categorization of narcissism as healthy or unhealthy, stating that it is pathological in nature, which

became the prevailing conceptualization of clinical theories of narcissism. Although he used the term

“self-esteem” in place of “healthy narcissism,” similar to Freud and Horney, he did not believe in the

existence of adaptive forms of narcissism. According to Kernberg’s theory, pathological narcissism

develops from parenting styles that are emotionally invalidating and self-serving. In this way, the child

frequently feels devalued and invalidated as their parents do not prioritize the child’s context-based

needs, resulting in the child withdrawing internally and forming self-images as a coping strategy: “This

self-representation, which combines aspects of the real child, the fantasized aspects of what the child

wants to be, and the fantasized aspects of an ideal, loving parent, serves as an internal refuge from the

experience of the early environment as harsh and depriving” (Levy et al., 2012, p. 6). As indicated by

this definition, the negative aspects of this self-representation are not integrated into this grandiose

image but are instead projected onto the world, resulting in a need for validation and admiration from

others as well as disproportionate anger towards others, shame, and diminished empathy. Furthermore,

Kernberg identified a severity continuum along which narcissism ranges from “narcissistic personality

disorder to malignant narcissism to psychopathy” (Cain et al., 2008, p. 641).

Although Kohut (1972) and Kernberg (1975) conceptualized narcissism in different ways, they

both identified characteristics common to all narcissistic individuals. These characteristics include


inflated self-regard, decreased empathy for others, difficulties relating to others, and defensiveness in

response to perceived rejection or challenge to their inflated self-perception, resulting in a proclivity for

aggressive behaviors (Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1972). This aggression, otherwise known as “narcissistic

rage,” consists of feelings of shame, betrayal, and sadness resulting from narcissistic injuries, which is

the perceived loss of or damage to the sense of self where individuals perceive their identities as being

under attack (Kohut, 1972). These characteristics have subsequently formed our current understanding

of narcissistic individuals as having both excessively high self-concepts and fragile identities, which

they maintain through self-regulatory and affective processes. Additionally, narcissistic individuals

attempt to fulfill their needs for validation and admiration through their social community (Pincus &

Lukowitsky, 2010).

With the theoretical advances made by Kohut (1966) and Kernberg (1975) came an increased

interest in the theoretical and empirical study of unhealthy or pathological narcissism. The most notable

outcome of this upsurge was the inclusion of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) in the Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.; DSM-III; American Psychiatric Association

[APA], 1980) and all subsequent iterations. As of the most recent edition of this manual, NPD is defined

as “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy,

beginning in early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts…” (DSM-5; APA, 2013, p. 669).

These behaviors are indicated by entitlement, a desire for accolades and admiration with no justification,

exploitativeness, and selfishness in interpersonal relationships. As can be seen from this definition,

Kernberg’s theory played a large part in the conceptualization of pathological narcissism due to its focus

on more grandiose features, such as excessive self-enhancement and self-centered, while neglecting the

more vulnerable characteristics, such as hypersensitivity to criticism, a need for validation, and unstable

self-esteem, that were discussed in Kohut’s theory.


This focus on grandiose elements at the expense of vulnerable elements can be seen in one of the

most widely-used narcissism inventories, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-40; Raskin &

Terry, 1988), which was developed based off the NPD criteria of the DSM-III using factor analytical

methods. This inventory is a 40-item, forced-choice questionnaire that consists of seven subscales:

Authority, Self-sufficiency, Superiority, Exhibitionism, Exploitativeness, Vanity, and Entitlement.

Although subsequent investigations into the factor-structure of this inventory have produced different

results, the subscales have consistently been comprised of these grandiose elements of narcissism

(Gentile et al., 2013).

Heterogeneity Within Narcissism

One of the first inventories that identified this split between grandiose and vulnerable elements

of narcissism was the Murray Narcissism Scale (Murray, 1938). Murray conducted an exploratory study

using a non-clinical sample, from which he conceptualized narcissism as being inherently divided into

grandiose and vulnerable features, noting that a narcissistic individual has self-aggrandizing traits as

well as a fragile self-concept that is sensitive to criticism. However, the vulnerable features were mostly

neglected in subsequent studies of narcissism until Wink (1991) attempted to explain the differences

present in narcissism. He compared multiple self-report measures of narcissism with the narcissism

scales that were derived from the DSM-III (1980). His analyses of the Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory (MMPI)-based narcissism scales yielded two orthogonal factors: grandiosity-

exhibitionism and vulnerability-sensitivity. Grandiosity-exhibitionism was characterized by traditional

narcissism features while vulnerability-sensitivity was characterized by hypersensitivity, anxiety, self-

consciousness, and defensiveness. This distinction between these two types of narcissism was consistent

with psychodynamic theories and clients’ accounts (Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1977).

Since these pioneering studies, researchers have continued to study this construct to further

understand its dichotomous presentations. Cain et al. (2008) reviewed the evolving narcissism literature


to both gain a more comprehensive perspective and examine the disconnect between NPD and other

aspects of narcissism. They identified two themes of pathological narcissism across social/personality

psychology, clinical theory, and psychiatry, namely narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic

vulnerability. Narcissistic grandiosity refers to the traditional view of narcissism (e.g., exploitativeness,

entitlement, excessive self-regard) while narcissistic vulnerability is characterized by a propensity for

shame and avoidance of interpersonal relationships due to heightened sensitivity to criticism through

which individuals cope through grandiose fantasies (Cain et al., 2008). Similarly, Miller and Campbell

(2008) examined the differences between the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire (PDQ-4+; Hyler,

1994) and the NPI-40 to understand the heterogeneity present in narcissism. The PDQ is a 99-item

true/false self-report measure which captures the personality disorders described by the DSM-IV (APA,

1994) and was hypothesized to align with Kernberg’s theory. The PDQ and the NPI were moderately

correlated but differed in their relationships with psychological wellbeing and the five-factor model

domains. These consist of Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness

to new experiences. Narcissism, as captured by the PDQ, was associated with higher psychological

distress, lower self-esteem, low Extraversion, and high levels of Neuroticism and Antagonism. These

relations are consistent with narcissistic vulnerability which is surprising due to the overlap between the

PDQ and the DSM-IV. On the other hand, NPI narcissism was related with high self-esteem, low

Neuroticism, and higher levels of Extraversion and Antagonism. These features are consistent with

narcissistic grandiosity. Any convergence between these two forms of narcissism appeared to be due to

their similar relation with Antagonism, which is consistent with theoretical conceptualizations of

narcissism.

These differential relations with personality domains, psychological distress, and self-esteem

prompted increased empirical study of narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability. Through

several studies examining the factor analytical structure of narcissism, two subtypes of narcissism


emerged: grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism (Fossati et al., 2005; Wright et al., 2010).

Grandiose narcissism, the traditional form of narcissism, is characterized by self-aggrandizement,

interpersonally domineering behaviors, exploitativeness, and entitlement (Cain et al., 2008). Grandiose

elements of narcissism, using the NPI-40 and its brief version contemporaries, have been associated with

parental use of psychological control techniques (Horton et al., 2006) and secure or dismissive

attachment styles where the individual tended to deny interpersonal concerns (Dickinson & Pincus,

2003; Smolewska & Dion, 2005), both of which are consistent with developmental theories of

narcissism. Individuals who identify with grandiosely narcissistic features generally have higher self-

esteem (Paulhus, 1998; Sedikides et al., 2004) but react negatively to criticism (Bushman & Baumeister,

1998) where they may direct their aggression to a third unrelated party (Twenge & Campbell, 2003).

This strong reaction to criticism may be due to their higher expectations for themselves (Farwell &

Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998). Furthermore, grandiose features of narcissism were related to a desire for

recognition from others, resulting in recurrent self-promotion (Paulhus, 1998) and heightened desire for

control over their environment (Watson et al., 1991). Indeed, these characteristics were found to impact

grandiose narcissists’ usage of social media where they engage in one-sided interactions with others in

order to gain more recognition (Carpenter, 2012).

Vulnerable narcissism, on the other hand, is characterized by fears related to interactions with

others, diminished confidence in interpersonal relationships, and shame related to needs in relationships

in addition to high levels of exploitativeness and entitlement (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Pincus et al.,

2009). As the NPI-40 mainly measures grandiose features, researchers have created other scales to fully

capture the different facets of narcissism. Hendin and Cheek (1997) constructed the Hypersensitive

Narcissism Scale (HSNS) through the correlation of Murray’s Narcissism Scale (Murray, 1938) with a

composite score of the MMPI-covert narcissism scale. This 10-item scale calculates a single score and is

related with increased Neuroticism and decreased Agreeableness and Extraversion. Although this scale


measures egocentricity and a heightened sensitivity to judgment, it does not adequately measure lower-

order traits of the vulnerable subtype of narcissism (Pincus et al., 2009). To address this issue, Pincus

and colleagues (2009) constructed the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI) to differentiate between

grandiose and vulnerable narcissistic traits reliably and inform treatment. This 52-item measure consists

of seven subscales: Contingent Self-Esteem, Exploitativeness, Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancement,

Hiding the Self, Grandiose Fantasy, Devaluing, and Entitlement Rage.

Dickinson and Pincus (2003) investigated narcissistic personality styles in a non-clinical

population using the entitlement and exploitativeness subscales of the NPI-40, to measure both

grandiose and vulnerable subtypes due to their shared antagonistic traits. They determined that those in

the vulnerable narcissism subtype reported traits consistent with avoidant personality disorder, where

individuals within this subtype are likely to engage in manipulative behaviors in their interpersonal

relationships but also report higher interpersonal distress than grandiose narcissists and non-narcissists.

This increase in interpersonal problems (e.g., social avoidance, social coldness, hypersensitivity) may be

attributable to vulnerably narcissistic individuals’ attachment styles. Using the PNI, Besser and Priel

(2009) found that those in the vulnerable narcissism subtype tended to have anxious attachment styles,

resulting in negative representations of the self. This proclivity for internal fragility was hypothesized to

lead to hypersensitivity to feedback from others. Indeed, when examining participants’ reactions to

imaginary rejection, the authors found increased negative reactions among vulnerably narcissistic

individuals. They identified low self-esteem, diminished pride, and low self-evaluation as influential

factors in this relation, which they theorized may lead to a need for constant reassurance from others.

Vulnerable Narcissism and Negative Affect

Narcissism has historically been characterized by emotional lability. As explained earlier, both

Kernberg (1975) and Kohut (1972) identified “narcissistic rage” and extreme emotional reactivity as

core components of narcissism where individuals tend to experience such “rage” when receiving


feedback from others. This intense emotionality has been theorized to be due to the narcissistic injury

that individuals experience when receiving feedback from others thereby implying a strong relation

between narcissism and emotional reactivity. Since the creation of these theoretical models, several

empirical studies have been conducted to develop the construct of narcissism and understand its relation

with negative affect. One such way of examining this association is through the presentation of ego-

threats (Atlas & Them, 2008; Besser & Priel, 2010; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Malkin et al., 2011).

Ego threats consisted of being provided positive, negative, or mixed feedback. Participants were

categorized as being either overt/grandiose narcissists or covert/vulnerable narcissists after which they

were asked to rate their mood and emotional reactions. In general, members of the overt/grandiose

narcissism category reported low sensitivity to criticism and a lack of concern about their performance,

while those in the covert/vulnerable narcissism category evaluated their performances negatively (Atlas

& Them, 2008; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Malkin et al., 2011). Interestingly, vulnerable narcissism

was also found to be associated with higher shame in positive feedback conditions compared to neutral

and negative conditions, suggesting that praise may result in greater insecurities about being unable to

meet future expectations about performance. This difference in results may be due to the interdependent

nature of vulnerable narcissism where individuals experience higher levels of shame and are more

motivated to maintain and defend their self-presentations. Conversely, grandiose narcissism may be

more motivated by competition, which results in decreased reliance on external validation (i.e.,

feedback). Therefore, those with vulnerable narcissism may be more affected by feedback than those

with grandiose narcissism (Atlas & Them, 2008; Malkin et al, 2011).

However, this explanation partially contradicts the findings of Besser and Priel (2010) who

demonstrated that those with grandiosely narcissistic personality profiles are more sensitive to

achievement-focused criticism than to interpersonal-focused criticism. Although this conclusion is

consistent with grandiose narcissists’ independent self-construal and competition-focused nature, and


vulnerable narcissists’ interdependent self-construal and interpersonally-oriented nature, it does not fully

explain the varied outcomes present in the literature. This gap suggests that a third factor may better

capture the relation between narcissism subtypes and negative affect.

To further understand the types of negative affect experienced by vulnerably narcissistic

individuals, Okada (2010) examined the relation between vulnerable narcissism and four facets of

aggression (i.e., physical, verbal, anger, and hostility) in a sample of Japanese undergraduates through

multiple regression. Physical and verbal aggression consisted of direct responses to provocation which

are more overt in nature where individuals engage in such altercations readily while anger and hostility

consisted of the emotional and cognitive response forms, such as heightened suspiciousness and

resentment which are more covert. The author used a scale that consisted of both grandiose narcissism

items and vulnerable narcissism items. As predicted, the author found a positive relation between

vulnerable narcissism and anger/hostility while those in the vulnerable narcissism group endorsed fewer

physical and verbal aggressive behaviors. This outcome is consistent with the theoretical model of

vulnerable narcissism wherein aggression is experienced and expressed in indirect ways due to

individuals’ concern for others’ perceptions of them. Therefore, vulnerably narcissistic individuals are

less likely to engage in overt expressions of aggression, such as verbal or physical aggression.

In the second part of this research by Okada (2010), the relation between vulnerable narcissism

and aggression was examined in the context of social rejection. After being induced to feel socially

rejected, participants were asked to anonymously rate the person who had allegedly rejected them on a

series of hypothetical scenarios that participants believed would impact the other person’s course grade

at the university. This negative evaluation task allowed the researchers to measure the participants’ level

of indirect aggression which is generally exhibited by individuals with vulnerable narcissism as

demonstrated in the first part of this study. For this reason, Okada (2010) hypothesized that this group

would be more likely to negatively evaluate those whom they perceived to have rejected them.


Consistent with this hypothesis, vulnerably narcissistic individuals rated others more negatively after

experiencing social rejection compared to grandiosely narcissistic individuals regardless of their self-

esteem level.

The culmination of these empirical findings suggests that vulnerable narcissism has a stable but

distinctly different relation with negative affect compared to grandiose narcissism. Although individuals

with vulnerable narcissism experience negative affect similar to individuals with grandiose narcissism

when provided feedback, they tend to experience this aggression covertly, such as through hostility

(Okada, 2010). Hostility consists of suspiciousness of others, feelings of alienation, and resentment

where individuals approach situations with such a negative attitude. This is different from direct

physical or verbal aggression where the individual is likely to engage in behaviors such as hitting,

punching, or telling others off. Interestingly, vulnerable narcissism demonstrated consistent links with

this covert aggression across feedback conditions regardless of their valence, suggesting that the

individual may experience higher levels of hostility and anger regardless of the feedback type. This

unique attitude to interpersonal feedback may be better explained by a third variable that is moderating

or mediating this relation between vulnerable narcissism and negative affect. The following sections

seek to identify and explore some of these possible variables.

Hypothesized Mediators and Moderators

As demonstrated thus far, the results of several studies suggest that there may be a third variable

that affects the relation between vulnerable narcissism and negative affectivity. Recent research has

attempted to further understand this relation through investigating possible mediating variables, such as

self-esteem (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2008), perceptions of love (Rohmann et al., 2012), perceptions of

success and failure based on negative feedback at varying degrees of intensity (Besser & Priel, 2010),

and self-presentation (Hart et al., 2017). Some possible moderating variables that have also been

examined within the relation between vulnerable narcissism and negative affectivity are empathy and


social support (Barry et al., 2014), and gender (Somma et al., 2018). However, none of these potential

variables have produced meaningful relations.

Sensitivity to Criticism

Throughout the different conceptualizations of vulnerable narcissism, the role of criticism

reactivity has been consistently identified as a core feature. Kohut (1971, 1977) described this sensitivity

as “splitting,” which can either be horizontal (grandiose) or vertical (vulnerable). Within vertical

splitting, individuals deny having unmet needs, resulting in chronic feelings of emptiness, helplessness,

and shame, as well as a fragile form grandiose self-perception. Individuals with this form of splitting

tend to react more adversely to external feedback due to their fragile sense of self. They are more easily

affected by others’ perceptions and devalue or deny their own needs despite having a self-enhancing

self-perception. In Kohut’s (1977) theory, sensitivity to criticism is a logical consequence of early

childhood needs not being met, resulting in a constant need for reassurance and a low tolerance for any

perceived negativity.

In addition to the psychoanalytic/self-psychology theories, Atlas and Them (2008) empirically

investigated the role of sensitivity to criticism in the relation between narcissism subtypes and emotional

reactivity. In this two-part study, the authors first determined that a relation existed between narcissism

and sensitivity to criticism after which they examined the differential affiliations between narcissism

subtypes and emotional reactivity when provided different types of feedback. Those in the vulnerable

narcissism category reported increased sensitivity to criticism, ruminative thinking, and negative self-

representations, as shown by their tendency to evaluate themselves more negatively regardless of the

feedback received. Similarly, Tortoriello and Hart (2018) found that individuals with vulnerably

narcissistic traits tended to react negatively regardless of the type of feedback given (constructive vs.

destructive) and from whom the feedback was received, indicating that any type of criticism triggers an

emotional reaction. Furthermore, utilizing the Cognitive-Affective Processing System (CAPS), Roche


and colleagues (2013) examined the differences between narcissism themes and interpersonal

functioning. They determined that higher levels of grandiosity were associated with threats to status

while higher levels of vulnerability were associated with higher rejection sensitivity resulting in efforts

to emotionally distance from others.

Taken together, the results from these studies and Kohut’s (1971, 1977) theory of the

development of vulnerable narcissism suggest that this third variable may be a stable characteristic

rather than an environmentally influenced one. This is supported by the tendency for individuals with

vulnerably narcissistic traits to be reactive to any type of feedback where the nature of this external ego-

threat is largely unimpactful to the individual’s internal experience. Rather, the individual has developed

an internal narrative whereby any feedback is perceived to be a threat to their ego, or a narcissistic

injury. Therefore, individuals with vulnerable narcissism are likely to be more sensitivity to feedback or

more sensitive to criticism.

It is surprising that despite the inclusion of sensitivity to criticism within the conceptualization of

vulnerable narcissism, there is scant research on the role of this sensitivity in vulnerable narcissism

outcomes. Similar to rejection sensitivity, vulnerable narcissism is characterized by a propensity for

anticipatory anxiety, suggesting that this overlap may predict vulnerable narcissists’ behaviors. Indeed,

the recurrent use of ego-threats in narcissism research and in differentiating between grandiose and

vulnerable narcissism subtypes suggests that rejection sensitivity is a significant feature of this construct.

Given the well-established connection between rejection sensitivity and negative affect, and between

vulnerable narcissism and negative affect, it is reasonable to theorize that sensitivity to rejection plays a

significant role in the relation between vulnerable narcissism and negative affect.

Sensitivity to criticism or sensitivity to rejection consists of two elements: a lowered threshold

for criticism (neutral, constructive, or destructive comments) and higher emotional reactivity to these

types of comments compared to less sensitive individuals (Atlas, 1994). Therefore, those who are rated


as more sensitive to criticism are likely to have a lower tolerance for any type of criticism where

individuals view even relatively neutral comments as critical. In combination with this perception of

others’ feedback, those who are more sensitive to feedback demonstrate emotional reactions that are

more intense in nature compared to less sensitive individuals (Buckley et al., 2004; Geller et al., 1974;

Pepitone & Wilpizewski, 1960; Zadro et al., 2004).

Sensitivity to rejection has been linked with interpersonal difficulties and increased disruptive or

oppositional behaviors among adolescents (Downey et al., 1998b). Downey and colleagues (1998b)

suggested that those higher in rejection sensitivity behaved in ways that elicited rejection from others,

thus completing a self-fulfilling prophecy. This finding was replicated in a sample of young adults

(Downey et al., 1998a). In this study, dating couples’ rejection sensitivity levels were assessed through

self-report measures after which participants engaged in a conflict discussion about a salient issue in

their relationship. At a one-year follow up, researchers found that women higher in rejection sensitivity

behaved in specific ways to elicit rejection from a male partner, thus fulfilling their expectation of being

rejected. In both of these studies by Downey and colleagues (1998a; 1998b), higher rejection sensitivity

was associated with disrupted self-regulation, discomfort with ambiguity in conflictual situations, and

increased anticipatory anxiety of being rejected, which may act as a protective measure from eventual

rejection.

Similar to previous findings, rejection sensitivity has been correlated with higher rejection

expectancy (London et al., 2007) and diminished self-regulatory strategies, which impact individuals’

intimate relationships (Downey & Feldman, 1996) and result in psychological difficulties. These

psychological difficulties include depressive symptoms (Ayduk et al., 2001), a proclivity to withdraw

from relationships when faced with rejection, and a desire for retribution against the source of rejection

(London et al., 2007; Zimmer-Gembeck & Nesdale, 2013).


To better understand the effect of rejection sensitivity on aggression, Kirkpatrick and colleagues

(2002) examined the relation between self-esteem and aggression in the context of ego-threats and social

inclusion over a two-part study among two samples of college students. In both parts, participants were

given the opportunity to indirectly aggress on an external party by preparing a hot sauce sample that

external party was mandated to consume. The quantity of hot sauce served as a measure of participants’

aggression. The authors found that those who reported higher self-identified superiority prepared higher

quantities of hot sauce for their evaluator or rival compared to socially included participants who

identified as team players. Therefore, these results suggest that individuals with higher self-appraisals

exhibit higher intensity defensive reactions when challenged or faced with criticism compared to those

who do not view themselves as superior to others.

Using a similar hot sauce paradigm, Ayduk and others (2008) attempted to parse out the relation

between rejection, rejection sensitivity, and aggression. Consistent with their hypotheses, the authors

found that the rejection sensitivity levels significantly impacted participants’ aggressive behaviors when

in rejecting situations. Those highly sensitive to criticism demonstrated more aggressive behaviors while

those with lower sensitivity levels did not engage in any aggressive behaviors regardless of the condition

in which they were placed (control vs. rejection).

Altogether, these results suggest that those who endorse higher levels of sensitivity to criticism

are more likely to experience higher levels of negative emotional reactions as a result of perceived

external rejection. However, as research on vulnerable narcissism has historically been neglected due to

the greater focus on grandiose narcissism, this study was interested in comparing the effects of other

constructs. This examination of the roles of other variables within the relation between vulnerable

narcissism and negative affect would provide a deeper understanding of the patterns of relations present.

In particular, shame and psychological inflexibility were chosen as other variables to examine as both

mediators and moderators.


Shame

Shame has been theorized to be a core feature of narcissism, consisting of the inability to meet

expectations of either the self or others resulting in feelings of exposure and helplessness (O’Leary &

Wright, 1986). Individuals with grandiosely narcissistic traits tend to repress these feelings of shame by

engaging in behaviors consistent with excessive self-confidence. Conversely, individuals with

vulnerably narcissistic traits tend to have a heightened focus on these feelings of shame which may

result in coping through self-deprecating behaviors. In this latter subtype, O’Leary and Wright (1986)

posited that these feelings of faultiness occupy the center of the individual’s identity which subsequently

impacts their approach to the world.

Thomaes and colleagues (2008) investigated the role of shame in the relation between narcissism

and aggression among adolescents. They found that grandiosely narcissistic individuals who were

shamed tended to engage in aggression (i.e., volume of a white noise blasted to opponent’s headphones)

while grandiosely narcissistic individuals who were not shamed did not engage in aggressive behaviors.

However, this finding did not extend to individuals with vulnerable narcissism. Instead, those in this

narcissism subtype did not engage in significant levels of aggression regardless of whether they were

shamed. In another study examining narcissism and emotional experiences among children, Derry and

others (2019) requested participants aged between 8 and 12 to complete a difficult maze task. They

found that individuals with vulnerably narcissistic traits tended to approach tasks with higher levels of

negative emotions, such as shame, compared to individuals with grandiosely narcissistic traits. The

authors observed continued elevations in negative emotions across all conditions, including ambiguous

ones, which was attributed to pre-existing shame and hypervigilance. They suggested that this positive

correlation between shame and narcissism may be unique to vulnerable narcissism as individuals with

grandiose narcissism did not demonstrate similar patterns. From these studies, it may be inferred that


shame plays a moderating role in the relation between vulnerable narcissism and aggression or negative

affect.

Similarly, Schröder-Abé and Fatfouta (2019) determined that shame was a core feature of

vulnerable narcissism, rather than grandiose narcissism, which prevented individuals from engaging in

dishonest deeds. In this way, shame mediated the relation between vulnerable narcissism and dishonesty.

The authors posited that individuals with vulnerable narcissism were concerned with the risk of being

caught in the deceit resulting in feelings of shame that curbed their engagement in such behaviors.

However, these feelings of shame were not significantly related to engagement in deceit in the condition

where the likelihood of being caught was lower.

To better understand the role of shame, Freis and colleagues (2015) attempted to parse out the

conditions in which individuals with vulnerable narcissism responded to mixed or negative feedback

with shame or anger, and their perception of the evaluator in these conditions. The authors found that

individuals experienced anger in the mixed feedback condition when they believed they had performed

poorly but experienced both shame and anger when provided with negative feedback for tasks in which

they believed they had performed well. Furthermore, results demonstrated that individuals with

vulnerable narcissism who were evaluated negatively reported low concern for the evaluations of the

judges but increased shame. Conversely, Malkin and colleagues (2011) examined experiences of shame

among adolescents with vulnerable narcissistic tendencies. In this study, participants reported higher

shame in the positive feedback condition compared to the negative feedback condition, suggesting that

individuals with vulnerable narcissism experience persistent shame. In this way, they may be unable to

effectively detach from their feelings about being judged in any capacity resulting in a lack of internal

regulation and persistently high shame (Freis et al., 2015). This mechanism suggests that individuals

with vulnerable narcissism are extremely reliant on external feedback which undermines their ability to

engage in motivated reasoning that would allow for emotion regulation.


Based on the literature thus far, the impact of vulnerable narcissism on shame unclear. Research

has demonstrated existing relations between shame and narcissism which correspond with theoretical

models of narcissism such that individuals with vulnerably narcissistic traits tend to experience higher

levels of shame compared to individuals with grandiosely narcissistic traits or non-narcissistic traits.

These results suggest that shame is indeed a core feature of narcissism. However, as most of the studies

examining the relation between shame and vulnerable narcissism have included adolescent participants,

the stability of shame across the lifespan in individuals with vulnerable narcissism is largely unknown. It

may be argued that higher levels of shame are experienced during adolescence compared to adulthood

(Orth et al., 2010) which may negatively impact the generalizability of outcomes found in studies

utilizing an adolescent population. Additionally, it is unclear if shame is a moderating variable (Derry et

al., 2019) or an intermediary variable (Malkin et al., 2011), which limits understanding of its role in

vulnerable narcissism. For these reasons, it may be beneficial to further expand on the association

between shame, vulnerable narcissism, and negative affect through examining the role of shame within

this relation, first as an intermediary variable and then as a moderating variable.

Psychological Flexibility

Psychological flexibility is defined as “the ability to contact the present moment more fully as a

conscious human being” (Hayes et al., 2006, p. 7) where the individual is able to adjust and adapt their

behaviors appropriately for the situation without compromising their values. This higher-order construct

consists of six interconnected processes, namely clarity of values, committed action, self-as-context,

cognitive defusion, acceptance, and contact with the present moment, that allow for this connection with

the present to exist. The inverse of this construct, psychological inflexibility, has been linked with

various types of psychopathology (Hayes et al., 2006).

To further understand the relation between psychological inflexibility and personality traits,

Gloster and others (2011) conducted a study using participants recruited from clinical and nonclinical


settings. The clinical samples consisted of individuals who met criteria for social anxiety disorder or

panic disorder with agoraphobia and the nonclinical samples consisted of college students and

unemployed individuals. The authors found that psychological inflexibility was a stable construct across

multiple measurement times. Individuals with social anxiety reported significant deficits in

psychological inflexibility which may explain their tendency to become preoccupied with others’

perceptions of them and overly control their own behaviors in social situations. This was consistent with

the demonstrated inverse relation between neuroticism, a higher-order trait commonly associated with

anxiety, and psychological inflexibility.

Paulus and colleagues (2016) attempted to further parse out the links between neuroticism and

psychological inflexibility through examining the mediating effect of psychological inflexibility in the

relation between neuroticism and depression compared to shame and emotion dysregulation. Consistent

with previous research, they found a direct relation between neuroticism and psychological inflexibility.

Furthermore, psychological inflexibility and emotion dysregulation fully mediated the relation between

neuroticism and depression, suggesting that lack of psychological flexibility significantly contributes to

the presence of psychopathology when combined with neuroticism.

As described in previous sections, vulnerable narcissism, unlike grandiose narcissism, has been

linked with high levels of neuroticism (Kaufman et al., 2020; Miller & Campbell, 2008; Miller et al.,

2011). Additionally, Miller and colleagues (2011) found that individuals with vulnerably narcissistic

traits endorsed symptoms of anxiety and depression, among others, where they experience higher levels

of negative rather than positive affect. These results are similar to those demonstrated between

psychological inflexibility and the constructs of anxiety and neuroticism, suggesting a possible link

between vulnerable narcissism and psychological inflexibility.

Very few studies have examined the relation between narcissism and psychological inflexibility.

Kaufman and colleagues (2020) investigated the correlations between narcissism subtypes and


psychopathology-related clinical variables. They found that vulnerable narcissism was more

significantly negatively related with psychological flexibility compared to grandiose narcissism. In

another study by Ng and others (2014), the relation between the ability to shift between emotion-focused

and problem-focused coping strategies, i.e., coping flexibility, and narcissism was examined in

predicting psychological health. They found that coping flexibility had a mediating effect on the relation

between vulnerable narcissism and stress, suggesting that individuals with reduced flexibility had poorer

outcomes. Although coping flexibility is different from psychological flexibility, both require an ability

to adapt to the experienced situation through modification of external and internal processes.

From this discussion, it is clear that psychological inflexibility and vulnerable narcissism share

similar connections with psychopathology indices and personality traits. However, research examining

the role of psychological inflexibility in vulnerable narcissism is not substantive, which limits the

conclusions that can be drawn about these variables. Therefore, further inquiry into the mediating or

moderating effects of psychological inflexibility on vulnerable narcissism and negative affectivity may

help in further understanding the relation of vulnerable narcissism to other outcomes.

Although the constructs of shame and psychological inflexibility have demonstrated connections

with vulnerable narcissism, these relations have been largely inconsistent. As mentioned earlier, further

examination of these associations is required before any conclusive decisions can be made about their

impact on vulnerable narcissism. Currently, research on narcissism and affect utilize ego-threats where

individuals are provided with different feedback types to provoke emotional reactions. Tortoriello and

Hart (2018) examined the change in negative affect (failure reactivity) in grandiose and vulnerable

narcissism groups when presented with hypothetical destructive or constructive criticism from either

audiences of self (self-evaluation or self-reflection) or other (important other, unimportant other, and

social world other). Although vulnerable and grandiose narcissism were inversely related with failure

reactivity, which was attributed to the differences in internal dialogue utilized by these narcissistic


subtypes, the authors posited that those with vulnerable narcissism may believe all feedback lacks

kindness, regardless of how it is presented.

These results suggest that individuals may be hyperfocused or sensitive to all types of feedback,

regardless of its valence. This possible relation may also explain why feedback elicits such emotional

reactions regardless of the type of external feedback provided. Therefore, individuals with vulnerable

narcissism may be more likely to react negatively to feedback due to a pre-existing sensitivity to

criticism where individuals with lower sensitivity react at a lower intensity compared to individuals with

higher sensitivity to criticism.

Therefore, this study seeks to parse out the role of sensitivity to criticism in the relation between

vulnerable narcissism and negative affect compared to psychological inflexibility and shame. Based on

the evidence presented, sensitivity to criticism is theorized to play a significant role on the relation

between the vulnerable narcissism subtype and direct/indirect negative affect. The mediation model is

presented in Figure 1.


The Present Study

This study aimed to clarify the relation between vulnerable narcissism, sensitivity to criticism,

and negative affect. The role of sensitivity to criticism will be then compared to the associations

demonstrated by shame and psychological inflexibility in the relation between vulnerable narcissism and

negative affect as either a mediator or a moderator. To further understand these relations, this study was

split in two studies that were conducted concurrently. Each study consisted of a unique sample of

participants.

Study 1 examined the relations between these constructs at a trait level. Within this study, the

hypotheses involved determining the relation between vulnerable narcissism, negative affect, and the

multiple mediators in the absence of any ego-threats. Therefore, at a trait level, the hypotheses were as

follows:

1. Sensitivity to criticism will have a stronger correlation with vulnerable narcissism

compared to grandiose narcissism.

2. The relation between vulnerable narcissism and multiple domains of negative affect will

be mediated by shame, psychological inflexibility, and sensitivity to criticism, where

individuals with higher vulnerable narcissism will report higher levels of shame,

psychological inflexibility, and sensitivity to criticism.

3. Although each of these hypothesized mediators will account for some variance in the

relation between vulnerable narcissism and negative affect, sensitivity to criticism will be

a stronger mediator compared to shame and psychological inflexibility.

Study 1 aims included providing a preliminary understanding of the relations between these

variables in the absence of any provocation. Study 2 aims included replication and expansion on these

demonstrated relations through the addition of ego-threats. As individuals with vulnerable narcissism

have been found to respond to any type of feedback (positive, neutral, and negative) with heightened


aggression, this study utilized vignettes that either had positive or negative outcomes to investigate if the

experienced negative affect is different between these conditions. Therefore, Study 2 consisted of the

hypotheses from Study 1 as well as the following hypotheses:

4. The relation between vulnerable narcissism and multiple domains of negative affect will

be mediated by shame, psychological inflexibility, and sensitivity to criticism, where

individuals with higher vulnerable narcissism will report higher levels of shame,

psychological inflexibility, and sensitivity to criticism regardless of the valence of the

ego-threats.

5. Although each of these hypothesized mediators will account for some variance in the

relation between vulnerable narcissism and negative affect, sensitivity to criticism will be

a stronger mediator of this relation compared to shame and psychological inflexibility

regardless of the valence of the ego-threats. Therefore, those with higher levels of

vulnerable narcissism and sensitivity to criticism will report increased experience and

expression of negative affect compared to those with higher levels of shame and

psychological inflexibility regardless of their exposure to a situation depicting failure or

success.

To better understand the role of each of these variables, a secondary hypothesis is proposed

where:

6. An exploratory moderation model will be conducted to examine the strength of the

interaction of sensitivity to criticism, shame, and psychological inflexibility, respectively,

with vulnerable narcissism on multiple domains of negative affect. This effect will be

explored in the absence of an ego-threat, in the presence of an ego-threat that has a

negative outcome and an ego-threat that has a positive outcome. This alternate

moderation model is represented in Figure 2.


Study 1

Methods

Participants

After obtaining approval from the institutional review board (see Appendix A), participants were

recruited from a university and were provided with extra credit for their psychology class for their

participation. A total of 258 individuals logged on to the survey (described below), of which two

responses were corrupted and 17 were eliminated due to dropping out at various points in the survey

resulting in incomplete responses. An additional five responses were dropped due to being duplicates. In

these cases, the first complete survey was retained for analysis and the duplicate was deleted. This

resulted in 234 subjects who completed the measures and were included in the subsequent statistical

analyses. The participants who completed the measures (N = 234) had a mean age of 21.12 years (SD =

5.55; Range = 18-54), with 73.9% identifying as female, 23.1% male, 1.3% transgender, 1.3%

genderqueer/nonbinary, and 0.4% preferring not to answer. The majority of the sample was non-

Hispanic White (67.1%), with 19.7% Black/African American, 1.7% Asian, 0.9% Native American,

0.4% Pacific Islander, 4.3% Multiracial, 4.7% Other, and 1.3% preferring not to answer. Lastly, 29.5%

of the respondents reported being freshman, 26.9% sophomore, 23.9% junior, 16.7% senior, 1.3% fifth

year students, and 1.7% graduate.

Measures

Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI). The PNI, which was created by Pincus and

colleagues (2009), is a 52-item measure designed to assess both grandiose and vulnerable facets of

pathological narcissism (Appendix B). Participants rate their degree of agreement with each statement

on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me) with higher scores

indicating higher levels of pathological narcissism. There are seven lower-order subscales: Contingent

Self-Esteem (CSE; fluctuating self-esteem levels in the absence of external validation), Exploitativeness


(EXP; engagement in manipulative behaviors), Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancement (SSSE; using

reportedly altruistic acts to support a positive self-image), Hiding the Self (HS; unwillingness to expose

one’s faults), Grandiose Fantasy (GF; images of success and power), Devaluing (DEV; disinterest in

those who do not support the individual’s positive self-image), and Entitlement Rage (ER; aggression

towards those who do not provide this deserved admiration). Using confirmatory factor-analysis, the

PNI was found to yield two higher-order subscales: Grandiose and Vulnerable (Wright et al., 2010). The

Grandiose subscale consists of SSSE, GF, and EXP (e.g., “I like to have friends who rely on me because

it makes me feel important”) and the Vulnerable subscale comprises of ER, CSE, DEV, and HS (e.g.,

Sometimes it’s easier to be alone than to face not getting everything I want from other people.”). In the

initial construction and validation of the PNI, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .93 (CSE), .78 (EXP),

.79 (SSSE), .75 (HS), .85 (DEV), .89 (GF), .89 (ER), and .95 (PNI Total). Furthermore, negative

correlations were found between pathological narcissism and self-esteem (r = -.37), and empathy (r = -

.14) while higher levels of pathological narcissism were correlated with higher levels of shame (r = .55),

identity diffusion (r = .62), and aggression (r = .36) in a nonclinical sample (Pincus et al., 2009). At both

the higher-order and lower-order levels, support for the PNI’s construct validity was found as subscale

coefficients were in the predicted directions. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the current study were

.86 (ER), .93 (CSE), .79 (EXP), .73 (SSSE), .77 (HS), .85 (DEV), .85 (GF), and .95 (PNI Total). As the

Vulnerable and Grandiose subscales were utilized for this study, Cronbach alpha coefficients were .95

(VN) and .87 (GN).

Sensitivity to Criticism Scale (SCS). Atlas (1994; Appendix C) constructed the 30-item SCS to

assess individuals’ responses to situations that may be perceived as critical. Respondents are asked to

imagine themselves in a range of domains (social, academic achievement, physical appearance, and

intellect) where a friend is making the presented statement towards them. For example, “It’s really hard

to keep one’s weight down, isn’t it?” after which participants are asked to rate the extent to which they


consider the comment a criticism on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (definitely not a criticism) to 7

(definitely a criticism) and to what extent they are hurt by it ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great

deal). Higher scores are indicative of higher sensitivity to criticism. In the initial construction and

validation of the SCS, Atlas (1994) reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .92 to .94 and

high test-retest reliability after six months (⍺ = .82). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .83 to

.91 for the current study and the total score was utilized in all analyses.

Experience of Shame Scale (ESS). The ESS was created by Andrews and colleagues (2002)

based on an interview measure of shame (Andrews & Hunter, 1997) and consists of 25 items (Appendix

D). It is designed to assess shame across three domains: (a) characterological shame, (b) bodily shame,

and (c) behavioral shame. Participants are requested to respond to questions related to their experience

over shame over the past year on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). For

example, “Have you felt ashamed of your ability to do things?” where higher scores are indicative of

higher levels of shame. In the initial construction and validation of the ESS, Cronbach’s alpha

coefficients were .90 (Characterological Shame), .87 (Behavioral shame), .86 (Bodily Shame), and .92

(ESS Total). Test-retest reliability coefficients over 11 weeks were .78 (Characterological Shame), .74

(Behavioral shame), .82 (Bodily Shame), and .83 (ESS Total). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the

current study were .94 (Characterological Shame), 91 (Behavioral Shame), .91 (Bodily Shame), and .96

(ESS Total). The total score was utilized for the present study.

Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II). Hayes and colleagues (2004) constructed

the AAQ-I to measure experiential avoidance and psychological inflexibility. Although useful, a second

version of this measure was developed to improve upon its internal consistency and test-retest reliability

which were .70 and .64, respectively. In this updated version, the AAQ-II (Bond et al., 2011) consists of

7 items (Appendix E). Participants rate their level of agreement with each item on a Likert-type scale

ranging from 1 (never true) to 7 (always true) where higher scores are indicative of greater experiential


avoidance and psychological inflexibility. An example of a statement is, “Worries get in the way of my

success.” In the initial construction and validation of the AAQ-II, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .84

with test-retest reliability coefficients of .81 and .79 at 3- and 12-month intervals, respectively.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .93 for the current study.

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). The PANAS is a 20-item measure created by

Watson and colleagues (1988; Appendix F) designed to assess respondents’ experience of positive and

negative affect either in the moment or over the past week. Participants endorse each adjective on a

Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). There are two subscales:

Positive Affect and Negative Affect, which comprise of 10 items respectively. In the initial construction

and validation of the PANAS, Watson and colleagues (1988) reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in

the Positive Affect subscale ranging from .86 to .90 and the Negative Affect subscale ranging from .84

to .87 in a nonclinical sample depending on the time frame for which participants are requested to

respond. Intercorrelations between the scales were low (-.12 to -.23) regardless of time frame indicating

good discriminant validity. In the present study, participants were asked to rate their experience of

emotions in the present moment only. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the current study was .89 for the

Negative Affect subscale.

State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2). The STAXI was created by

Spielberger (1988) to measure State Anger, Trait Anger, Anger Expression, and Anger Control.

Although useful, a second version of this measure was created after further investigation of the factor

structure of these anger components (Appendix G). The updated 57-item questionnaire consists of State

Anger (SA; the intensity of angry feelings being experienced and the extent to which this wants to be

expressed), Trait Anger (TA; the frequency of these angry feelings over time), Anger Expression Index

(AX-Index; the general anger expression index). SA consists of Feeling Angry (F), Feel like Expressing

Anger Verbally (V), and Feel like Expressing Anger Physically (P), TA consists of Angry Temperament (T) and


Angry Reaction (R), and AX-Index consists of Anger Expression-Out (AX-O), Anger Expression-In (AX-I),

Anger Control-Out (AC-O), and Anger Control-In (AC-I). Participants rate their degree of agreement with

each statement on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so) for the SA subscale

and 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always) for the TA and AX-Index subscales. Higher scores are

indicative of high levels of anger across the multiple subscales. An example of a state anger statement is

“I am furious,” an example of a trait anger statement is “I am a hotheaded person,” and “I boil inside,

but don’t show it” for the anger expression subscale. In the construction and validation of the STAXI-2,

Spielberger (1999) reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .93 (SA), .85 (TA), and .76 (AX-Index) in

a nonclinical sample. These internal consistencies remained largely similar in a sample of psychiatric

patients: .94 (SA), .89 (TA), and .75 (AX-Index).

Procedure

Respondents were directed to a survey hosted on RedCap after opting to participate in this study

through a cloud based human subject pool software, SonaSystem©. After consenting to participate in

this study, participants were asked to respond to a series of demographic questions and were asked to

provide the last four digits of their cell phone number. Respondents completed the remaining

questionnaires in a fixed order. This consisted of STAXI-2 (SA), PNI-52, STAXI-2 (TA), SCS, PANAS,

AAQ-II, ESS, and lastly STAXI-2 (AX-Index). At the end of the survey, participants were directed to

another completely separate survey where they were asked to provide some identifying information to

receive credit for their participation. Course extra credit was awarded through the SonaSystem© by the

researcher and could not be linked back to the individual’s responses.

Data Analyses

Hypothesis testing was completed using R, 3.5.2 (R Core Team, 2018), the lavaan (v0.6-7;

Rosseel, 2012), and the psych (v2.0.12; Revelle, 2020) packages for both Study 1 and Study 2. To test

the first hypothesis, Pearson’s correlations were conducted after which an r to z transformation was

conducted to compare the relations between sensitivity to criticism and vulnerable and grandiose


narcissism. For the second hypothesis, a parallel mediation model was conducted to examine and

compare the role of each of the hypothesized mediators on the existing relation between vulnerable

narcissism and negative affect. The predictor variable was vulnerable narcissism, the mediators

consisted of sensitivity to criticism, shame, and psychological inflexibility, and multiple outcome

variables were utilized to measure the multiple domains of negative affect. A total of four mediation

models were conducted with four domains of negative affect outcome variables in each model to assess

the level of variance accounted for by a single mediator in comparison to the others. Statistical

significance of the indirect effect was tested with a Sobel z-test (p < 0.05); however, due to limitations to

statistical power, current recommended procedure is to primarily interpret bias-corrected bootstrapped

95% confidence intervals, which is not overlapping zero are evidence in support of mediation (Nbootstraps

= 5000; Hayes & Scharkow, 2013). Supplemental simple mediation analyses were also conducted for

Study 1 and Study 2 (see Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3).

To test the alternative hypothesis, twelve hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to

examine and compare the role of each hypothesized moderator in the existing relation between

vulnerable narcissism and four domains of negative affect. For each regression model, Step 1 included

examining the main effects of vulnerable narcissism and the hypothesized moderator (shame,

psychological inflexibility, or shame) on the negative affect domain. Step 2 tested the interactions

between vulnerable narcissism and the hypothesized moderator variable. In these analyses, all the

variables were standardized and mean-centered for interpretation reasons. For those models with a

significant R2 and a significant interaction effect that resulted in a significant increase in R2, a simple

slope analysis was conducted to further probe the relation. In this analysis, the strength of the moderator

was assessed at one standard deviation above the mean and one standard deviation below the mean.

Results


Pearson’s correlations were conducted for all variables (see Table 4). As predicted, sensitivity to

criticism (r = .37) shared significantly stronger correlations with vulnerable narcissism (p < .01)

compared to grandiose narcissism (r = .18, p < .01). An r to z transformation was conducted and the z-

scores were compared using Steiger’s (1980) equations to examine the strength of these differences. As

predicted, sensitivity to criticism’s correlation with vulnerable narcissism was significantly different

from grandiose narcissism (z = 2.18, p < .05). Sensitivity to criticism was moderately correlated with

shame (r = .54, p < .01) and psychological inflexibility (r = .41, p < .01). Shame shared a strong relation

with psychological inflexibility (r = .75, p < .01).

Mediation

State Anger. This mediation model examined the effect of vulnerable narcissism (predictor),

sensitivity to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame (proposed mediators) on state anger

(outcome variable). Examining the total effect, higher vulnerable narcissism was found to be related to

higher state anger (b = 1.73, p < .01). Of the three proposed mediator variables, psychological

inflexibility accounted for 59% of the relation between vulnerable narcissism and state anger (indirect

effect = 1.03, CI95% = .19 to 2.03, p < .05). As the 95% confidence interval does not overlap 0, there is

evidence in support of mediation. These findings are illustrated in Figure 3.

Trait Anger. This mediation model examined the effect of vulnerable narcissism (predictor),

sensitivity to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame (proposed mediators) on trait anger

(outcome variable). Examining the total effect, higher vulnerable narcissism was found to be related to

higher trait anger (b = 3.57, p < .001). There was no evidence of mediation based on 95% confidence

intervals and statistical significance testing; the cumulative indirect effect accounted for 4% of the total

effect. These findings are illustrated in Figure 4.

Anger Expression. This mediation model examined the effect of vulnerable narcissism

(predictor), sensitivity to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame (proposed mediators) on the


index of anger expression (outcome variable). Examining the total effect, higher vulnerable narcissism

was found to be related to higher anger expression (b = 8.21, p < .001). There was no evidence of

mediation based on 95% confidence intervals and statistical significance testing; the cumulative indirect

effect accounted for 20% of the total effect. These findings are illustrated in Figure 5.

Negative Affect. This mediation model examined the effect of vulnerable narcissism (predictor),

sensitivity to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame (proposed mediators) on negative affect

(outcome variable). Examining the total effect, higher vulnerable narcissism was found to be related

with higher negative affect (b = 4.85, p < .001). Of the three proposed mediator variables, psychological

inflexibility accounted for 54% of the relation between vulnerable narcissism and negative affect

(indirect effect = 2.62, CI95% = 1.67 to 3.74, p < .001) and shame accounted for 31% of the variance

(indirect effect = 1.52, CI95% = .47 to 2.66, p < .01). As the 95% confidence interval does not overlap 0,

there is support for both variables mediating the effect of vulnerable narcissism on negative affect.

These findings are illustrated in Figure 6.

Moderation

State Anger. Three hierarchical regressions were conducted to test the three moderation models

hypothesized for this study. Specifically, vulnerable narcissism was entered as the predictor, sensitivity

to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame were entered as moderators, respectively, and state

anger was designated as the outcome variable. The results of these moderation models are presented in

Table 5. The interaction variables, vulnerable narcissism×sensitivity to criticism and vulnerable

narcissism×shame were not significant. The interaction of vulnerable narcissism and psychological

inflexibility (b = .82, p < .05) was found to be predictive of state anger. The interaction accounted for an

additional 1.7% of the variance in the experience of state anger. To further explain this interaction term,

simple slopes analysis was conducted to depict predicted state anger at high (one standard deviation

above the mean) versus low (one standard deviation below the mean) levels of vulnerable narcissism


and high (one standard deviation above the mean) versus low (one standard deviation below the mean)

levels of psychological inflexibility (see Figure 7). These results suggest that individuals’ state anger

was minimally influenced by vulnerable narcissism at low levels of psychological inflexibility (b = -.01,

SE = .71, p = .99) while individuals with higher psychological inflexibility (b = 1.63, SE = .65, p < .01)

experienced increased state anger at high vulnerable narcissism than those with low vulnerable

narcissism.

Trait Anger. Three hierarchical regressions were conducted to test the three moderation models


to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame were entered as moderators, respectively, and trait


Table 6. The interaction variables, vulnerable narcissism×sensitivity to criticism and vulnerable

narcissism×shame, were not significant. The interaction of vulnerable narcissism and psychological

inflexibility (b = .81, p < .01) was found to be predictive of trait anger. The addition of this interaction

predicted 2.1% of the variance in trait anger. To further explain this interaction term, simple slopes

analysis was conducted to depict predicted trait anger at high (one standard deviation above the mean)

versus low (one standard deviation below the mean) levels of vulnerable narcissism and high (one

standard deviation above the mean) versus low (one standard deviation below the mean) levels of

psychological inflexibility (see Figure 8). These results suggest that individuals with higher levels of

both vulnerable narcissism and psychological inflexibility experience significantly high trait anger (b =

3.76, SE = .49, p < .01) and individuals with lower levels of vulnerable narcissism and psychological

inflexibility experience significantly low trait anger (b = 2.14, SE = .54, p < .01).

Anger Expression. Three hierarchical regressions were conducted to test the three moderation

models hypothesized for this study. Specifically, vulnerable narcissism was entered as the predictor,

sensitivity to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame were entered as moderators, respectively,


and anger expression was designated as the outcome variable. The results of these moderation models

are presented in Table 7. The interaction variables were not significant. These results suggest that

individuals with vulnerable narcissism endorse higher levels of anger expression regardless of their level

of sensitivity to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame.

Negative Affect. Three hierarchical regressions were conducted to test the three moderation



and negative affect was designated as the outcome variable. The results of these moderation models are

presented in Table 8. The interaction variables, vulnerable narcissism×psychological inflexibility and

vulnerable narcissism×shame, were not significant. The interaction of vulnerable narcissism and

sensitivity to criticism (b = -1.03, p < .05) was found to be predictive of negative affect. The addition of

this interaction predicted 1.6% of the variance in the experience of negative affect. To further explain

this interaction term, simple slopes analysis was conducted to depict predicted negative affect at high

(one standard deviation above the mean) versus low (one standard deviation below the mean) levels of

vulnerable narcissism and high (one standard deviation above the mean) versus low (one standard

deviation below the mean) levels of sensitivity to criticism (see Figure 9). These results suggest that

individuals with higher levels of both vulnerable narcissism and sensitivity to criticism report

significantly increased negative affect (b = 3.01, SE = .62, p < .01) compared to those individuals with

lower levels of vulnerable narcissism and sensitivity to criticism report significantly decreased negative

affect (b = 5.06, SE = .68, p < .01).

Discussion

Overall, the results from Study 1 demonstrated trait level associations between vulnerable

narcissism, sensitivity to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and domains of negative affect. Shame

demonstrated a mediating effect on the relation between vulnerable narcissism and situational negative


affect. However, psychological inflexibility was found to mediate the relations between vulnerable

narcissism and multiple domains of negativity, specifically state anger and negative affect in the

moment, but not sensitivity to criticism. In this way, the second hypothesis was partially supported, and

the third hypothesis was not supported.

The secondary hypothesis was intended to explore the moderating effect of sensitivity to

criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame on the relation between vulnerable narcissism and

domains of negative effect. Psychological inflexibility emerged as a moderator of vulnerable narcissism

and some aspects of negativity, such as state and trait anger, while sensitivity to criticism moderated the

relation between vulnerable narcissism and negative affect in the moment. However, shame did not have

a moderating effect on any of the associations.

Taken together, psychological inflexibility accounts for the relation, and at certain levels is also a

limiting factor (a condition of the effect), between vulnerable narcissism and domains of negative affect.

To explore that further, a future direction could be to experimentally manipulate psychological

inflexibility. Additionally, sensitivity to criticism demonstrated similar limiting effects on the relation

between vulnerable narcissism and momentary negative affect, suggesting that this construct may be

more influential on transient experiences. Future directions may benefit from exploring this relation in

the context of ego-threats.


Study 2

Methods

Participants

To better understand the relation between vulnerable narcissism and negative affect in the

context of mediating variables, sensitivity to criticism, shame, and psychological inflexibility, Study 2

was conducted concurrently with Study 1. Study 2 comprised of the same measures with the key

difference of including an ego-threat to influence participants’ emotional states. These ego-threats were

framed to be either positive or negative. For clarity, these will be referred to as either SP or SN.

A total of 227 individuals logged on to the survey for SN (described below), of which 28 were

eliminated due to dropping out at various points in the survey resulting in incomplete responses. An

additional five responses were dropped due to being duplicates. In these cases, the first complete survey

was retained for analysis and the duplicate was deleted, resulting in 194 subjects who completed the

measures and were included in the subsequent statistical analyses. The participants who completed the

measures (N = 194) had a mean age of 20.92 years (SD = 4.77; Range = 18-52), with 72.2% identifying

as female, 26.3% male, 1% genderqueer/nonbinary, and 0.5% preferring not to answer. The majority of

the sample was non-Hispanic White (60.3%), with 24.7% Black/African-American, 1% Asian, 0.5%

Asian-Indian, 5.7% Multiracial, 4.1% Other, and 3.1% preferring not to answer. Lastly, 31.4% of the

respondents reported being junior, 25.3% freshman, 25.3% sophomore, 13.9% senior, 3.1% fifth year

students, 0.5% graduate, and 0.5% preferring not to answer.

For the version of this study where the vignettes were framed to be positive, a total of 198

individuals logged on to the survey for SP (described below). Of these, 19 were eliminated due to

dropping out at various points in the survey resulting in incomplete responses. An additional seven

responses were dropped due to being duplicates. In these cases, the first complete survey was retained

for analysis and the duplicate was deleted, resulting in 172 subjects who completed the measures and


were included in the subsequent statistical analyses. The participants who completed the measures (N =

172) had a mean age of 20.75 years (SD = 4.23; Range = 18-47), with 68% identifying as female, 30.2%

male, and 1.7% genderqueer/nonbinary. The majority of the sample was non-Hispanic White (60.5%),

with 25.6% Black/African-American, 2.3% Asian, 0.6% Native American, 6.4% Multiracial, and 4.7%

Other. Lastly, 36% of the respondents reported being freshman, 22.7% sophomore, 19.8% junior, 15.7%

senior, 5.2% fifth year students, and 0.6% graduate.

Measures

The same measures were used in Study 2 as in Study 1, with the addition of the ego-threats.

These were intended to influence the emotional states of the participants. Information regarding these is

provided below.

Vignettes. These consist of six descriptions of situations where the individual is exposed to

failure. These vignettes were created by Tortoriello and Hart (2018; Appendix H) and used to investigate

failure reactivity among college students with narcissism as described previously. They were found to be

capable of provoking negative reactions across multiple domains, including internship performance,

psychology exams, presentations for class, running for a student organization position, musical

performances, and making friends. An example of a failure vignette is “Imagine that it is your first

semester at college, and you don’t know anyone. You are excited about the opportunity to make some

lifelong friends. Despite trying hard, you are struggling mightily to make friends. No one seems

interested in hanging out with you. You unhappily spend a lot of time alone in your dorm room.” After

each vignette, participants indicated how distressed they felt on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not

at all) to 7 (a great deal).

As research has demonstrated that individuals with vulnerable narcissism experience distress

regardless of the valence of the feedback presented, each of these failure vignettes were modified to

reflect success in such situations (Appendix I). An example of a success vignette is “Imagine that you


are giving a class presentation. You have prepared for weeks and feel confident that it will go well. In

the middle of your presentation, you begin to stumble on your words and forget what to say. The rest of

the presentation does not make much sense and is very hard to follow. You receive an “A” grade on

your presentation.” After each vignette, participants indicated how distressed they felt on a Likert-type

scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great deal).

Procedures

Respondents were directed to a survey hosted on RedCap after opting to participate in this study

through a cloud based human subject pool software, SonaSystem©. After consenting to participate in

this study, participants were asked to respond to a series of demographic questions and were asked to

provide the last four digits of their cell phone number. Participants provided responses to the

questionnaires which were presented in the same order. This consisted of STAXI-2 (TA), and PNI-52

after which they were presented with the vignettes which presented hypothetical scenarios of success or

failure depending on if they were participating in SN or SP. Once respondents indicated their level of

distress for each vignette, they were directed to the remaining measures in the following order: PANAS,

ESS, STAXI-2 (SA), SCS, AAQ-II, and STAXI-2 (AX-Index) to assess changes in their emotional

states after reading and responding to the vignettes. At the end of the survey, participants were directed

to another separate survey where they were asked to provide some identifying information to receive

credit for their participation. Course extra credit was awarded through the SonaSystem© by the

researcher and could not be linked back to the individual’s responses.

Results

Pearson’s correlations were conducted for all variables in SN (see Table 9). As predicted,

sensitivity to criticism (r = .44) scores shared stronger correlations with vulnerable narcissism (p < .01)

compared to grandiose narcissism (r = .18, p < .05). An r to z transformation was conducted and the z-

scores were compared using Steiger’s (1980) equations to examine the strength of these differences. As


predicted, sensitivity to criticism’s correlation with vulnerable narcissism was significantly different

from grandiose narcissism (z = 2.78, p < .01). Sensitivity to criticism was moderately correlated with

shame (r = .48, p < .001) and psychological inflexibility (r = .50, p < .001). Shame shared a strong

relation with psychological inflexibility (r = .74, p < .001).

Similar relations were demonstrated in SP where sensitivity to criticism (r = 37) scores shared

stronger correlations with vulnerable narcissism (p < .01) compared to grandiose narcissism (r = .15, p =

.05). An r to z transformation was conducted and the z-scores were compared using Steiger’s (1980)

equations to examine the strength of these differences. As predicted, sensitivity to criticism’s correlation

with vulnerable narcissism was significantly different from grandiose narcissism (z = 2.15, p < .05).

Sensitivity to criticism was moderately correlated with shame (r = .50, p < .001) and weakly related to

psychological inflexibility (r = .38, p < .001). Shame shared a moderate relation with psychological

inflexibility (r = .61, p < .001). These results are depicted in Table 10.

Mediation

State Anger. This mediation model examined the effect of vulnerable narcissism (predictor),

sensitivity to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame (proposed mediators) on state anger

(outcome variable) in SN. Examining the total effect, higher vulnerable narcissism was found to be

related to higher trait anger (b = 3.75, p < .001). There was no evidence of mediation based on 95%

confidence intervals and statistical significance testing; the cumulative indirect effect accounted for 22%

of the total effect. These findings are illustrated in Figure 10.

In SP, examining the total effect, higher vulnerable narcissism was also found to be related to





Trait Anger. This mediation model examined the effect of vulnerable narcissism (predictor),

sensitivity to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame (proposed mediators) on trait anger


related to higher trait anger (b = 2.47, p < .001). There was no evidence of mediation based on 95%

confidence intervals and statistical significance testing; the cumulative indirect effect accounted for 20%

of the total effect. These findings are illustrated in Figure 12.

In SP, examining the total effect, higher vulnerable narcissism was also found to be related to




Anger Expression. This mediation model examined the effect of vulnerable narcissism

(predictor), sensitivity to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame (proposed mediators) on the

index of anger expression (outcome variable) in SN. Examining the total effect, higher vulnerable

narcissism was found to be related to higher anger expression (b = 5.73, p < .001). There was no

evidence of mediation based on 95% confidence intervals and statistical significance testing; the

cumulative indirect effect accounted for 6.33% of the total effect. These findings are illustrated in Figure

14.

In SP, examining the total effect, higher vulnerable narcissism was found to be related to higher

anger expression (b = 5.85, p < .001). There was no evidence of mediation based on 95% confidence



Negative Affect. This mediation model examined the effect of vulnerable narcissism (predictor),

sensitivity to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame (proposed mediators) on negative affect



related with higher negative affect (b = 4.76, p < .001). Of the three proposed mediator variables,

psychological inflexibility accounted for 22% of the relation between vulnerable narcissism and

negative affect (indirect effect = .19, CI95% = .02 to .39, p < .05). As the 95% confidence interval does

not overlap 0, there is evidence in support of mediation. These findings are illustrated in Figure 16.

In SP, examining the total effect, higher vulnerable narcissism was found to be related with

higher negative affect (b = 3.46, p < .001). Of the three proposed mediator variables, psychological

inflexibility accounted for 25% of the relation between vulnerable narcissism and negative affect

(indirect effect = .87, CI95% = .11 to 1.74, p < .05. As the 95% confidence interval does not overlap 0,

there is evidence in support of mediation. These findings are illustrated in Figure 17.

Moderation

State Anger. Three hierarchical regressions were conducted to test the three moderation models


to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame were entered as moderators, respectively, and state


Table 11 for in SN. Vulnerable narcissism×sensitivity to criticism was not significant. The interaction of

vulnerable narcissism and psychological inflexibility (b = 1.41, p < .01) was found to be predictive of

state anger. The interaction accounted for an additional 3.5% of the variance in the experience of state

anger. In addition, the interaction of vulnerable narcissism and shame (b = 1.06, p < .05) was found to

be predictive of state anger. The interaction accounted for an additional 2.2% of the variance in the

experience of state anger. To further explain these interaction terms, simple slopes analysis was

conducted for each: depicting predicted state anger at high (one standard deviation above the mean)


standard deviation above the mean) versus low (one standard deviation below the mean) levels of

psychological inflexibility (see Figure 18) and shame (see Figure 19). These results suggest that


individuals’ state anger was minimally influenced by vulnerable narcissism at low levels of

psychological inflexibility (b = 1.21, SE = .88, p = .17) and shame (b = 1.62, SE = .85, p = .06) while

individuals with higher levels of shame (b = 3.74, SE = .78, p < .05) and psychological inflexibility (b =

4.03, SE = .92, p < .001) experienced significantly increased state anger at high vulnerable narcissism.

For SP, the results of these moderation models are presented in Table 12. The interaction

variables, vulnerable narcissism×sensitivity to criticism and vulnerable narcissism×psychological

inflexibility, were not significant. The interaction of vulnerable narcissism and shame (b = .88, p < .05)

was found to be predictive of state anger. The interaction accounted for an additional 2.6% of the

variance in the experience of state anger. To further explain these interaction term, simple slopes

analysis was conducted to depict predicted state anger at high (one standard deviation above the mean)


standard deviation above the mean) versus low (one standard deviation below the mean) levels of shame

(Figure 20). These results suggest that levels of shame and vulnerable narcissism significantly impact

individuals’ state anger where at both the higher levels (b = 3.52, SE = .65, p < .001) and the lower

levels of vulnerable narcissism and shame (b = 1.75, SE = .69, p < .01) when presented with success-

provoking situations.

Trait Anger. Three hierarchical regressions were conducted to test the three moderation models


to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame were entered as moderators, respectively, and trait


Table 13 for in SN and Table 14 for SP. The interaction variables in both datasets were not significant.

These results suggest that individuals with vulnerable narcissism endorse higher levels of trait anger in

situations provoking either failure or success regardless of their level of sensitivity to criticism,

psychological inflexibility, and shame.


Anger Expression. Three hierarchical regressions were conducted to test the three moderation



and anger expression was designated as the outcome variable. The results of these moderation models

are presented in Table 15 for in SN and Table 16 for SP. The interaction variables in both datasets were

not significant. These results suggest that individuals with vulnerable narcissism express anger at high

levels in situations provoking either failure or success regardless of their level of sensitivity to criticism,

psychological inflexibility, and shame.

Negative Affect. Three hierarchical regressions were conducted to test the three moderation



and negative affect was designated as the outcome variable. The results of these moderation models are

presented in Table 17 for in SN. The interaction variables, vulnerable narcissism×sensitivity to criticism

and vulnerability×shame, were not significant. The interaction of vulnerable narcissism and

psychological inflexibility (b = 1.44, p < .01) was found to be predictive of negative affect. The

interaction accounted for an additional 3% of the variance in the experience of negative affect in failure-

provoking situations. To further explain these interaction term, simple slopes analysis was conducted to

depict predicted negative affect at high (one standard deviation above the mean) versus low (one

standard deviation below the mean) levels of vulnerable narcissism and high (one standard deviation

above the mean) versus low (one standard deviation below the mean) levels of psychological

inflexibility (see Figure 21). These results suggest that individuals’ negative affect was minimally

influenced by vulnerable narcissism at low levels of psychological inflexibility (b = .74, SE = .88, p =

.40) while individuals with higher levels of psychological inflexibility (b = 3.62, SE = .92, p < .001)

experienced significantly increased negative affect at high vulnerable narcissism.


For SP, the results of these moderation models are presented in Table 18. The interaction

variables were not significant. These results suggest that individuals with vulnerable narcissism

experience high levels of negative affect in situations provoking success regardless of their level of

sensitivity to criticism, psychological inflexibility, and shame.

Discussion

Overall, the results from Study 2 demonstrated differential relations among traits, as examined

by individuals’ reactions to situational failure and success. Psychological inflexibility was found to

mediate the relations between vulnerable narcissism and negative affect in the moment when presented

with hypothetical failure and success. In this way, the fourth hypothesis was partially supported while

the fifth hypothesis was not supported. Regarding the alternative hypothesis, psychological inflexibility

exhibited a moderating effect on state anger and negative affect, when presented with failure-provoking

situations. In addition, shame exhibited a similarly moderating effect on state anger when presented with

failure-provoking and an enhancing effect on state anger in success-provoking situations

Taken together, it appears that each of these three variables have a unique impact on the relation

between vulnerable narcissism and domains of negative affect in both situations that are intended to

evoke failure or success. These findings suggest that individuals’ anger is influenced by these variables

regardless of whether they are receiving positive or negative evaluations. However, psychological

inflexibility demonstrated both mediating and moderating effects on this relation unlike the other two

variables. Of note, levels of state anger and situational negative affect were the most influenced,

suggesting that trait anger and anger expression are relatively stable. This is consistent with past

research where state aggression has been the most impacted by the presence of ego-threats.


Final Discussion

Overall, this study sought to explore the established relation between vulnerable narcissism and

negative affect in greater depth. Although previous literature has demonstrated consistent links between

vulnerable narcissism and indirect aggression, the mechanisms involved in this process are largely

unknown. Various constructs have been hypothesized to play a role within this relation but further

examination is required. Therefore, this study sought to examine the role of three variables: sensitivity to

criticism, shame, and psychological inflexibility, in the relation between vulnerable narcissism and

domains of negative affect. Sensitivity to criticism has previously been implicated in the experience and

expression of vulnerable narcissism (Atlas & Them, 2008) with the majority of research on narcissism

and anger utilizing ego-threats, implying that feedback and the sensitivity to this feedback plays a

critical role in the association between vulnerable narcissism and negative affect. To a lesser extent,

shame has been found to be experience at higher rates by individuals with vulnerable narcissism

compared to those with grandiose narcissism. In research examining shame and vulnerable narcissism,

persistent shame has been demonstrated by individuals regardless of the feedback they receive,

suggesting that they have higher levels of this trait at baseline (Derry et al., 2019). Lastly, psychological

inflexibility was implicated within the relation between vulnerable narcissism and negative affect due to

their shared significant associations with neuroticism. However, examination of this role is relatively

sparse. As each of these variables have been implicated in the impact of vulnerable narcissism, mood,

and aggression, they were hypothesized to play a mediating role in this relation.

This study’s aims were two-fold. First, it sought to expand on previous research findings to

determine the role of sensitivity to criticism on the relation between vulnerable narcissism and domains

of anger, either as a mechanism through which this change in emotionality occurs or as a condition that

may exacerbate the effect of vulnerable narcissism on anger, in comparison to shame and psychological

inflexibility. Due to having greater empirical and conceptual support, sensitivity to criticism was


hypothesized to have a stronger impact on this relation (either as a mediator or a moderator) compared

to shame and psychological inflexibility. The second part of this study sought to explore the differential

associations between these variables in the presence of ego-threats---vignettes intended to evoke feelings

of either success or failure, to examine the strength of these relations. Due to the addition of feedback,

sensitivity to criticism was hypothesized to have a stronger impact on this relation (either as a mediator

or a moderator) compared to psychological inflexibility and shame.

Correlational analyses exhibited hypothesized relations between sensitivity to criticism and

subtypes of narcissism. Individuals who endorsed traits of grandiose narcissism appeared to experience

less sensitivity to criticism compared to those with vulnerably narcissistic traits, regardless of the

absence or presence of ego-threats, either success- or failure-evoking. These differences in correlations

were found to be significant, thus providing support for the first hypothesis. Sensitivity to criticism

generally shared weaker associations with psychological inflexibility and shame compared to those

between psychological inflexibility and shame.

Of the hypothesized relations, sensitivity to criticism demonstrated a conditional effect on the

relation between vulnerable narcissism and in-the-moment negative affect at the trait level. These

relations were not replicated in the presence of either a failure-evoking or success-evoking ego-threat.

These findings suggest that sensitivity to criticism has a limited effect on domains of anger in the

presence of ego-threats when compared to psychological inflexibility and shame. Although this is

contrary to the hypotheses, the moderating effect of sensitivity to criticism on situational negative affect

suggests that it may play a role within this relation that was not fully captured within the present study.

Given that sensitivity to criticism demonstrated trait-level mediating effects in the supplemental simple

mediations conducted, future research may benefit from investigating this association further. In

particular, the rejection literature has identified rejection anticipation as a factor in the experience of

rejection, either as a means of reducing the impact of the expected rejection or as a way of experiencing


rejection regardless of the specific situation. Therefore, it may be illuminating to assess levels of

rejection anticipation and sensitivity to criticism both in the presence and in the absence of ego-threats.

This addition would allow for a better understanding of the attitude with which individuals approach

situations which could impact their reactions and provide a more nuanced measurement of sensitivity to

criticism. In addition, it is unclear if the utilized vignettes provoked the intended feelings of failure or

success. Hence, future research may benefit from evoking these feelings using ecological means rather

than through imaginal feedback. This could be through the inclusion of an opportunity to aggress on an

evaluator as previous studies have done. Indeed, it is unclear if individuals were internally experiencing

negativity that they were not reporting on the self-report measures. Utilization of a performance-based

measure could have better measured this across various feedback conditions. Through such means,

sensitivity to criticism’s role in the relation between vulnerable narcissism and other variables could be

better clarified.

Regardless of the ego-threat condition, psychological inflexibility consistently influenced the

association between vulnerable narcissism and domains of anger, both as a mediator and a moderator. At

the trait level, psychological inflexibility emerged as the consistent mediator of the relation between

vulnerable narcissism and state anger as well as in-the-moment negative affect. This effect was

replicated in the positive ego-threat condition where individuals were exposed to success-evoking

vignettes on the domain of in-the-moment negative affect. As a moderator, psychological inflexibility

exacerbated the effect of vulnerable narcissism on both state and trait anger at the trait level. This

moderating effect was replicated in the negative ego-threat condition on the relation between vulnerable

narcissism and state anger as well as in-the-moment negative affect when exposed to failure-evoking

vignettes. Therefore, psychological inflexibility demonstrated both moderating and mediating effect at

the trait level, and in negative and positive feedback conditions. Similar to the effects demonstrated by

sensitivity to criticism, situational domains of anger were the most impacted by psychological


inflexibility regardless of the ego-threat condition, suggesting that trait anger and anger expression are

less impacted by these variables due to their stable nature.

The psychological inflexibility model, the inverse of which is utilized by Acceptance and

Commitment Therapy (ACT; Hayes et al., 1999), consists of six processes: (a) Conceptualized Past, (b)

Fusion, (c) Experiential Avoidance, (d) Self-As-Content, (e) Lack of Values Clarity, and (f)

Inaction/Impulsivity. The purpose, therefore, is to assist individuals connect to the present moment and

live according to their values while being able to separate from their thoughts and feelings to take

effective action and live a meaningful life. Individuals high in psychological inflexibility tend to have

difficulties detaching from their thinking patterns and emotions resulting in avoidance of the present

moment as it is too distressing which leads to ineffective action. Given this, individuals with higher

levels of inflexible thinking experience higher levels of anger or aggressive behaviors as anger is a

manifestation of a fusion with certain thoughts and behaviors despite their lack of effectiveness in

problem-solving (Eifert & Forsyth, 2011). Therefore, the present study’s results are both conceptually

and empirically consistent with the literature (Berkout et al., 2019). However, much of the research on

psychological inflexibility has been conducted using the AAQ-II (Bond et al., 2011) which has been

criticized for representing fusion and experiential avoidance but not the other facets of psychological

inflexibility (Francis et al., 2016). Although the represented facets can be argued as being relevant to the

construct of anger, future research may benefit from replicating this relation using other measures of

psychological inflexibility.

This study sought to examine the role of sensitivity to criticism through comparing it to those

demonstrated by psychological inflexibility and shame. The implication within such a comparison is that

the constructs of interest operate on the same level. As psychological inflexibility consists of six core

processes, it can be argued that it is representative of a higher-order construct compared to shame and

sensitivity to criticism which represent lower-order constructs and do not consist of other processes.


Indeed, shame and sensitivity to criticism may be captured by certain processes of psychological

inflexibility, such as experiential avoidance, fusion, or lack of values clarity. Therefore, comparing these

constructs to each other may not be an accurate assessment of their roles. Although conclusions about

the variance shared between these variables cannot be made from the present study’s correlations alone,

the supplemental simple mediations demonstrated differential impacts on this relation between

vulnerable narcissism and domains of anger. In addition, psychological inflexibility may capture more

complex processes that cannot be compared to those captured by shame and sensitivity to criticism.

Therefore, future research may benefit from examining the comparison between the 6 individual

processes within psychological inflexibility, shame, and sensitivity to criticism to better parse out the

role of each of these lower order constructs on the relation between vulnerable narcissism and domains

of anger. This further supports the importance of including a measure of psychological inflexibility that

reliably assesses the various processes within this construct.

Clinical Implications

The present study provided valuable insights into the vulnerable narcissism subtype. As

examination of this narcissism subtype has been limited due to the emphasis on the grandiose narcissism

subtype, this investigation provides important considerations for both researchers and clinicians. As

noted earlier in this paper, NPD within the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) mainly consists of features of the

grandiose narcissism subtype thereby limiting both empirical and clinical understanding of the

narcissism construct as both research and therapy mainly rely on the NPD criteria. This subsequently

impacts the treatment of individuals who fall within the vulnerable narcissism subtype as they may be

misdiagnosed or may not respond to treatment that is generally effective for those with grandiose

narcissism. Therefore, the present study provides a greater understanding of the relations between

vulnerable narcissism and other constructs.


Of note, the effect of psychological inflexibility on the relation between vulnerable narcissism

and domains of anger was the most significant across all conditions. Clinicians, therefore, may benefit

from a greater focus on cultivating flexibility through engaging in ACT (Hayes et al., 1999). This

therapeutic approach aids clients in clarifying values, challenging rigid thinking patterns, reducing

experiential avoidance, and increased acceptance. Developing such flexibility may be particularly useful

for individuals with vulnerable narcissism who perceive all feedback as a form of narcissistic injury

such that they may not be able to engage in treatment effectively otherwise.

In addition, sensitivity to criticism and shame demonstrated effects on the relation between

vulnerable narcissism and domains of anger. Given this, clinicians may also benefit from engaging in

open discourse about the perception of reflections made by the clinician as these may be perceived as a

narcissistic injury. In these ways, rifts in the therapeutic relationship may be prevented or addressed in a

more effective manner, resulting in an improved working alliance and progress towards therapeutic

goals.

Study Limitations and Future Directions

The present study is not without limitations. First, as the data were collected from an

undergraduate population, it is unclear the extent to which they may directly generalize to a clinical

sample. Therefore, it may be helpful to replicate this study methodology with a clinical sample to better

understand the relation between vulnerable narcissism and manifestations of anger. Secondly, this study

solely utilized self-report measures which may limit the validity and reliability of the findings

demonstrated (Ganellan, 2007), specifically for individuals with personality pathology. Such individuals

may have diminished self-awareness of maladaptive personality traits or be unwilling to endorse

negative traits due to social desirability. Therefore, future research may benefit from utilizing other

assessment measures, such as implicit measures to account for the possible differences between

individuals’ internal experiences and external presentations, or assessment methods, such as ecological


momentary assessment (EMA). For example, the ego-threats may have been more effective using this

latter approach where participants receive real instead of imaginal feedback through the hypothetical

scenarios described in the vignettes. This alternative approach may have evoked stronger feelings as the

participants may have experienced it as being closer to a ‘narcissistic injury’. In addition, the ego-threats

utilized in the present study were intended to provoke feelings of success or failure. However, it is

unclear if these were provoked. Future research may benefit from examining the specific feelings

experienced by participants upon reading the presented vignette.

Lastly, this study was cross-sectional in design. As a result, conclusions around causality cannot

be inferred. However, the larger coefficients between vulnerable narcissism and the hypothesized

mediators compared to those between the hypothesized mediators and the domains of anger suggest that

further examination of this model would be relevant for understanding the relation between narcissism

and other constructs. Future research may benefit from using a longitudinal design to better understand

the relation between vulnerable narcissism and anger in the presence of sensitivity to criticism and other

constructs. Indeed, such a design may also account for any changes in maturity that may affect

individuals’ reactions to criticism or being judged that may account for some of the outcomes.


References

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd

ed.).

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th

ed.).

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th

ed.).

Andrews, B., & Hunter, E. (1997). Shame, early abuse, and course of depression in a clinical sample: A

preliminary study. Cognition and Emotion, 11(4), 373–381.

https://doi.org/10.1080/026999397379845

Andrews, B., Qian, M., & Valentine, J. D. (2002). Predicting depressive symptoms with a new measure

of shame: The experience of shame scale. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41(1), 29–42.

https://doi.org/10.1348/014466502163778

Atlas, G. D. (1994). Sensitivity to criticism: A new measure of responses to everyday criticisms. Journal

of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12(3), 241–253.

https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299401200303

Atlas, G. D., & Them, M. A. (2008). Narcissism and sensitivity to criticism: A preliminary

investigation. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological

Issues, 27(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-008-9023-0

Ayduk, Ö., Downey, G., & Kim, M. (2001). Rejection sensitivity and depressive symptoms in women.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 868–877.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201277009

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201277009


Ayduk, Ö., Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2008). Individual differences in the rejection-aggression link

in the hot sauce paradigm: The case of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 44(3), 775–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.004

Barry, C. T., Kauten, R. L., Lui, J. H. L. (2014). Self-perceptions of empathy and social support as

potential moderators in the relation between adolescent narcissism and aggression. Individual

Differences Research, 12(4-A), 170–179.

Berkout, O. V., Tinsley, D., & Flynn, M. K. (2019). A review of anger, hostility, and aggression from an

ACT perspective. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 11, 34–43.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.12.001

Besser, A., & Priel, B. (2009). Emotional responses to a romantic partner’s imaginary rejection: The

roles of attachment anxiety, covert narcissism, and self-evaluation. Journal of Personality, 77(1),

287–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00546.x

Besser, A., & Priel, B. (2010). Grandiose narcissism versus vulnerable narcissism in threatening

situations: Emotional reactions to achievement failure and interpersonal rejection. Journal of

Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(8), 874–902. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.8.874

Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., Waltz, T., &

Zettle, R. D. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the acceptance and action

questionnaire–II: A revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance.

Behavior Therapy, 42(4), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007

Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., & Leary, M. R. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of

level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1),

14–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00064-7

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.004

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00546.x


Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and

displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 75(1), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219

Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: phenotypic description

of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric

diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(4), 638–656.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.09.006

Carpenter, C. J. (2012). Narcissism on Facebook: Self-promotional and anti-social behavior. Personality

and Individual Differences, 52(4), 482–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.011

Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Miller, G. E. (2013). Are narcissists hardy or vulnerable? The role of

narcissism in the production of stress-related biomarkers in response to emotional

distress. Emotion, 13(6), 1004–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034410

Derry, K. L., Ohan, J. L., & Bayliss, D. M. (2019). Fearing failure: Grandiose narcissism, vulnerable

narcissism, and emotional reactivity in children. Child Development, 91(3).

https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13264

Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable

narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17(3), 188–207.

https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.17.3.188.22146

Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327–1343. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.70.6.1327

Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998a). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 545–560.


Downey, G., Lebolt, A., Rincón, C., & Freitas, A. L. (1998b). Rejection sensitivity and children’s

interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69(4), 1074–1091. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

8624.1998.tb06161.x

Eifert, G. H., & Forsyth, J. P. (2011). The application of acceptance and commitment therapy to problem

anger. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 18(2), 241–250.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2010.04.004

Ellis, H. (1898). Auto-eroticism: A psychological study. Alienist and Neurologist, 19, 260–299.

Farwell, L., & Wohlwend‐Lloyd, R. (1998). Narcissistic processes: Optimistic expectations, favorable

self-evaluations, and self-enhancing attributions. Journal of Personality, 66(1), 65–83.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00003

Fossati, A., Beauchaine, T. P., Grazioli, F., Carretta, I., Cortinovis, F., & Maffei, C. (2005). A latent

structure analysis of diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition,

narcissistic personality disorder criteria. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 46(5), 361–367.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2004.11.006

Foster, J. D., & Trimm, R. F. (2008). On being eager and uninhibited: Narcissism and approach–

avoidance motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 1004–1017.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316688

Francis, A. W., Dawson, D. L., & Golijani-Moghaddam, N. (2016). The development and validation of

the comprehensive assessment of acceptance and commitment therapy processes (CompACT).

Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5(3), 134–145.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.05.003

Freis, S. D., Brown, A. A., Carroll, P. J., & Arkin, R. M. (2015). Shame, rage, and unsuccessful

motivated reasoning in vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 34(10),

877–895. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2015.34.10.877


Freud, S. (2004). On narcissism. In J. Rivkin, & M. Ryan (Eds.), Literary theory: An anthology (pp.

415–417; 2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing. (Original work published 1914).

Geller, D. M., Goodstein, L., Silver, M., & Sternberg, W. C. (1974). On being ignored: The effects of

the violation of implicit rules of social interaction. Sociometry, 37(4), 541–556.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2786426

Gentile, B., Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Campbell, W. K. (2013). A test

of two brief measures of grandiose narcissism: The narcissistic personality inventory–13 and the

narcissistic personality inventory-16. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1120–1136.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033192

Gloster, A. T., Klotsche, J., Chaker, S., Hummel, K. V., & Hoyer, J. (2011). Assessing psychological

flexibility: What does it add above and beyond existing constructs? Psychological Assessment,

23(4), 970–982. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024135

Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and

dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion

regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41–54.

Hart, W., Adams, J., Burton, K. A., & Tortoriello, G. K. (2017). Narcissism and self-presentation:

Profiling grandiose and vulnerable narcissists' self-presentation tactic use. Personality and

Individual Differences, 104, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.062

Hart, W., Adams, J. M., & Tortoriello, G. (2017). Narcissistic responses to provocation: An examination

of the rage and threatened-egotism accounts. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 152–

156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.049

Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect

effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter? Psychological Science,

24(10), 1918–1927. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613480187

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0033192


Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment

therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 1–25.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An

experiential approach to behavior change. Guilford Press.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., Wilson, K. G., Bissett, R. T., Pistorello, J., Toarmino, D., Polusny, M., A.,

Dykstra, T. A., Batten, S. V., Bergan, J., Stewart, S. H., Zvolensky, M. J., Eifert, G. H., Bond, F.

W., Forsyth J. P., Karekla, M., & McCurry, S. M. (2004). Measuring experiential avoidance: A

preliminary test of a working model. The Psychological Record, 54, 553–578.

Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A re-examination of

Murray's narcissism scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588–599.

Horton, R. S., Bleau, G., & Drwecki, B. (2006). Parenting narcissus: What are the links between

parenting and narcissism? Journal of Personality, 74(2), 345–376.

Horney, K. (1939). New ways in psychoanalysis. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Hyler, S. E. (1994). Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4. New York State Psychiatric Institute.

Kaufman, S. B., Weiss, B., Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2020). Clinical correlates of vulnerable

and grandiose narcissism: A personality perspective. Journal of Personality Disorders, 34(1),

107–130. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2018_32_384

Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. Jason Aronson Publishers.

Kirkpatrick, L. A., Waugh, C. E., Valencia, A., & Webster, G. D. (2002). The functional domain

specificity of self-esteem and the differential prediction of aggression. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 82(5), 756–767. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.756

Kohut, H. (1966). Forms and transformations of narcissism. Journal of the American

Psychoanalytic Association, 14, 243–272.


Kohut. H. (1968). The psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personality disorders: Outline of a

systematic approach. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 23, 86–113.

Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. International Universities Press.

Kohut, H. (1972). Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child,

27, 360–400.

Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of self. International Universities Press.

Lee, I. A., & Preacher, K. J. (2013, September). Calculation for the test of the difference between two

dependent correlations with one variable in common [Computer software]. Available

from http://quantpsy.org.

Levy, K. N., Ellison, W. D., & Reynoso, J. S. (2012). A historical review of narcissism and narcissistic

personality. In W. K. Campbell & J. D. Miller (Eds.), The handbook of narcissism and

narcissistic personality disorder (pp. 1–13). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

London, B., Downey, G., Bonica, C., & Paltin, I. (2007). Social causes and consequences of rejection

sensitivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(3), 481–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-

7795.2007.00531.x

Malkin, M. L., Barry, C. T., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2011). Covert narcissism as a predictor of internalizing

symptoms after performance feedback in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences,

51(5), 623–628.

Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations

of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76(3), 449–476.

Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., & Campbell, K. W. (2011).

Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality,

79(5), 1013–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. Oxford Univ. Press.


Ng, H. K. S., Cheung, R. Y.-H., & Tam, K.-P. (2014). Unraveling the link between narcissism and

psychological health: New evidence from coping flexibility. Personality and Individual

Differences, 70, 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.006

O’Leary, J., & Wright, F. (1986). Shame and gender issues in pathological narcissism. Psychoanalytic

Psychology, 3(4), 327–339.

Okada, R. (2010). The relationship between vulnerable narcissism and aggression in Japanese

undergraduate students. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(2), 113–118.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.017

Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Soto, C. J. (2010). Tracking the trajectory of shame, guilt, and pride across

the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 1061–1071.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021342

Paulus, D. J., Vanwoerden, S., Norton, P. J., & Sharp, C. (2016). Emotion dysregulation, psychological

inflexibility, and shame as explanatory factors between neuroticism and depression. Journal of

Affective Disorders, 190, 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.10.014

Pepitone, A., & Wilpizeski, C. (1960). Some consequences of experimental rejection. The Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(3), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042405

Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed

blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197–1208.

Pincus, A. L., & Lukowitsky, M. R. (2010). Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality

disorder. Annual Reviews of Clinical Psychology, 6, 421–446.

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 narcissism inventory. Psychological

Assessment, 21(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016530


R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for

Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.

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, 890–902.

Revelle, W. (2020). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research.

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R package version 2.0.12, https://CRAN.R-

project.org/package=psych.

Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1998). On self-aggrandizement and anger: A temporal analysis of

narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74(3), 672–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.672

Roche, M. J., Pincus, A. L., Conroy, D. E., Hyde, A. L., & Ram, N. (2013). Pathological narcissism and

interpersonal behavior in daily life. Personality Disorders, 4(4), 315–323.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030798

Rohmann, E., Neumann, E., Herner, M. J., & Bierhoff, H.-W. (2012). Grandiose and vulnerable

narcissism: Self-construal, attachment, and love in romantic relationships. European

Psychologist, 17(4), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000100

Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An r package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical

Software, 48(2), 1–36.

Schröder-Abé, M., & Fatfouta, R. (2019). Shades of narcissistic dishonesty: Grandiose versus vulnerable

narcissism and the role of self-conscious emotions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 71, 148–

158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.06.003


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(3), 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.400

Smolewska, K., & Dion, K. (2005). Narcissism and adult attachment: A multivariate approach. Self and

Identity, 4(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000218

Somma A., Boni, F., Arlotta, E., Nazzaro, G., Masci, E., Busso, S., Baretta, S., Manini, R., Borroni, S.,

Maffei, C., Fossati, A. (2018). Pathological narcissism measures as predictors of self-reported

physical aggression among 310 consecutively-admitted Italian outpatients. Journal of

Psychopathology, 24, 215–223.

Spielberger, C. D. (1988). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Spielberger, C. D. (1999). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2). Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87,

245-251.

Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., Stegge, H., & Olthof, T. (2008). Trumping shame by blasts of noise:

Narcissism, self-esteem, shame, and aggression in young adolescents. Child Development, 79(6),

1792–1801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01226.x

Tortoriello, G. K., & Hart, W. (2018). A tale of two audiences: Narcissism, failure reactivity,

and perceived criticism from the self and others as internalized audiences. Self and Identity, 17,

236–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1382385

Tritt, S. M., Ryder, A. G., Ring, A. J., & Pincus, A. L. (2010). Pathological narcissism and the

depressive temperament. Journal of Affective Disorders, 122, 280–284.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.09.006


Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003). “Isn’t it fun to get the respect that we’re going to deserve?”

Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(2),

261–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202239051

Victor, S. E., & Klonsky, E. D. (2016). Validation of a brief version of the difficulties in emotion

regulation scale (DERS-18) in five samples. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral

Assessment, 38(4), 582–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-016-9547-9

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegan, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

54(6), 1063–1070.

Watson, P. J., Sawrie, S. M., & Biderman, M. D. (1991). Personal control, assumptive worlds, and

narcissism. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 6(4), 929–941.

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

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.590

Wright, A. G. C., Lukowitsky, M. R., Pincus, A. L., & Conroy, D. E. (2010). The higher order factor

structure and gender invariance of the pathological narcissism inventory. Assessment, 17(4),

467–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110373227

Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is

sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful

existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 560–567.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006

Zeigler-Hill, V., Clark, C. B., & Pickard, J. D. (2008). Narcissistic subtypes and contingent self‐esteem:

do all narcissists base their self‐esteem on the same domains? Journal of Personality, 76, 753–

774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00503.x

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202239051

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202239051


Zimmer‐Gembeck, M. J., & Nesdale, D. (2013). Anxious and angry rejection sensitivity, social

withdrawal, and retribution in high and low ambiguous situations. Journal of Personality, 81(1),

29–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00792.x


Table 1

Supplemental Mediation Analyses for Study 1

Predictor b SE P 95% CIs for indirect effect

Lower Upper Mediator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism VN-State Anger (a path) 12.24 2.00 .000 SCS-State Anger (b path) -.00 .02 .802 Total effect VN-State Anger (c path) 1.73 .47 .000 Direct effect VN-State Anger (c1 path) 1.78 .51 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) -.05 .820 -.43 .33 Mediator 2: Psychological Inflexibility VN-State Anger (a path) 7.57 .60 .000 PI-State Anger (b path) .10 .05 .066 Total effect VN-State Anger (c path) 1.73 .47 .000 Direct effect VN-State Anger (c1 path) 1.01 .61 .099 Indirect effect (ab path) .72 .060 -.03 1.51 Mediator 3: Shame VN-State Anger (a path) 12.73 2.31 .000 Shame-State Anger (b path) .01 .03 .862 Total effect VN-State Anger (c path) 1.73 .47 .000 Direct effect VN-State Anger (c1 path) 1.67 .61 .007 Indirect effect (ab path) .07 .836 -.69 .84 Mediator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism VN-Trait Anger (a path) 12.24 2.00 .000 SCS- Trait Anger (b path) .01 .01 .368 Total effect VN- Trait Anger (c path) 3.57 .36 .000 Direct effect VN- Trait Anger (c1 path) 3.45 .38 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .13 .360 -.15 .42 Mediator 2: Psychological Inflexibility VN-Trait Anger (a path) 7.57 .60 .000 PI-Trait Anger (b path) .03 .04 .505 Total effect VN-Trait Anger (c path) 3.57 .36 .000 Direct effect VN-Trait Anger (c1 path) 3.38 .46 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .20 .500 -.38 .78 Mediator 3: Shame VN-Trait Anger (a path) 12.73 1.01 .000 Shame-Trait Anger (b path) -.00 .02 .970 Total effect VN-Trait Anger (c path) 3.57 .36 .000 Direct effect VN-Trait Anger (c1 path) 3.59 .46 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) -.01 .980 -.58 .55



Lower Upper Mediator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism VN-Anger Exp (a path) 12.24 2.00 .000 SCS-Anger Exp (b path) .03 .03 .319 Total effect VN-Anger Exp (c path) 8.21 .80 .000 Direct effect VN-Anger (c1 path) 7.88 .86 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .32 .330 -.32 .99 Mediator 2: Psychological Inflexibility VN-Anger Exp (a path) 7.57 .60 .000 PI-Anger Exp (b path) .21 .09 .016 Total effect VN-Anger Exp (c path) 8.21 .80 .000 Direct effect VN-Anger Exp (c1 path) 6.59 1.03 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) 1.62 .015 .35 2.95 Mediator 3: Shame VN-Anger Exp (a path) 12.73 1.01 .000 Shame-Anger Exp (b path) .07 .05 .157 Total effect VN-Anger Exp (c path) 8.21 .80 .000 Direct effect VN-Anger Exp (c1 path) 7.27 1.04 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .94 .170 -.36 2.25 Mediator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism VN-Negative Affect (a path) 12.24 2.00 .000 SCS-Negative Affect (b path) .04 .02 .012 Total effect VN-Negative Affect (c path) 4.85 .49 .000 Direct effect VN-Negative Affect (c1 path) 4.35 .52 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .49 .010 .10 .95 Mediator 2: Psychological Inflexibility VN-Negative Affect (a path) 7.57 .60 .000 PI-Negative Affect (b path) .46 .05 .000 Total effect VN-Negative Affect (c path) 4.85 .49 .000 Direct effect VN-Negative Affect (c1 path) 1.40 .54 .010 Indirect effect (ab path) 3.44 .000 2.65 4.36 Mediator 3: Shame VN-Negative Affect (a path) 12.73 1.01 .000 Shame-Negative Affect (b path) .23 .03 .000 Total effect VN-Negative Affect (c path) 4.85 .49 .000 Direct effect VN-Negative Affect (c1 path) 1.94 .56 .001 Indirect effect (ab path) 2.90 .000 2.11 3.78


Table 2

Supplemental Mediation Analyses for Study 2 (SN )


Lower Upper Mediator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism VN-State Anger (a path) 15.71 2.29 .000 SCS-State Anger (b path) -.01 .02 .563 Total effect VN-State Anger (c path) 3.75 .62 .000 Direct effect VN-State Anger (c1 path) 3.93 .69 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) -.18 .560 -.79 .40 Mediator 2: Psychological Inflexibility VN-State Anger (a path) 8.63 .61 .000 PI-State Anger (b path) .10 .07 .150 Total effect VN-State Anger (c path) 3.75 .62 .000 Direct effect VN-State Anger (c1 path) 2.85 .88 .001 Indirect effect (ab path) .90 .148 -.32 2.17 Mediator 3: Shame VN-State Anger (a path) 12.26 1.21 .000 Shame-State Anger (b path) .06 .04 .212 Total effect VN-State Anger (c path) 3.75 .62 .000 Direct effect VN-State Anger (c1 path) 3.19 .76 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .56 .220 -.32 1.46 Mediator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism VN-Trait Anger (a path) 15.71 2.29 .000 SCS- Trait Anger (b path) -.001 .01 .639 Total effect VN- Trait Anger (c path) 2.47 .36 .000 Direct effect VN- Trait Anger (c1 path) 2.56 .41 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) -.08 .640 -.45 .27 Mediator 2: Psychological Inflexibility VN-Trait Anger (a path) 8.63 .61 .000 PI-Trait Anger (b path) -.05 .04 .230 Total effect VN-Trait Anger (c path) 2.47 .36 .000 Direct effect VN-Trait Anger (c1 path) 2.91 .52 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) -.44 .230 -1.17 .29 Mediator 3: Shame VN-Trait Anger (a path) 12.26 1.21 .000 Shame-Trait Anger (b path) -.03 .02 .198 Total effect VN-Trait Anger (c path) 2.47 .36 .000 Direct effect VN-Trait Anger (c1 path) 2.81 .45 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) -.34 .190 -.89 .17



Lower Upper Mediator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism VN-Anger Exp (a path) 15.71 2.29 .000 SCS-Anger Exp (b path) -.04 .03 .220 Total effect VN-Anger Exp (c path) 5.73 .93 .000 Direct effect VN-Anger (c1 path) 6.30 1.03 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) -.56 .230 -1.54 .34 Mediator 2: Psychological Inflexibility VN-Anger Exp (a path) 8.63 .61 .000 PI-Anger Exp (b path) .09 .11 .407 Total effect VN-Anger Exp (c path) 5.73 .93 .000 Direct effect VN-Anger Exp (c1 path) 4.95 1.32 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .78 .422 -1.07 2.65 Mediator 3: Shame VN-Anger Exp (a path) 12.26 1.21 .000 Shame-Anger Exp (b path) -.02 .06 .680 Total effect VN-Anger Exp (c path) 5.73 .93 .000 Direct effect VN-Anger Exp (c1 path) 6.01 1.15 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) -.27 .690 -1.60 1.08 Mediator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism VN-Negative Affect (a path) 15.71 2.29 .000 SCS-Negative Affect (b path) .02 .02 .213 Total effect VN-Negative Affect (c path) 4.76 .64 .000 Direct effect VN-Negative Affect (c1 path) 4.37 .71 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .39 .190 -.21 1.06 Mediator 2: Psychological Inflexibility VN-Negative Affect (a path) 8.63 .61 .000 PI-Negative Affect (b path) .28 .07 .000 Total effect VN-Negative Affect (c path) 4.76 .64 .000 Direct effect VN-Negative Affect (c1 path) 2.35 .87 .008 Indirect effect (ab path) 2.41 .000 1.18 3.76 Mediator 3: Shame VN-Negative Affect (a path) 12.26 1.21 .000 Shame-Negative Affect (b path) .14 .04 .000 Total effect VN-Negative Affect (c path) 4.76 .64 .000 Direct effect VN-Negative Affect (c1 path) 3.09 .76 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) 1.67 .000 .75 2.68


Table 3

Supplemental Mediation Analyses for Study 2 (SP )


Lower Upper Mediator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism VN-State Anger (a path) 12.70 2.47 .000 SCS-State Anger (b path) .00 .02 .980 Total effect VN-State Anger (c path) 3.75 .62 .000 Direct effect VN-State Anger (c1 path) 3.47 .55 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .00 .990 -.43 .43 Mediator 2: Psychological Inflexibility VN-State Anger (a path) 5.79 .74 .000 PI-State Anger (b path) -.04 .06 .538 Total effect VN-State Anger (c path) 3.47 .55 .000 Direct effect VN-State Anger (c1 path) 3.67 .64 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) -.20 .540 -.28 .13 Mediator 3: Shame VN-State Anger (a path) 12.27 1.40 .000 Shame-State Anger (b path) .02 .03 .416 Total effect VN-State Anger (c path) 3.47 .55 .000 Direct effect VN-State Anger (c1 path) 3.17 .66 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .30 .420 -.42 1.06 Mediator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism VN-Trait Anger (a path) 12.70 2.47 .000 SCS- Trait Anger (b path) .01 .01 .286 Total effect VN- Trait Anger (c path) 2.48 .37 .000 Direct effect VN- Trait Anger (c1 path) 2.32 .40 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .16 .290 -.13 .49 Mediator 2: Psychological Inflexibility VN-Trait Anger (a path) 5.79 .74 .000 PI-Trait Anger (b path) .01 .04 .758 Total effect VN-Trait Anger (c path) 2.48 .37 .000 Direct effect VN-Trait Anger (c1 path) 2.41 .44 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .07 .760 -.37 .52 Mediator 3: Shame VN-Trait Anger (a path) 12.27 1.40 .000 Shame-Trait Anger (b path) .02 .02 .312 Total effect VN-Trait Anger (c path) 2.48 .37 .000 Direct effect VN-Trait Anger (c1 path) 2.22 .45 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .26 .310 -.24 .78



Lower Upper Mediator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism VN-Anger Exp (a path) 12.70 2.47 .000 SCS-Anger Exp (b path) .03 .03 .364 Total effect VN-Anger Exp (c path) 5.85 1.02 .000 Direct effect VN-Anger (c1 path) 5.48 1.09 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .36 .370 -.43 1.23 Mediator 2: Psychological Inflexibility VN-Anger Exp (a path) 5.79 .74 .000 PI-Anger Exp (b path) .16 .10 .124 Total effect VN-Anger Exp (c path) 5.85 1.02 .000 Direct effect VN-Anger Exp (c1 path) 4.91 1.18 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .94 .123 -.24 2.23 Mediator 3: Shame VN-Anger Exp (a path) 12.27 1.40 .000 Shame-Anger Exp (b path) .04 .06 .527 Total effect VN-Anger Exp (c path) 5.85 1.02 .000 Direct effect VN-Anger Exp (c1 path) 5.41 1.23 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .43 .540 -.93 1.80 Mediator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism VN-Negative Affect (a path) 12.70 2.47 .000 SCS-Negative Affect (b path) .03 .02 .095 Total effect VN-Negative Affect (c path) 3.46 .64 .000 Direct effect VN-Negative Affect (c1 path) 3.05 .68 .000 Indirect effect (ab path) .42 .085 -.05 .98 Mediator 2: Psychological Inflexibility VN-Negative Affect (a path) 5.79 .74 .000 PI-Negative Affect (b path) .21 .06 .001 Total effect VN-Negative Affect (c path) 3.46 .63 .000 Direct effect VN-Negative Affect (c1 path) 2.26 .72 .002 Indirect effect (ab path) 1.20 .001 .47 2.02 Mediator 3: Shame VN-Negative Affect (a path) 12.27 1.40 .000 Shame-Negative Affect (b path) .10 .03 .004 Total effect VN-Negative Affect (c path) 3.46 .63 .000 Direct effect VN-Negative Affect (c1 path) 2.23 .75 .003 Indirect effect (ab path) 1.23 .003 .41 2.10


Table 4

Correlations Between Variables–Study 1

Variable N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. GN 234

2. VN 234 .64**

3. SCS 234 .18** .37**

4. Shame 234 .27** .64** .55**

5. PI 234 .35** .64** .41** .75**

6. Trait Anger 234 .34** .55** .25** .35** .38**

7. State Anger 234 .11 .24** .07 .16* .24** .25**

8. Anger Exp 234 .18** .56** .26** .42** .46** .68** .24**

9. Negative Affect 234 .24** .37** .33** .65** .70** .39** .21** .47**

Note. GN = grandiose narcissism; VN = vulnerable narcissism; SCS = sensitivity to criticism; PI =

psychological inflexibility; Anger Exp = anger expression.

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


Table 5

Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and State Anger–Study 1

Predictor b SE p ΔR2 Moderator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism Step 1 .055* Vulnerable Narcissism 1.61 .46 .001 Sensitivity to Criticism -.12 .46 .802 Step 2 .003 Vulnerable Narcissism 1.65 .46 .000 Sensitivity to Criticism -.16 .46 .735 Vulnerable Narcissism*Sensitivity to Criticism -.37 .43 .396

Moderator 2: Psychological Inflexibility Step 1 .069*** Vulnerable Narcissism .91 .55 .099 Psychological Inflexibility 1.02 .55 .066 Step 2 .017** Vulnerable Narcissism .81 .55 .140 Psychological Inflexibility 1.03 .55 .062 Vulnerable Narcissism*Psychological Inflexibility .82 .40 .042 Moderator 3: Shame Step 1 .055*** Vulnerable Narcissism 1.50 .55 .007 Shame .10 .55 .862 Step 2 .009 Vulnerable Narcissism 1.43 .55 .010 Shame .11 .55 .847 Vulnerable Narcissism*Shame .61 .41 .133

Note. b = unstandardized regression coefficients; SE = standard error.

*p < .05, **p < .01 ***p < .001.


Table 6

Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Trait Anger–Study 1

Predictor B SE p ΔR2 Moderator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism Step 1 .306*** Vulnerable Narcissism 3.11 .35 .001 Sensitivity to Criticism .31 .35 .368 Step 2 .000 Vulnerable Narcissism 3.12 .35 .001 Sensitivity to Criticism .30 .35 .383 Vulnerable Narcissism*Sensitivity to Criticism -.06 .33 .847

Moderator 2: Psychological Inflexibility Step 1 .305*** Vulnerable Narcissism 3.05 .42 .001 Psychological Inflexibility .28 .42 .505 Step 2 .021** Vulnerable Narcissism 2.95 .41 .001 Psychological Inflexibility .29 .41 .485 Vulnerable Narcissism*Psychological Inflexibility .81 .30 .008 Moderator 3: Shame Step 1 .304*** Vulnerable Narcissism 3.24 .42 .001 Shame -.02 .42 .097 Step 2 .001 Vulnerable Narcissism 3.19 .42 .001 Shame -.01 .42 .983 Vulnerable Narcissism*Shame .41 .31 .178


*p < .05, **p < .01 ***p < .001.

.


Table 7

Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Anger Expression–Study 1

Predictor b SE p ΔR2 Moderator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism Step 1 .314*** Vulnerable Narcissism 7.12 .78 .001 Sensitivity to Criticism .78 .78 .319 Step 2 .011 Vulnerable Narcissism 7.26 .78 .001 Sensitivity to Criticism .62 .78 .427 Vulnerable Narcissism*Sensitivity to Criticism -1.41 .73 .056

Moderator 2: Psychological Inflexibility Step 1 .328*** Vulnerable Narcissism 5.95 .93 .001 Psychological Inflexibility 2.28 .93 .016 Step 2 .000 Vulnerable Narcissism 5.93 .94 .001 Psychological Inflexibility 2.28 .94 .016 Vulnerable Narcissism*Psychological Inflexibility .17 .69 .810 Moderator 3: Shame Step 1 .317*** Vulnerable Narcissism 6.56 .94 .001 Shame 1.33 .94 .157 Step 2 .002 Vulnerable Narcissism 6.64 .94 .001 Shame 1.32 .94 .160 Vulnerable Narcissism*Shame -.63 .69 .362


*p < .05, **p < .01 ***p < .001.


Table 8

Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Negative Affect–Study 1

Predictor b SE p ΔR2 Moderator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism Step 1 .314*** Vulnerable Narcissism 3.93 .46 .001 Sensitivity to Criticism 1.19 .46 .012 Step 2 .016* Vulnerable Narcissism 4.03 .47 .001 Sensitivity to Criticism 1.08 .47 .023 Vulnerable Narcissism*Sensitivity to Criticism -1.03 .44 .021

Moderator 2: Psychological Inflexibility Step 1 .509*** Vulnerable Narcissism 1.27 .48 .010 Psychological Inflexibility 4.85 .48 .001 Step 2 .002 Vulnerable Narcissism 1.31 .49 .008 Psychological Inflexibility 4.85 .48 .001 Vulnerable Narcissism*Psychological Inflexibility -.34 .36 .339 Moderator 3: Shame Step 1 .450*** Vulnerable Narcissism 1.75 .51 .001 Shame 4.12 .51 .001 Step 2 .001 Vulnerable Narcissism 1.78 .51 .001 Shame 4.11 .51 .001 Vulnerable Narcissism*Shame -.27 .38 .478


*p < .05, **p < .01 ***p < .001.


Table 9

Correlations Between Variables–Study 2 (SN)

Variable N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. GN 194

2. VN 194 .62**

3. SCS 194 .18** .44**

4. Shame 194 .28** .59** .48**

5. PI 194 .35** .71** .50** .74**

6. Trait Anger 194 .36** .44** .17** .19** .26**

7. State Anger 194 .27** .40** .15* .30** .35** .39**

8. Anger Exp 194 .22** .41** .11 .22** .33** .55** .39**

9. Negative Affect 194 .23** .48** .28** .47** .51** .35** .64** .37**



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


Table 10

Correlations between variables – Study 2 (SP)

Variable N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. GN 172

2. VN 172 .72**

3. SCS 172 .15* .37**

4. Shame 172 .33** .56** .50**

5. PI 172 .31** .51** .38** .61**

6. Trait Anger 172 .32** .45** .24** .31** .25**

7. State Anger 172 .36** .44** .16* .29** .19** .30**

8. Anger Exp 172 .15* .40** .21** .26** .30** .59** .34**

9. Negative Affect 172 .23** .39** .25** .39** .39** .53** .46** .48**



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


Table 11

Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and State Anger–Study 2 (SN)

Predictor b SE p ΔR2 Moderator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism Step 1 .163*** Vulnerable Narcissism 3.47 .61 .001 Sensitivity to Criticism -.35 .61 .563 Step 2 .002 Vulnerable Narcissism 3.47 .61 .001 Sensitivity to Criticism -.35 .61 .567 Vulnerable Narcissism*Sensitivity to Criticism .33 .51 .521

Moderator 2: Psychological Inflexibility Step 1 .171*** Vulnerable Narcissism 2.52 .77 .001 Psychological Inflexibility 1.12 .77 .150 Step 2 .035** Vulnerable Narcissism 2.62 .76 .000 Psychological Inflexibility 1.04 .76 .172 Vulnerable Narcissism*Psychological Inflexibility 1.41 .49 .004 Moderator 3: Shame Step 1 .169*** Vulnerable Narcissism 2.82 .67 .001 Shame .84 .67 .212 Step 2 .022* Vulnerable Narcissism 2.68 .67 .001 Shame .96 .67 .150 Vulnerable Narcissism*Shame 1.06 .46 .023


*p < .05, **p < .01 ***p < .001.


Table 12

Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and State Anger–Study 2 (SP)

Predictor b SE p ΔR2 Moderator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism Step 1 .191*** Vulnerable Narcissism 2.97 .51 .000 Sensitivity to Criticism .01 .51 .980 Step 2 .000 Vulnerable Narcissism 2.97 .51 .000 Sensitivity to Criticism .03 .51 .956 Vulnerable Narcissism*Sensitivity to Criticism .09 .44 .832

Moderator 2: Psychological Inflexibility Step 1 .193*** Vulnerable Narcissism 3.15 .55 .000 Psychological Inflexibility -.34 .55 .538 Step 2 .002 Vulnerable Narcissism 3.16 .55 .000 Psychological Inflexibility -.35 .55 .528 Vulnerable Narcissism*Psychological Inflexibility .25 .44 .568 Moderator 3: Shame Step 1 .194*** Vulnerable Narcissism 2.72 .57 .000 Shame .46 .57 .416 Step 2 .026* Vulnerable Narcissism 2.64 .56 .000 Shame .43 .56 .440 Vulnerable Narcissism*Shame .88 .37 .019


*p < .05, **p < .01 ***p < .001.


Table 13

Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Trait Anger–Study 2 (SN)

Predictor b SE p ΔR2 Moderator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism Step 1 .195*** Vulnerable Narcissism 2.26 .36 .001 Sensitivity to Criticism -.17 .36 .639 Step 2 .003 Vulnerable Narcissism 2.25 .36 .001 Sensitivity to Criticism -.17 .36 .644 Vulnerable Narcissism*Sensitivity to Criticism .26 .30 .382

Moderator 2: Psychological Inflexibility Step 1 .200*** Vulnerable Narcissism 2.57 .46 .001 Psychological Inflexibility -.55 .46 .230 Step 2 .015 Vulnerable Narcissism 2.61 .45 .001 Psychological Inflexibility -.58 .45 .202 Vulnerable Narcissism*Psychological Inflexibility .56 .29 .056 Moderator 3: Shame Step 1 .201*** Vulnerable Narcissism 2.48 .40 .001 Shame -.51 .40 .198 Step 2 .006 Vulnerable Narcissism 2.44 .40 .001 Shame -.48 .40 .233 Vulnerable Narcissism*Shame .32 .28 .251


*p < .05, **p < .01 ***p < .001.


Table 14

Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Trait Anger–Study 2 (SP)


Moderator 2: Psychological Inflexibility Step 1 .207 Vulnerable Narcissism 2.06 .37 .000 Psychological Inflexibility .12 .37 .758 Step 2 .001 Vulnerable Narcissism 2.07 .37 .000 Psychological Inflexibility .11 .37 .766 Vulnerable Narcissism*Psychological Inflexibility .10 .30 .748 Moderator 3: Shame Step 1 .211*** Vulnerable Narcissism 1.91 .39 .000 Shame .39 .39 .312 Step 2 .003 Vulnerable Narcissism 1.92 .39 .000 Shame .40 .39 .304 Vulnerable Narcissism*Shame -.20 .26 .439


*p < .05, **p < .01 ***p < .001.

.


Table 15

Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Anger Expression–Study 2 (SN)

Predictor b SE p ΔR2 Moderator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism Step 1 .173*** Vulnerable Narcissism 5.56 .91 .001 Sensitivity to Criticism -1.12 .91 .220 Step 2 .000 Vulnerable Narcissism 5.57 .91 .001 Sensitivity to Criticism -1.12 .91 .220 Vulnerable Narcissism*Sensitivity to Criticism -.26 .77 .641

Moderator 2: Psychological Inflexibility Step 1 .170*** Vulnerable Narcissism 4.38 1.16 .001 Psychological Inflexibility .97 1.16 .407 Step 2 .000 Vulnerable Narcissism 4.37 1.17 .000 Psychological Inflexibility .97 1.17 .408 Vulnerable Narcissism*Psychological Inflexibility -.02 .75 .978 Moderator 3: Shame Step 1 .167*** Vulnerable Narcissism 5.31 1.01 .001 Shame -.42 1.01 .680 Step 2 .001 Vulnerable Narcissism 5.36 1.02 .001 Shame -.47 1.02 .648 Vulnerable Narcissism*Shame -.40 .71 .573


*p < .05, **p < .01 ***p < .001.


Table 16

Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Anger Expression–Study 2 (SP)


Moderator 2: Psychological Inflexibility Step 1 .175*** Vulnerable Narcissism 4.21 1.01 .000 Psychological Inflexibility 1.56 1.01 .124 Step 2 .002 Vulnerable Narcissism 4.19 1.01 .000 Psychological Inflexibility 1.58 1.01 .120 Vulnerable Narcissism*Psychological Inflexibility -.55 .81 .494 Moderator 3: Shame Step 1 .165*** Vulnerable Narcissism 4.64 1.05 .000 Shame .67 1.05 .527 Step 2 .009 Vulnerable Narcissism 4.73 1.05 .000 Shame .70 1.05 .507 Vulnerable Narcissism*Shame -.95 .70 .175


*p < .05, **p < .01 ***p < .001.


Table 17

Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Negative Affect–Study 2 (SN)


Moderator 2: Psychological Inflexibility Step 1 .283*** Vulnerable Narcissism 2.08 .77 .008 Psychological Inflexibility 2.99 .77 .001 Step 2 .032** Vulnerable Narcissism 2.18 .76 .004 Psychological Inflexibility 2.91 .76 .000 Vulnerable Narcissism*Psychological Inflexibility 1.44 .49 .003 Moderator 3: Shame Step 1 .278*** Vulnerable Narcissism 2.73 .67 .001 Shame 2.50 .67 .000 Step 2 .012 Vulnerable Narcissism 2.62 .67 .000 Shame 2.60 .67 .000 Vulnerable Narcissism*Shame .85 .46 .069


*p < .05, **p < .01 ***p < .001


Table 18

Summary of Moderator Models in the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Negative Affect–Study 2 (SP)

Predictor b SE p ΔR2 Moderator 1: Sensitivity to Criticism Step 1 .164*** Vulnerable Narcissism 2.61 .58 .000 Sensitivity to Criticism .98 .58 .095 Step 2 .012 Vulnerable Narcissism 2.54 .58 .000 Sensitivity to Criticism 1.11 .58 .059 Vulnerable Narcissism*Sensitivity to Criticism .78 .49 .117

Moderator 2: Psychological Inflexibility Step 1 .200*** Vulnerable Narcissism 1.94 .62 .002 Psychological Inflexibility 2.01 .62 .001 Step 2 .001 Vulnerable Narcissism 1.95 .62 .002 Psychological Inflexibility 1.20 .62 .001 Vulnerable Narcissism*Psychological Inflexibility .23 .49 .647 Moderator 3: Shame Step 1 .192*** Vulnerable Narcissism 1.91 .64 .003 Shame 1.89 .64 .004 Step 2 .000 Vulnerable Narcissism 1.91 .64 .003 Shame 1.90 .64 .004 Vulnerable Narcissism*Shame -.07 .43 .876


*p < .05, **p < .01 ***p < .001.


Figure 1

Mediator Model Demonstrating the Hypothesized Relations Between Vulnerable Narcissism and

Negative Affect With Sensitivity to Criticism, Psychological Inflexibility, and Shame as Mediators


Figure 2

Three Moderation Model Demonstrating the Hypothesized Alternative Relations Between Vulnerable

Narcissism and Negative Affect With Sensitivity to Criticism, Psychological Inflexibility, and Shame as

Moderators


Figure 3

Standardized Coefficients for the Effect of Sensitivity to Criticism, Psychological Inflexibility, and

Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and State Anger–Study 1

**p < .01, ***p < .001


Figure 4


Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Trait Anger–Study 1

***p < .001


Figure 5


Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Anger Expression–Study 1

***p < .001


Figure 6


Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Negative Affect–Study 1

**p < .01, ***p < .001


Figure 7

Interaction Effect of Vulnerable Narcissism and Psychological Inflexibility for Predicting State Anger–

Study 1

17

18

19

20

21

22

Low Vulnerable Narcissism(-1 SD)

High Vulnerable Narcissism(-1 SD)

Stat

e A

nger

LowPsychologicalInflexibility(-1 SD)HighPsychologicalInflexibility(-1 SD)


Figure 8

Interaction Effect of Vulnerable Narcissism and Psychological Inflexibility for Predicting Trait Anger–Study 1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22


High Vulnerable Narcissism(+1 SD)

Tra

it A

nger

LowPsychologicalInflexibility(-1 SD)

HighPsychologicalInflexibility(+1 SD)


Figure 9

Interaction Effect of Vulnerable Narcissism and Psychological Inflexibility for Predicting Negative Affect–Study 1

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Neg

ativ

e A

ffec

t

LowSensitivityto Criticism(-1 SD)

HighSensitivityto Criticism(+1 SD)


Figure 10


Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and State Anger–Study 2 (SN)

***p < .001


Figure 11


Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and State Anger–Study 2 (SP)

**p < .01, ***p < .001


Figure 12


Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Trait Anger–Study 2 (SN)

***p < .001


Figure 13


Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Trait Anger–Study 2 (SP)

***p < .001


Figure 14


Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Anger Expression–Study 2 (SN)

*p < .05, ***p < .001


Figure 15


Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Anger Expression–Study 2 (SP)

***p < .001


Figure 16


Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Negative Affect–Study 2 (SN)

**p < .01, ***p < .001


Figure 17


Shame on the Relation Between Vulnerable Narcissism and Negative Affect–Study 2 (SP)

*p < .05, ***p < .001


Figure 18

Interaction Effect of Vulnerable Narcissism and Psychological Inflexibility for Predicting State Anger–

Study 2 (SN)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Stat

e A

nger

LowPsychologicalInflexibility(-1 SD)



Figure 19

Interaction Effect of Vulnerable Narcissism and Shame for Predicting State Anger–Study 2 (SN)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Stat

e A

nger

Low Shame(-1 SD)

High Shame(+1 SD)


Figure 20

Interaction Effect of Vulnerable Narcissism and Shame for Predicting State Anger–Study 2 (SP)

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23



Stat

e A

nger

Low Shame(-1 SD)

High Shame(+1 SD)


Figure 21

Interaction Effect of Vulnerable Narcissism and Psychological Inflexibility for Predicting Negative

Affect–Study 2 (SN)

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26



Neg

ativ

e A

ffec

t LowPsychologicalInflexibility(-1 SD)



APPENDICES


Appendix A: Internal Review Board Letter for Study 1 and Study 2



Appendix B: Pathological Narcissism Inventory

Instructions: Below you will find 52 descriptive statements. Please consider each one and indicate how well that statement describes you. There are no right or wrong answers. On the line beside the question, fill in only one answer. Simply indicate how well each statement describes you as a person on the following 6-point scale:

0 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Moderately A little A little Moderately Very much Like me Unlike me Unlike me Like me Like me Like me

___ 1. I often fantasize about being admired and respected. ___ 2. My self-esteem fluctuates a lot. ___ 3. I sometimes feel ashamed about my expectations of others when they disappoint

me. ___ 4. I can usually talk my way out of anything. ___ 5. It’s hard for me to feel good about myself when I’m alone. ___ 6. I can make myself feel good by caring for others. ___ 7. I hate asking for help. ___ 8. When people don’t notice me, I start to feel bad about myself. ___ 9. I often hide my needs for fear that others will see me as needy and dependent. ___ 10. I can make anyone believe anything I want them to. ___ 11. I get mad when people don’t notice all that I do for them. ___ 12. I get annoyed by people who are not interested in what I say or do. ___ 13. I wouldn’t disclose all my intimate thoughts and feelings to someone I didn’t

admire. ___ 14. I often fantasize about having a huge impact on the world around me. ___ 15. I find it easy to manipulate people. ___ 16. When others don’t notice me, I start to feel worthless.



___ 17. Sometimes I avoid people because I’m concerned that they’ll disappoint me. ___ 18. I typically get very angry when I’m unable to get what I want from others. ___ 19. I sometimes need important others in my life to reassure me of my self-worth. ___ 20. When I do things for other people, I expect them to do things for me. ___ 21. When others don’t meet my expectations, I often feel ashamed about what I

wanted. ___ 22. I feel important when others rely on me. ___ 23. I can read people like a book. ___ 24. When others disappoint me, I often get angry at myself. ___ 25. Sacrificing for others makes me the better person. ___ 26. I often fantasize about accomplishing things that are probably beyond my means. ___ 27. Sometimes I avoid people because I’m afraid they won’t do what I want them to

do. ___ 28. It’s hard to show others the weaknesses I feel inside. ___ 29. I get angry when criticized. ___ 30. It’s hard to feel good about myself unless I know other people admire me. ___ 31. I often fantasize about being rewarded for my efforts. ___ 32. I am preoccupied with thoughts and concerns that most people are not interested

in me. ___ 33. I like to have friends who rely on me because it makes me feel important. ___ 34. Sometimes I avoid people because I’m concerned they won’t acknowledge what

I do for them. ___ 35. Everybody likes to hear my stories.



___ 36. It’s hard for me to feel good about myself unless I know other people like me. ___ 37. It irritates me when people don’t notice how good a person I am. ___ 38. I will never be satisfied until I get all that I deserve. ___ 39. I try to show what a good person I am through my sacrifices. ___ 40. I am disappointed when people don’t notice me. ___ 41. I often find myself envying others’ accomplishments. ___ 42. I often fantasize about performing heroic deeds. ___ 43. I help others in order to prove I’m a good person. ___ 44. It’s important to show people I can do it on my own even if I have some doubts

inside. ___ 45. I often fantasize about being recognized for my accomplishments. ___ 46. I can’t stand relying on other people because it makes me feel weak. ___ 47. When others don’t respond to me the way that I would like them to, it is hard for

me to still feel ok with myself. ___ 48. I need others to acknowledge me. ___ 49. I want to amount to something in the eyes of the world. ___ 50. When others get a glimpse of my needs, I feel anxious and ashamed. ___ 51. Sometimes it’s easier to be alone than to face not getting everything I want from

other people. ___ 52. I can get pretty angry when others disagree with me.


Appendix C: Sensitivity to Criticism Scale

A FRIEND SAYS: 1. “Do you shower every day?” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 definitely definitely NOT a a criticism criticism To what extent would this hurt you?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 2. “It’s really hard to keep one’s weight down, isn’t it”? To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 3. “You look like you didn’t get any sleep last night.” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 4. “I can’t stand to be with you anymore.” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 5. “Are you sure that you want to wear that shirt?” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 6. “Have you considered joining an athletic club?” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 7. “You sure made a fool of yourself last night!” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?



1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 8. “That color sweater sure doesn’t suit you?” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 9. “Did you know that there are tutors available for students?” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 10. “Are you aware of how helpful cosmetic surgery can be?” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 11. “Have you considered going on a diet?”


To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 12. “Have you considered seeing a counselor?” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 13. “Have you noticed that your friends tend to be losers?” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 14. “Have you considered moving to another planet?” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 definitely definitely NOT a a criticism criticism


To what extent would this hurt you?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 15. “You’re really stupid.” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 16. “Have you always been this way?” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 17. “You’re a lot more fun after a couple of drinks.” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal


A FRIEND SAYS: 18. “You are a real jerk.” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 19. “Your athletic ability leaves something to be desired.” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal A FRIEND SAYS: 20. “Is that the way you wanted your hair to look?” To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal Now consider the following situations: 21. You are not invited to a party, given by a mutual friend, that all of your other friends have been invited to. To what extent would you consider this a criticism?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


definitely definitely NOT a a criticism criticism To what extent would this hurt you?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal 22. Your teammates suggest that you pass the ball as soon as you get it. To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal 23. Your professor suggests you try going to the “writing center” for extra help. To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal 24. Your gym teacher suggests you take an aerobics class. To what extent would you consider this a criticism?




25. An older sibling tells you you’re the stupid one in the family. To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal 26. Your coach tells you to increase your practice time. To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal 27. You’re a pre-med student and your Biology professor suggests you consider nursing. To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal 28. Your best friend chooses to go out with his/her new friends rather than see you. To what extent would you consider this a criticism?



1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all a great deal 29. Your boss tells you this may not be the right job for you. To what extent would you consider this a criticism?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal 30. The friends who were picking you up for the party never showed up. To what extent would you consider this a criticism?




Appendix D: Experience of Shame Scale

Everybody at times can feel embarrassed, self-conscious or ashamed. These questions are about such feelings if they have occurred at any time to the past year. There are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers. Please indicate the response which applies to you with a tick.

not at all a little moderately very much

1. Have you felt ashamed of any of your personal habits?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

2. Have you worried about what other people think of any of your personal habits?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

3. Have you tried to cover up or conceal any of your personal habits?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

4. Have you felt ashamed of your manner with others.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

5. Have you worried about what other people think of your manner with others?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

6. Have you avoided people because of your manner?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

7. Have you felt ashamed of the sort of person you are?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

8. Have you worried about what other people think of the sort of person you are?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

9. Have you tried to conceal from others the sort of person you are?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

10. Have you felt ashamed of your ability to do things?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

11. Have you worried about what other people think of your ability to do things?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

12. Have you avoided people because of your inability to do things?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

13. Do you feel ashamed when you do something wrong?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )


14. Have you worried about what other people think of you when you do something wrong?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

15. Have you tried to cover up or conceal things you felt ashamed or having done?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

16. Have you felt ashamed when you said something stupid?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

17. Have you worried about what other people think of when you said something stupid?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

18. Have you avoided contact with anyone who knew you said something stupid?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

*19. Have you felt ashamed when you failed in a competitive situation?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

*20. Have you worried about what other people think of you when you failed in a competitive situation?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

21. Have you avoided people who have seen you fail?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

22. Have you felt ashamed of your body or any part of it?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

23. Have you worried about what other people think of your appearance?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

24. Have you avoided looking at yourself in the mirror?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

25. Have you wanted to hide or conceal your body or any part of it?

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Alternatives for populations where competition is not relevant:

19. Have you felt ashamed when you failed at something which was important to you?

20. Have you worried about what other people think of you when you fail?


Appendix E: Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II

Below you will find a list of statements. Please rate how true each statement is for you by using the scale below to fill in your choice.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

never true very seldom true

seldom true

sometimes true

frequently true

almost always true

always true

1. My painful experiences and memories make it difficult for me to live a life that I would value.

2. I’m afraid of my feelings.

3. I worry about not being able to control my worries and feelings.

4. My painful memories prevent me from having a fulfilling life.

5. Emotions cause problems in my life.

6. It seems like most people are handling their lives better than I am.

7. Worries get in the way of my success.

TOTAL


Appendix F: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule

PANAS Questionnaire This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then list the number from the scale below next to each word. Indicate to what extent you feel this way right now, that is, at the present moment.

1 2 3 4 5 very slightly or

not at all a little moderately quite a bit extremely

_________ interested _________ irritable _________ distressed _________ alert _________ excited _________ ashamed _________ upset _________ inspired _________ strong _________ nervous _________ guilty _________ determined _________ scared _________ attentive _________ hostile _________ jittery _________ enthusiastic _________ active _________ proud _________ afraid


Appendix G: State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2

Part 1 Directions A number of statements that people use to describe themselves are given below. Read each statement and then circle the number which indicates how you feel right now. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Mark the answer that best describes your present feelings.

Not at all 1

Somewhat 2

Moderately so 3

Very much so 4

How I Feel Right Now 1. I am furious ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4

2. I feel irritated ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4

3. I feel angry ............................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4

4. I feel like yelling at somebody .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4

5. I feel like breaking things ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4

6. I am mad ............................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4

7. I feel like banging on the table ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4

8. I feel like hitting someone .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4

9. I feel like swearing................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4

10. I feel annoyed ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4

11. I feel like kicking somebody ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4

12. I feel like cursing out loud .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4

13. I feel like screaming.............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4

14. I feel like pounding somebody ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4

15. I feel like shouting out loud .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4


Part 2 Directions Read each of the following statements that people have used to describe themselves, and then circle the appropriate number to indicate how you generally feel or react. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Circle the answer that best describes how you generally feel or react.

Almost never 1

Sometimes 2

Often 3

Almost always 4

How I Generally Feel 16. I am quick tempered ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4

17. I have a fiery temper ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4

18. I am a hotheaded person ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4

19. I get angry when I’m slowed down by others’ mistakes ...................................... 1 2 3 4

20. I feel annoyed when I am not given recognition for doing good work ................. 1 2 3 4

21. I fly off the handle ................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4

22. When I get mad, I say nasty things ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4

23. It makes me furious when I am criticized in front of others ................................. 1 2 3 4

24. When I get frustrated, I feel like hitting someone ................................................ 1 2 3 4

25. I feel infuriated when I do a good job and get a poor evaluation ......................... 1 2 3 4

Part 3 Directions Everyone feels angry or furious from time to time, but people differ in the ways that they react when they are angry. A number of statements are listed below which people use to describe their reactions when they feel angry or furious. Read each statement and the circle the appropriate number to indicate how often you generally react or behave in the manner described when you are feeling angry or furious. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement.

Almost never 1

Sometimes 2

Often 3

Almost always 4

How I Generally React or Behave When Angry or Furious… 26. I control my temper .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4

27. I express my anger ................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4

28. I take a deep breath and relax ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4

29. I keep things in ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4

30. I am patient with others ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4

31. If someone annoys me, I’m apt to tell him or her how I feel ................................ 1 2 3 4


32. I try to calm myself as soon as possible................................................................ 1 2 3 4

33. I pout or sulk ......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4

34. I control my urge to express my angry feelings .................................................... 1 2 3 4

35. I lose my temper ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4

36. I try to simmer down............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4

37. I withdraw from people ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4

38. I keep my cool ...................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4

39. I make sarcastic remarks to others ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4

40. I try to soothe my angry feelings .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4

41. I boil inside, but I don’t show it ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4

42. I control my behavior............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4

43. I do things like slam doors .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4

44. I endeavor to become calm again ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4

45. I tend to harbor grudges that I don’t tell anyone about ......................................... 1 2 3 4

46. I can stop myself from loosing my temper ........................................................... 1 2 3 4

47. I argue with others ................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4

How I Generally React or Behave When Angry or Furious…

48. I reduce my anger as soon as possible .................................................................. 1 2 3 4

49. I am secretly quite critical of others...................................................................... 1 2 3 4

50. I try to be tolerant and understanding ................................................................... 1 2 3 4

51. I strike out at whatever infuriates me.................................................................... 1 2 3 4

52. I do something relaxing to calm down.................................................................. 1 2 3 4

53. I am angrier than I am willing to admit ................................................................ 1 2 3 4

54. I control my angry feelings ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4

55. I say nasty things .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4

56. I try to relax .......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4

57. I’m irritated a great deal more than people are aware of ...................................... 1 2 3 4

Almost never 1

Sometimes 2

Often 3

Almost always 4


Appendix H: Vignettes

Failure Reactivity Vignettes

EVERYDAY FAILURES FOR A COLLEGE SAMPLE (REVISED)

Tortoriello and Hart (2018) Imagine that it is near the end of your first internship, and your company is holding evaluations for all of its interns. You've been working hard and believe that your boss will highly praise the quality of your work. To your dismay, your boss criticizes your work and gives you a below-average evaluation. Imagine that you are preparing to take your first exam in psychology. It is your favorite class, and you are hoping to pursue a career in psychology, so you expect to do well. You finally receive your grade and learn that you have performed poorly, scoring well below the class average. Imagine that you are giving a class presentation. You have prepared for weeks and feel confident that it will go well. In the middle of your presentation, you begin to stumble on your words and forget what to say. The rest of the presentation does not make much sense and is very hard to follow. You receive a “D” grade on your presentation. Imagine that you are running for president of a student organization. You have devoted much of your time to participating in this organization and consider it an integral part of your social identity. After much anticipation, the election results are finally announced. You lose by a landslide. Imagine that you are a musician, and you are booked to perform at a charity event. You are excited because this is your first official performance, and you are hoping to pursue music as a full-time career. When you see the crowd, you tense up and momentarily forget how to play your instrument. You flee the stage and do not return. You are replaced by another act. Imagine that it is your first semester at college, and you don’t know anyone. You are excited about the opportunity to make some lifelong friends. Despite trying hard, you are struggling mightily to make friends. No one seems interested in hanging out with you. You unhappily spend a lot of time alone in your dorm room.


Success Reactivity Vignettes

Imagine that it is near the end of your first internship, and your company is holding evaluations for all of its interns. You've been working hard and believe that your boss will highly praise the quality of your work. To your pleasure, your boss praises your work and gives you an above-average evaluation. Imagine that you are preparing to take your first exam in psychology. It is your favorite class, and you are hoping to pursue a career in psychology, so you expect to do well. You finally receive your grade and learn that you have performed well, scoring well above the class average. Imagine that you are giving a class presentation. You have prepared for weeks and feel confident that it will go well. In the middle of your presentation, you begin to stumble on your words and forget what to say. The rest of the presentation does not make much sense and is very hard to follow. You receive an “A” grade on your presentation. Imagine that you are running for president of a student organization. You have devoted much of your time to participating in this organization and consider it an integral part of your social identity. After much anticipation, the election results are finally announced. You win by a landslide. Imagine that you are a musician, and you are booked to perform at a charity event. You are excited because this is your first official performance, and you are hoping to pursue music as a full-time career. When you see the crowd, you tense up and momentarily forget how to play your instrument. You remain on stage and receive a standing ovation. Imagine that it is your first semester at college, and you don’t know anyone. You are excited about the opportunity to make some lifelong friends. Despite trying hard, you are struggling mightily to make friends. You are able to make one friend. You spend a lot of time together in your dorm room.

Documents

The mediating role of sensitivity to criticism on the