Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2014, pp.

25-50

NARCISSISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

KELLER ET AL.

NARCISSISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS:

A DYADIC PERSPECTIVE
PEGGY S. KELLER
University of Kentucky

SARAI BLINCOE
Longwood University

LAUREN R. GILBERT, C. NATHAN DEWALL, ERIC A. HAAK, AND THOMAS

WIDIGER
University of Kentucky

Previous literature has associated narcissism with interpersonal difficulties. How-

ever, there is a lack of studies investigating the impact of narcissism within ro-
mantic dyads. The current study extended the literature by examining relations
between narcissism and conflict behaviors in both members of a romantic dyad.
Participants in the study were 190 college-student couples, who completed ques-
tionnaire measures of their narcissism, conflict within their relationship, and a
behavioral measure of aggression toward their partners. The results indicated a
tendency towards homogamy for narcissism. A person’s narcissism was related
to their use of aggression and the partner’s use of aggression. Several interactions
between male and female narcissism were observed. For total NPI scores, the
combination of high male and female narcissism was related to greater aggres-
sion. Grandiose Exhibitionism was only related to aggressive behavior when part-
ner Grandiose Exhibitionism was lower; when partner Grandiose Exhibitionism
was higher, aggressive behavior was generally higher regardless of a person’s own
Grandiose Exhibitionism.

Address correspondence to Peggy S. Keller, Ph.D., 012i Kastle Hall, Department of

Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506; E-mail: peggy.keller@uky.edu

© 2014 Guilford Publications, Inc.

25
26 KELLER ET AL.

Although there is debate among researchers about the potential

beneficial or detrimental effects of narcissism for mental health and
distress (Cain, Pincus, & Ansell, 2008; Campbell, 2001), researchers
generally concur that narcissism is associated with interpersonal
difficulties (e.g., Campbell & Foster, 2002). However, the majority
of studies on narcissism within interpersonal relationships have
focused on the individual. The present investigation takes a dy-
adic perspective, answering questions about associations between
partners’ narcissism and relations between narcissism and conflict
behaviors. Narcissistic personality disorder is relatively rare in the
general population, but narcissism falls along a continuum and nar-
cissistic traits in non-clinical samples are consistently related to in-
terpersonal problems (Miller & Campbell, 2008). We use the term
narcissist to indicate persons at the higher end of the spectrum rela-
tive to others.
Narcissists do not make warm, caring partners. Narcissism is
characterized by feelings of superiority and entitlement, expecta-
tions for special treatment, exaggerations of abilities and personal
qualities, demands for attention and admiration, exploitation of
others, contempt, and lack of empathy (American Psychiatric As-
sociation, 2000). Narcissists idealize their romantic partners at first,
but when imperfections become apparent they develop feelings
of contempt (Masterson, 1988). Narcissists believe that they have
greater alternatives for romantic partners than non-narcissists, and
this leads them to be less committed to their relationships (Camp-
bell & Foster, 2002). Individuals higher in narcissism report greater
vindictiveness, domineering and controlling approaches to others,
and intrusiveness in their relationships (e.g., Ogrodniczuk, Piper,
Joyce, Steinberg, & Duggal, 2009).
Narcissism is also associated with aggression and hostility. Ac-
cording to the dynamic self-regulatory processing model (Morf,
Horvath, & Torchetti, 2010), narcissism is a personality process in
which self-regulatory strategies are designed to build and maintain
a grandiose self-view. Interpersonal interactions are adversarial and
narcissists may respond to threats to their inflated self-view with
hostility, rage, or physical aggression. For example, narcissists pro-
vide negative evaluations of experimenters giving them negative
performance feedback (Stucke & Sporer, 2002). They are angrier
than non-narcissists after social rejection, and they direct their an-
ger at those who reject them as well as innocent parties (Twenge &
Campbell, 2003). However, narcissists do not need to be provoked in
NARCISSISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 27

order to become aggressive. Stronger relations between narcissism

and proactive aggression than between narcissism and reactive ag-
gression have been reported (Reidy, Foster, & Zeichner, 2010). The
little research that has examined narcissism and romantic relation-
ships has found that narcissists are more likely to engage in marital
violence and sexual coercion (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996).
Despite the clear potential for narcissism to create problems in
romantic relationships, the role of narcissism in romantic relation-
ships is understudied. Questions remain regarding how narcissism
relates to the use of destructive behavior with romantic partners and
the use of destructive behavior by the partners of narcissists. Given
that narcissists may be cruel, aggressive, and generally annoying
and exasperating, partners may react to narcissists with a certain
degree of aggression and irritation of their own. Narcissists do re-
port more negative interpersonal interactions (Rhodewalt, Madrian,
& Cheney, 1998), and report being victimized by others to a greater
degree than non-narcissists (McCullough, Emmons, Kilpatrick, &
Mooney, 2003). However, narcissists may simply perceive greater
victimization. On the other hand, the more times someone interacts
with a narcissist, the less they like the narcissist (Paulhus, 1998). In-
dependent and blind coders of audiotaped conversations reported
that narcissists are less likeable than non-narcissists (Morf, 1994).
Wink (1991) found that the spouses of overt narcissists described
them as aggressive, outspoken, egotistical, self-centered, intolerant,
arrogant, demanding, and argumentative.
The present investigation builds on this prior research by taking
a dyadic perspective on the role of narcissism in romantic relation-
ships. The key to a dyadic perspective is to measure both partners
in a relationship. First, we examine relations between self and part-
ner narcissism. Assortative mating is well-established (Thiessen &
Gregg, 1980). Individuals tend to be attracted to and choose partners
who are similar to them (homogamy) on a variety of characteristics,
including psychiatric conditions (Merikangas, 1982; Merikangas &
Spiker, 1982). Previous research has found some evidence of assor-
tative mating among narcissists (Campbell, Foster, & Finkel, 2002).
Theorists propose that homogamy is the result of (1) opportunities
to meet potential mates across daily life lead to meeting partners
with similar interests and characteristics; (2) involvement of family
and friends in introducing romantic partners, as these third parties
are themselves similar to the partners; and (3) personal preferences
for similar people (Kalmijn, 1994). Narcissists may choose activities
28 KELLER ET AL.

where they are likely to meet other narcissists, such as performance-

related hobbies or competitive occupations. Their friends and fam-
ily may introduce them to each other, thinking that they would be
a good match. They may also prefer each other because of similar
values or interests. We hypothesize a replication of previous find-
ings that homogamy for narcissism will occur.
We also examine relations between narcissism and self or partner
conflict behaviors. This research question is based on prior research
demonstrating interpersonal difficulties and aggression in the con-
text of high narcissism, but extends this prior research to identify
actor and partner effects. Our second hypothesis is that narcissists
will engage in greater aggression and stonewalling, and less co-
operation in their romantic relationships. Our third hypothesis is
that narcissists’ partners will also engage in greater aggression and
stonewalling, and less cooperation during conflict. We also exam-
ine statistical interactions between male and female narcissism. Our
fourth hypothesis is that the combination of male and female narcis-
sism will be especially likely to lead to aggression and poor conflict
behavior. The examination of interactions between male and female
narcissism will provide important information about the potential
dyadic nature of narcissism.
Narcissism is a multi-dimensional construct, including grandi-
ose and vulnerable dimensions (Cain, Pincus, & Ansell, 2008). The
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979), the
most widely used measure of narcissism, is considered an index of
grandiose narcissism (Miller & Campbell, 2008). A total score for
narcissism is most frequently used, but there are potential sub-scale
measures which may permit greater precision in the study of the
correlates of narcissism (Maxwell, Donnellan, Hopwood, & Ack-
erman, 2011). Recently, Ackerman and colleagues (2011) have rec-
ommended the use of three subscales from the NPI: Leadership/
Authority, Grandiose Exhibitionism, and Entitlement/Exploitative-
ness. The Leadership/Authority subscale is proposed to measure
healthy or normal narcissism, while the other subscales are consid-
ered measures of pathological narcissism. When specific aspects
of narcissism have been examined, exploitativeness emerges as an
especially deleterious characteristic (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Mc-
Cullough et al., 2003). The current study employs these three sub-
scales in order to determine whether distinctions between normal
and pathological narcissism apply to the context of conflict and ag-
gression in romantic relationships.
NARCISSISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 29

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS

Participants were 190 college-student couples participating in a

larger study of romantic relationships. To be eligible, one partner
had to be currently enrolled in an introductory psychology course,
and couples had to have been together for at least three months. The
majority of participants were European American (84.1% of women
and 89.6% of men). Participants were between the ages of 18 and 24
years (women: M = 19.07, SD = 1.30; men: M = 19.63, SD = 1.36). On
average, couples had been together between 6 and 18 months.

PROCEDURE

This study was conducted with the approval of the institution’s in-
ternal review board (IRB) and informed consent was obtained. Cou-
ples attended a laboratory session during the afternoon. Both part-
ners came to the session, but completed questionnaires separately.
One-week later, a subset of participants (N = 74 couples) completed a
competitive reaction time task (Taylor, 1967) ostensibly against their
partner. This task is a well-established, reliable, and valid measure
of aggression (e.g., Giancola & Zeichner, 1995). Participants were
told that they and their romantic partners would have to press a
button as fast as possible on each of 25 trials, and that whoever was
slower would receive a blast of white noise through a pair of head-
phones. At the beginning of each trial, participants set the loudness
of the noise their partners would receive if the partners lost the trial,
from 60 dB (level 1) to 105 dB (level 10; about the same volume as
a smoke alarm). Participants were also able to select 0 dB (level 0).
The duration of the white noise was also set by the participants pre-
trial. Of the 25 trials, the participants won a randomly determined
subset of 12 trials. Over the course of the task, participants experi-
enced increasing levels of aggression from their partner after losing
trials. A computer recorded all events in the task. Participants were
debriefed at the end of the laboratory session.
30 KELLER ET AL.

MEASURES

Narcissism. Participants completed the Narcissistic Personality

Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979). This questionnaire includes 40
forced-choice items. Items were scored based on the factor structure
identified by Ackerman and colleagues (2011). The Leadership/Au-
thority subscale consists of 12 items (e.g., I have a natural talent for
influencing people vs. I am not good at influencing people). The
Grandiose Exhibitionism subscale consists of 10 items (e.g., I like to
look at my body vs. My body is nothing special). The Entitlement/
Exploitation subscale consists of 4 items (e.g., I find it easy to ma-
nipulate people vs. I don’t like it when I find myself manipulating
people.). Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) in the present
study were: .79 for male Leadership/Authority, .76 for female Lead-
ership/Authority, .73 male Grandiose Exhibitionism, .75 for female
Grandiose Exhibitionism, .29 for male Entitlement/Exploitation,
and .27 for female Entitlement/Exploitation. Due to low reliabil-
ity, the Entitlement/Exploitation scale was removed from analyses.
The total NPI score, which includes Entitlement/Exploitation items,
was also used in analyses, α = .86 and .82, for males and females,
respectively.
Conflict Behaviors. Each partner completed the Conflict Properties
Scales (CPS; Kerig, 1996) measures of Cooperation (6 items; e.g., Lis-
ten to the other’s point of view.), Stonewalling (6 items; e.g., Bicker
without really getting anywhere.), Verbal Aggression (8 items; e.g.,
Raise voice, yell, shout.), and Physical Aggression (7 items; e.g.,
Slap partner.). Items were rated on a scale from 0 (never) to 3 (often)
in terms of how frequently participants engaged in each behavior
during conflicts. Participants completed the CPS once with regard
to their own behavior and once with regard to their partners’ be-
havior. Self and partner reports were significantly correlated (r’s
ranging from .43 to .89, all p’s < .001) and so were averaged to sim-
plify analyses. Reliability coefficients were as follows: .77 for male
Cooperation, .84 for female Cooperation, .67 for male Stonewall-
ing, .75 for female Stonewalling, .86 for male Verbal Aggression,
.86 for female Verbal Aggression, .67 for male Physical Aggression
and .79 for female Physical Aggression. Additional analyses were
conducted using the separate reports of conflict behaviors; model
coefficients and their significance levels were highly similar to those
based on the averaged scores and therefore are not presented.
NARCISSISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 31

Competitive Reaction Time Task. The following measures were de-

rived from the Competitive Reaction Time Task: (1) Unprovoked
Aggression = Noise intensity set by participants before the initial
trial; (2) Provoked Aggression = Average noise intensity set by par-
ticipants in the final block of trials, in which their partners have
blasted them with the highest levels of noise; (3) Extreme Aggres-
sion = Number of trials for which participants set the noise intensity
to levels 9 or 10 (the two highest intensity levels); and (4) Total Ag-
gression = An index of aggression across the entire task that takes
into account intensity and duration. The Total Aggression index
was computed as follows: (1) intensity score was standardized for
each trial (25 standardized scores per person); (2) the same thing
was done for the duration score; (3) for each trial, the standardized
intensity and standardized duration were multiplied together (25
products for each participant); and (4) the products were averaged
across the 25 trials to provide the Total Aggression score for each
participant.
Depression. Each participant completed the Center for Epidemio-
logic Studies Depression Scale (CESD; Radloff, 1977). The CESD is a
20-item measure that is widely used to assess depressive symptoms.
Cronbach’s alpha was .82 for women and .83 for men. Depression
scores were included as control variables in all models. Optimally,
the estimation of predicted associations would control for self-es-
teem (Campbell, Rudlich, & Sedikides, 2002). There was no mea-
sure of self-esteem available in the current study, but depression is
often negatively correlated with self-esteem (Kernis, Grannemann,
& Mathis, 1991) and therefore was used as an alternative control.
Further, depression is associated with relationship difficulties (At-
kins, Dimidjian, Bedics, & Christensen, 2009).

DATA ANALYSES

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables are

presented in Table 1. Data analyses for hypothesis 1 involved ex-
amination of bivariate correlations between male and female nar-
cissism. For the remaining hypotheses, analyses were conducted
with structural equation modeling in MPLUS version 6 (Muthen &
Muthen, 2011). Maximum Likelihood with Robust Standard Errors
(the MLM option in MPLUS) was used to estimate model param-
 32

TABLE 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Relationship Length
2. Male Depression .08
3. Female Depression –.01 .23
4. Male Grandiose Exhibition –.06 –.03 .16
5. Male Leadership/Authority –.04 –.30* .14 .48***
6. Female Grandiose Exhibition –.01 –.14 –.18 .26*** .18*
7. Female Leadership/Authority –.10 –.17 –.01 .23** .23** .32***
8. Male Cooperation .05 –.07 –.20 –.03 –.03 .00 .00
9. Male Stonewalling .07 .25* .34** .21** .06 .09 .04 –.24**
10. Male Verbal Aggression .10 .07 .10 .19** .15* .15* .00 –.38*** .74***
11. Male Physical Aggression .11 .07 .16 .23** .12 .06 .08 –.27*** .43*** .50***
12. Male Unprovoked Aggress. –.01 .12 –.04 .13 –.04 .01 .18 –.09 –.04 –.05 .18
13. Male Provoked Aggression .19 –.22 –.18 .22 .05 .10 .26* –.14 .03 .10 .26* .57***
14. Male Extreme Aggression .19 –.22 –.08 .03 .04 –.05 .07 –.18 .00 .06 .10 .69*** .63***
15. Male Total Aggression .17 .10 –.07 .24 .02 .15 .32** –.08 –.02 .04 .22 .74*** .90*** .77***
16. Female Cooperation –.01 –.18 –.29* –.08 –.10 –.06 –.05 .66*** –.30*** –.38*** –.29*** .01 –.05 –.20
17. Female Stonewalling .14 .27* .32** .15* .07 .09 .04 –.30*** .76*** .65*** .36*** –.06 .19 .08
18. Female Verbal Aggression .12 .13 .13 .15* .13 .15* .07 –.39*** .74*** .87*** .47*** –.04 .16 .10
19. Female Physical Aggression .14* .08 .35** .21** .13 .14 .15* –.27*** .43*** .43*** .58*** –.06 .06 .03
20. Female Unprovoked Aggression .16 –.13 –.16 .07 .23 .21 .29* .06 .10 .16 –.01 .28* .38** .42**
21. Female Provoked Aggression .09 –.02 –.05 .08 .19 .21 .29* –.11 .04 .08 .00 .07 .26* .13
22. Female Extreme Aggression .10 –.03 .03 .02 .12 .17 .25* .02 .04 .10 .11 .10 .23 .18
23. Female Total Aggression .15 –.19 –.06 .08 .22 .22 .33* –.09 .10 .14 .03 .16 .32* .26*
M 1.64 27.46 29.26 4.01 6.59 3.72 5.23 2.56 0.81 1.35 0.09 0.19 0.43 8.35
SD 1.42 6.68 5.69 2.52 2.85 2.48 2.82 0.34 0.39 0.51 0.14 1.96 11.85 8.40
Note. Relationship length was coded such that 0 = 3-6 months, 1 = 6-12 months, 2 = 12-18 months, 3 = 18-24 months, and 4 = 24 or more months. *p < .05, **p < .01,
KELLER ET AL.

***p < .001

NARCISSISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 33

eters, because several variables were skewed and MLM is designed

to handle the analysis of non-normal data. The very minimal miss-
ing data (<1% of cases) was treated with mean replacement because
MLM cannot be conducted with missing data. Narcissism scales
were treated as single indicators in all models. Two types of models
were fit: (1) models with the total NPI score and (2) models with
the subscale scores for Leadership/Authority and Grandiose Ex-
hibitionism. Both subscales were included in each model, so that
associations can be interpreted as controlling for the other subscale
score. Correlations among narcissism measures and among conflict
behavior’s residuals were estimated. Models were fully saturated
and no fit indices are reported (fully saturated models are a perfect
fit for the data). Although each model included tests of multiple
hypotheses, results are presented for each hypothesis separately
to ease interpretation. Example models are provided in figures.
All effects control for self and partner depression (Watson, Sawrie,
Greene, & Arredondo, 2002).
Models were organized as actor-partner interdependence models
(APIM; Cook & Kenny, 2005), such that male and female narcissism
(Total NPI score, Grandiose Exhibitionism or Leadership/Author-
ity) were included as predictors of male and female conflict behav-
iors (either cooperation, stonewalling, verbal aggression, physical
aggression, or a behavioral aggression measure). Actor-partner
interdependence model allows for the analysis of dyadic data by
treating the couple as the unit of analysis (each case represents a
couple, with variables distinguishing whether scores are for the
male or female partner). This approach avoids violations of the as-
sumption of independent observations. It also maintains the unique
features in each partner’s scores. Actor effects are those where a
person’s narcissism predicts his or her own conflict behavior. Part-
ner effects are those where a person’s narcissism predicts his or her
partner’s conflict behavior. We use the term effects to be consistent
with standard terminology in APIM, but data are correlational and
cross-sectional findings do not imply causal effects. In APIM, actor
effects are calculated controlling for partner effects and estimates
of partner effects control for actor effects. This partials out shared
variance between the dyad in order to meet assumptions of inde-
pendence required by structural equation modeling. In terms of re-
search questions, whether narcissism is related to conflict behavior
is tested via actor effects; whether narcissism is related to conflict
behaviors of partners is tested via partner effects.
34 KELLER ET AL.

Male and female actor effects were compared by constraining

them to be equal and observing the change in model chi square.
Male and female partner effects were compared in a similar way.
Because model chi square values derived from MLM estimation
cannot be compared with the typical difference chi square test, the
Satorra-Bentler scaled chi square test for use with MLM and other
alternative estimation procedures was employed (Satorra & Bentler,
1999). A significant result of the scaled chi square test indicates that
the actor (or partner) effects are significantly different from each
other. These comparisons were conducted in cases where at least
one actor (or partner) effect was statistically significant (whether
the other was significant or not).
Interaction terms between male and female narcissism were also
included in each model, as predictors of conflict behavior. Male and
female narcissism scores were centered before each cross-product
was computed. Significant interactions were probed according to
criteria put forth by Aiken and West (1991) by submitting MLM-
derived estimates to an online utility provided by Preacher and col-
leagues (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006).

RESULTS
HYPOTHESIS 1: INDIVIDUAL NARCISSISM WILL BE
ASSOCIATED WITH PARTNER NARCISSISM

Male Leadership/Authority was significantly associated with fe-

male Leadership/Authority, r(188) = .23, p < .01. Male Grandiose Ex-
hibitionism was related to female Grandiose Exhibitionism, r(188) =
.26, p < .001. The full scores of the NPI for male and female partners
were also correlated, r(188) = .36, p < .001. Further, male Grandiose
Exhibitionism was related to female Leadership/Authority, r(188) =
.26, p < .001, and male Leadership/Authority was related to female
Grandiose Exhibitionism, r(188) = .18, p < .05. These findings indi-
cate significant homogamy for narcissism.
Dependent measures t tests were conducted to examine whether
narcissism was higher in one gender. Male and female Grandiose
Exhibitionism was similar, but males reported greater Leadership/
Authority (M = 6.59) than females (M = 5.23), t(189) = 5.34, p < .001.
The NPI Total Score was also significantly greater for males than
females, t(189) = 5.33, p < .001.
NARCISSISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 35

FIGURE 1. Example Model for Subscales of NPI and Prediction of

Verbal Aggression.

HYPOTHESIS 2: GREATER NARCISSISM WILL BE RELATED TO

SELF CONFLICT BEHAVIORS

See Figure 1 for an example model. See Table 2 for model coeffi-
cients. Female NPI score was positively associated with female use
of Cooperation, B = .023, p < .01, Stonewalling, B = .02, p < .05, Ver-
bal Aggression, .004, p < .05, Unprovoked Aggression, B = .079, p <
.001, Provoked Aggression, B = .452, p < .01, Extreme Aggression,
B = .275, p < .05, and Total Aggression, B = .094, p < .05. Male NPI
score was only marginally related to male use of Verbal Aggression,
B = .015, p < .10. Statistical comparisons of actor effects are shown
in Table 3. Two comparisons were statistically significant and one
was marginally significant. In all cases, the female actor effect was
stronger than the male actor effect, indicating that female narcis-
sism is more strongly linked to female relationship behavior than
male narcissism is related to male relationship behavior.
Female Grandiose/Exhibitionism was related to female use of
greater Cooperation, B = .030, p < .05, Unprovoked Aggression, B
= .120, p < .01, and marginally related to female Extreme Aggres-
sion, B = .462, p < .06. Male Grandiose/Exhibitionism was related to
male Stonewalling, B = .034, p < .05, Verbal Aggression, B = .040, p
< .05, and Provoked Aggression, B = 1.253, p < .01. One comparison
36 KELLER ET AL.

of actor effects was marginally significant. Male Grandiose Exhibi-

tionism was more strongly linked to male Stonewalling than female
Grandiose Exhibitionism was linked to female Stonewalling, Δχ2(1)
= 3.652, p < .06.
Female Leadership/Authority was related to female greater
Stonewalling, B = .004, p < .05, and Verbal Aggression, B = .005, p
< .01, but lower Unprovoked Aggression, B = -.012, p < .01. Male
Leadership/Authority was related to male greater Stonewalling, B
= .006, p < .001, Verbal Aggression, B = .006, p < .001, Extreme Ag-
gression, B = .182, p < .001, and Total Aggression, B = .024, p < .001,
but lower Provoked Aggression, B = -.099, p < .01. No comparisons
between female and male actor effects were significant for Leader-
ship/Authority.

HYPOTHESIS 3: GREATER NARCISSISM WILL BE RELATED TO

PARTNERS’ NEGATIVE CONFLICT BEHAVIORS

Results are shown in Table 2. Female NPI scores were related to

male Stonewalling, B = .021, p < .01, Verbal Aggression, B = .02, p
< .05, Unprovoked Aggression, B = .074, p < .01, Provoked Aggres-
sion, B = .406, p < .05, and Total Aggression, B = .099, p < .001. Male
NPI scores were related to greater female use of Physical Aggres-
sion, B = .277, p < .001, and Extreme Aggression, B = .163, p < .05.
Three comparisons of partner effects were significant, and one was
marginally significant (See Table 3). The female partner effect was
stronger than the male partner effect for Verbal Aggression, Un-
provoked Aggression, and marginally for Total Aggression. These
findings indicate that female narcissism is more strongly related to
certain male relationship behaviors than male narcissism is related
to those female relationship behaviors, The male partner effect was
stronger than the female partner effect for Physical Aggression, sug-
gesting that women are more likely to be physically aggressive to-
ward their narcissistic partners than men are.
Female Grandiose Exhibitionism was unrelated to male relation-
ship behavior. Male Grandiose Exhibitionism was significantly re-
lated to lesser female Cooperation, B = -.034, p < .01, marginally
greater female Stonewalling, B = .034, p < .07, and greater female
Physical Aggression, B = .028, p < .05. As shown in Table 3, the part-
ner effect of male Grandiose Exhibitionism on female Cooperation
was stronger than the partner effect of female Grandiose Exhibi-
NARCISSISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 37

TABLE 2. Narcissism as a Predictor of Conflict Behavior: Model Results

Total NPI Grandiose Exhibitionism Leadership/Authority
Actor (Self) Effects Male Female Male Female Male Female
Cooperation –.002 .023** –.012 .030* –.002 .003
Stonewalling .000 .020* .034* –.012 .006*** .004*
Verbal Aggression .015+ .004* .040* .006 .006*** .005**
Physical Aggression .004 –.103 .464 –.004 –.113 –.002
Unprovoked Aggression –.017 .079*** .084 .120** .000 –.012**
Provoked Aggression .115 .452** 1.253** .570 –.099** –.053
Extreme Aggression .103 .275* .084 .468+ .182*** .013
Total Aggression .012 .094* .161* .078 .024*** –.015
Partner Effects
Cooperation .001 –.007 –.034** .016 -.003 .003
Stonewalling .004 .021** .034+ –.014 .010*** .003**
Verbal Aggression .001 .020** .026 .017 .009*** .004+
Physical Aggression .277*** .005 .028* –.163 .001 –.120
Unprovoked Aggression .009 .074** –.006 –.005 –.004 –.004
Provoked Aggression .042 .406* .321 .112 –.093** –.073*
Extreme Aggression .163* .094 –.007 –.088 .005 –.013
Total Aggression –.027 .099*** –.025 .065 .028*** .005
Interactions Between Male and Female Narcissism Predicting…
Female Cooperation .029* .012* .001
Female Stonewalling .042 –.018** –.006
Female Verbal Aggression .002 –.019* –.010*
Female Physical Aggression 2.170*** –.014** .003
Female Unprovoked Aggression .000 –.044** .002
Female Provoked Aggression –.007 –.153 –.222*
Female Extreme Aggression .053 .120 .224*
Female Total Aggression .004 –.049+ .006
Male Cooperation –.034** .009+ .005
Male Stonewalling .037* –.009+ .000
Male Verbal Aggression .027 –.006 –.012*
Male Physical Aggression .016 –.149 .071
Male Unprovoked Aggression .000 –.056* .055**
Male Provoked Aggression .019 –.195 .125
Male Extreme Aggression –.020 –.159+ .018
Male Total Aggression –.002 –.049* .035+
Note. Findings are from a total of 16 models in which self narcissism, partner narcissism, and the
interaction between the two were included as predictors of self and partner relationship behavior,
controlling for self and partner depression. +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Coefficients are
unstandardized.
38 KELLER ET AL.

TABLE 3. Results of Parameter Comparisons of Actor and Partner Effects

Male Actor vs. Female Actor Effects Predicting… Male Actor Female Actor Delta Chi Square
Total NPI Score
Cooperation –.002 .023* 6.246*
Stonewalling .000 .02* 3.156+
Verbal Aggression .015 .004* 1.921
Unprovoked Aggression –.017 .079*** 9.669**
Provoked Aggression .115 .452** 1.996
Extreme Aggression .103 .275* 1.017
Total Aggression .012 .094* 3.188+
Grandiose Exhibitionism
Cooperation –.012 .030* 1.248
Stonewalling .034* –.012 3.652+
Verbal Aggression .040* .006 1.302
Unprovoked Aggression .084 .120** 0.309
Provoked Aggression 1.253** .570 1.110
Extreme Aggression .084 .462+ 1.248
Leadership/Authority
Stonewalling .034* –.012 1.053
Verbal Aggression .006 .005** 0.191
Unprovoked Aggression .000 –.012** 1.457
Provoked Aggression –.099** –.053 0.945
Extreme Aggression .182*** .013 2.411
Total Aggression .024*** –.015 0.768
Male Partner vs. Female Partner Effects Predicting… Male Partner Female Partner Delta Chi Square
Total NPI Score
Stonewalling .004 .021** 2.325
Verbal Aggression .001 .020** 5.186*
Physical Aggression .277*** .005 17.767***
Unprovoked Aggression .009 .074** 4.856*
Provoked Aggression .042 .406* 2.197
Extreme Aggression .163* .094 0.207
Total Aggression –.027 .099*** 3.412+
Grandiose Exhibitionism
Cooperation –.034** .016 5.731*
Stonewalling .034+ –.014 3.441+
Physical Aggression .028+ –.163 1.062
Leadership/Authority
Stonewalling .010*** .003** 1.444
Verbal Aggression .009*** .004+ 1.434
Provoked Aggression –.093** –.073* 0.371
Total Aggression .028*** .005 1.532
Note. Parameters were compared by placing an equality constraint on the coefficients and observing
the increase in model chi square. The increase is denoted delta chi square, it follows a chi square
distribution with one df. The Delta Chi Square is based on the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi square
difference test for use with MLM estimation. +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Coefficients are
unstandardized.
NARCISSISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 39

tionism on male Physical Aggression. The partner effect of male

Grandiose Exhibitionism on female Stonewalling was marginally
stronger than the partner effect of female Grandiose Exhibitionism
on male Stonewalling. This again suggests that women are more
likely to respond negatively to their narcissistic partners than men
are.
Female Leadership/Authority was related to greater male Stone-
walling, B = .003, p < .01, and marginally greater male Verbal Ag-
gression, B = .004, p < .06, but lesser male Provoked Aggression, B
= -.073, p < .05. Male Leadership/Authority was related to greater
female Stonewalling, B = .004, p < .05, Verbal Aggression, B = .009, p
< .001, and Total Aggression, B = .028, p < .001, but less female Pro-
voked Aggression, B = -.093, p < .01. One partner effect comparison
was significant (see Table 3). No comparisons of male and female
partner effects were significant.

HYPOTHESIS 4: MALE AND FEMALE NARCISSISM WILL

INTERACT

See Table 2 for findings. Several significant or marginally signifi-

cant interactions were observed. The interaction between male and
female NPI scores significantly predicted Female Cooperation, B =
.029, p < .05, Female Physical Aggression, B = 2.170, p < .001, Male
Cooperation, B = -.034, p < .01, and male Stonewalling, B = .037, p
< .05, and marginally predicted female Stonewalling, B = .042, p <
.10. Several of these interactions were very similar in form and an
example plot is shown in Figure 2A. Narcissism is only related to a
person’s behavior (e.g., greater female Cooperation, female Stone-
walling, female Physical Aggression, and male Stonewalling) when
partner narcissism was high. In contrast, narcissism was related to
less Cooperation, Stonewalling, and Physical Aggression when the
partner had low narcissism. The one exception was that high narcis-
sism in both partners was related to less male Cooperation, but high
narcissism in males combined with low narcissism in females was
associated with greater male Cooperation (Figure 2B).
The interaction between male and female Grandiose Exhibition-
ism significantly predicted female Cooperation, B = .012, p < .05,
female Stonewalling, B = -.018, p < .01, female Verbal Aggression,
B = -.019, p < .05, female Physical Aggression, B = -.014, p < .01,
female Unprovoked Aggression, B = -.044, p < .01, and marginally
40 KELLER ET AL.

predicted female Total Aggression, B = -.049, p < .10. The interaction

between male and female Grandiose Exhibitionism also significant-
ly predicted male Unprovoked Aggression, B = -.056, p < .05, and
Total Aggression, B = -.049, p < .05, and marginally predicted male
Cooperation, B = .009, p < .10, male Stonewalling, B = -.009, p < .10,
and male Extreme Aggression, B = -.159, p < .10. Again, the majority
of these interactions followed a nearly identical pattern (see Figure
2C). Grandiose Exhibitionism was related to a person’s behavior
(greater female Unprovoked Aggression, female Total Aggression,
female Verbal Aggression, female Stonewalling, male Stonewalling,
male Total Aggression, male Unprovoked Aggression, and male Ex-
treme Aggression) only when the partner’s Grandiose Exhibition-
ism was lower. When partner Grandiose Exhibitionism was higher,
no significant association between self Grandiose Exhibitionism
and self relationship behavior was observed; a person’s aggressive
behavior was generally moderate or high regardless of their own
Grandiose Exhibitionism. For male Cooperation the pattern of find-
ings matched the other interactions, such that male Grandiose Ex-
hibitionism was related to lesser Cooperation when female Grandi-
ose Exhibitionism was lower (not shown). For female Cooperation,
there was no association between female Grandiose Exhibitionism
and female Cooperation when male Grandiose Exhibitionism was
lower or higher (not shown).
The interaction between male and female Leadership/Authority
significantly predicted female Verbal Aggression, B = -.010, p < .05,
female Provoked Aggression, B = -.222, p < .05, and female Extreme
Aggression, B = .224, p < .05. The interaction between male and
female Leaderships/Authority also significantly predicted male
Verbal Aggression, B = -.012, p < .05, and male Unprovoked Ag-
gression, B = .055, p < .01, and marginally predicted male Total Ag-
gression, B = .035, p < .10. The pattern of interaction was less clear
for Leadership/Authority. In three cases (male Unprovoked Ag-
gression, male Total Aggression, and female Extreme Aggression), a
person’s Leadership/Authority was related to their greater aggres-
sive behavior only when their partner was also higher in Leader-
ship/Authority (see Figure 2D). When partner Leadership/Author-
ity was lower, a person’s Leadership/Authority was related to less
aggression. The opposite pattern was observed for female Provoked
Aggression, female Verbal Aggression, and male Verbal Aggression:
A person’s Leadership/Authority was linked to greater aggressive
behavior only when partner Leadership/Authority was lower, but
NARCISSISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 41

was linked to lower aggressive behavior when partner Leadership/

Authority was higher (see Figure 2E).

DISCUSSION

The present study investigated narcissism in romantic relation-

ships. Our first hypothesis, that male and female narcissism would
be positively related, was supported. There are several reasons why
homogamy occurs, including personal preferences, exposure to
others in daily life, and meeting people through friends and fam-
ily (Kalmijn, 1994). In terms of personal preferences, people may
choose to be with others who share the same values, beliefs, and
characteristics that they do. Kalmijn (1994) refers to this as cultural
status and it is typically adaptive in that it will likely lead to less
conflict and a more stable relationship (Schramm, Marshall, Har-
ris, & Lee, 2012). However, homogamy is observed in mental ill-
ness (Merikangas & Spiker, 1982), which seems to increase the odds
of a less stable relationship. It is possible that this phenomenon is
the result of contagion or is secondary to assortment, in which per-
sons choose partners who are similar in personality characteristics
and those personality characteristics represent a vulnerability to
the same psychopathology (Maes et al., 1998). Alternatively, people
may prefer to be with persons who are more attractive than they are.
Kalmijn (1994) refers to this as economic status. The more attrac-
tive people will receive many opportunities to find a mate, and can
therefore choose the most attractive ones. In terms of narcissism, it
is possible that less narcissistic individuals have more opportunities
to be with others who are also low in narcissism, and that narcissists
are simply stuck with each other. Narcissistic homogamy has im-
plications for understanding the impact of narcissism on romantic
relationships. Persons high in narcissism may be interacting with
partners who are also high in narcissism, rather than an innocent
party as is sometimes assumed by researchers. We revisit this point
in our discussion of hypothesis four.
It was also found that a person’s narcissism is related to his or her
relationship behavior. Many of these associations represent aver-
age effects that were qualified by interactions. In general, persons
higher in narcissism, regardless of whether that was measured by
the total NPI score, Grandiose/Exhibitionism, or Leadership/Au-
thority, engaged in more aggressive behavior toward their partners.
42 KELLER ET AL.

FIGURE 2. Interactions Between Male and Female Narcissism.

NARCISSISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 43

FIGURE 2. continued
44 KELLER ET AL.

However, there were a few exceptions: female Leadership/Author-

ity was related to less female Unprovoked Aggression in the reac-
tion time task and greater female self-reported Cooperation. Male
Leadership/Authority was related to less male Provoked Aggres-
sion. Because findings were especially strong for Grandiose/Exhi-
bitionism and the total NPI score (which also includes Exploitative-
ness), they are largely consistent with the current understanding of
narcissism as deleterious for interpersonal relationships (Campbell
& Foster, 2002) and the particular maladaptiveness of grandiose or
exploitative narcissism (Cain, Pincus, & Ansell, 2008). Persons who
have symptoms of grandiose narcissism may engage in greater ag-
gression with their partners as a way to maintain those feelings of
grandiosity (Morf et al., 2001).
The ambiguous findings for Leadership/Authority are some-
what consistent with the concept of adaptive forms of narcissism
(Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004). For some
aspects of romantic relationships, Leadership/Authority may be
beneficial because it represents confidence, high self-esteem, and
extraversion. However, for other aspects of romantic relationships,
including male and female Stonewalling, Verbal Aggression, and
Extreme Aggression, Leadership/Authority may be detrimental.
These associations were found even after controlling for Grandiose
Exhibitionism, and so cannot be explained by associations between
Grandiose Exhibitionism and Leadership/Authority. Further, in
relation to partner effects (hypothesis three), male Leadership/
Authority was associated with greater female physical aggression
and total aggression during the reaction time task. To our knowl-
edge, there has been no investigation of Leadership/Authority in
the context of romantic relationships. Our findings suggest that the
adaptiveness of Leadership/Authority may depend on the form of
aggression under consideration (e.g., behavioral aggression vs. self-
reported aggression; aggression vs. cooperation).
Several partner effects were also observed. Female total Narcis-
sism scores were associated with greater male aggression on several
counts (Stonewalling, Verbal Aggression, and Behavioral Aggres-
sion). Female Grandiose Exhibitionism was not related to male be-
havior, on average, but female Leadership/Authority was related
to greater male Stonewalling and Verbal Aggression but lesser male
Provoked Aggression. Male total Narcissism scores were associated
with female Physical Aggression and Extreme Aggression. Male
Grandiose Exhibitionism was related to female Physical Aggression
NARCISSISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 45

and Stonewalling, and male Leadership/Authority was related to

greater female Verbal Aggression, Stonewalling, Provoked Aggres-
sion, and Total Aggression, Taken together, these findings indicate
that narcissists may indeed be more likely to be victimized by their
partners. The pattern of findings for Leadership/Authority was
similar to that of total Narcissism and Grandiose Exhibitionism,
but there was one exception (for male Provoked Aggression). These
findings support the hypothesis that narcissistic persons are obnox-
ious and frustrating to their partners. Prior research does suggest
that interacting with a narcissist can be frustrating. The more times
someone interacts with a narcissist, the less they like the narcissist
(Paulhus, 1998). Observers rate narcissists as less likeable than non-
narcissists (Morf, 1994). Spouses of overt narcissists find them ag-
gressive, outspoken, egotistical, self-centered, intolerant, arrogant,
demanding, and argumentative (Wink, 1991).
Several interactions between male and female narcissism were
also observed. Taken together, these findings indicate that the ways
in which narcissism is related to relationship behavior depends on
the aspect of narcissism being investigated, gender, and the level
of narcissism in the partner. In several cases, the hypothesis that
high narcissism in both partners would be especially detrimental
to relationships was supported. This was the case for most inter-
actions involving the total Narcissism score and some interactions
involving Leadership/Authority. The implication of homogamy
in narcissism is that the aggressive behavior of narcissists may be
partially due to the narcissism of their partner; when coupled with
individuals lower in narcissism, their behavior may be less aggres-
sive. Narcissists’ arrogant and superior behavior may be especially
provoking to partners who are equally arrogant and superior, espe-
cially because such narcissistic partners are likely to perceive such
behavior as a threat to their own superiority (Morf et al., 2010). Such
findings were most consistent for the total NPI score, perhaps be-
cause the total NPI score included items assessing exploitativeness.
Exploitative forms of narcissism have been strongly implicated in
relationship problems in prior research (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003;
McCullough et al., 2003).
One interesting finding for the total NPI score was that the combi-
nation of high NPI scores in both partners was related to greater fe-
male Cooperation. Higher NPI scores in males combined with low
NPI scores in females was related to greater male Cooperation. This
suggests that higher narcissism may be related to both increased
46 KELLER ET AL.

aggression but also greater cooperation. A possible explanation for

this finding is that there are both adaptive and maladaptive features
of narcissism that are captured by the NPI (Ackerman et al., 2011).
A different pattern emerged for Grandiose Exhibitionism and
some interactions involving Leadership/Authority. When partner
Grandiose Exhibitionism was higher, most participants engaged in
moderate to high levels of aggressive behavior regardless of their
own Grandiose Exhibitionism. Grandiose Exhibitionism may be
particularly provoking to both other narcissists and non-narcis-
sists. One’s own Grandiose Exhibitionism is related to one’s own
aggressive behavior only when the partner is lower on Grandiose
Exhibitionism. The one exception for this was female Cooperation.
Interestingly, the combination of higher male and female Grandi-
ose Exhibitionism was related to greater female Cooperation. It is
unclear why findings were different for female Cooperation. One
possibility is that women who are higher in Grandiose Exhibition-
ism are more likely to rate themselves higher on positive attributes
(like Cooperation) due to their feelings of superiority. They may be
especially likely to do so when their partner is higher in Grandiose
Exhibitionism as a way of blaming their partner rather than them-
selves for problems in the relationship. Future research using be-
havioral measures of positive behavior in romantic relationships is
needed to confirm this speculation.
The findings for interactions between male and female Leader-
ship/Authority were more mixed. In three cases, the combination of
high male and female Leadership/Authority was related to greater
aggression (male and female, but only for behavioral measures of
aggression). Such findings are consistent with high narcissism be-
ing detrimental for relationships regardless of the form that it takes.
However, in the other three cases, the combination of higher Lead-
ership/Authority in both partners was either unrelated to aggres-
sion or was related to less female Provoked aggression. It is pos-
sible that Leadership/Authority reflects a greater tendency to be
dominant in relationships (Emmons, 1984) and when both partners
are dominant it creates greater conflict. The opposite pattern was
observed for female Provoked Aggression. Higher male and female
Leadership/Authority was related to less female Provoked Ag-
gression, but higher female Leadership/Authority and lower male
Leadership/Authority was related to greater female Provoked Ag-
gression. Additional research is needed to replicate these findings
NARCISSISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 47

and determine why different forms of female aggression are related

to narcissism in different ways.
Findings should be interpreted in light of study limitations. The
most serious limitation is that data are cross-sectional. Therefore,
causal interpretations are not possible, and explanations for find-
ings are speculative. This limitation also makes it impossible to
examine potential changes in narcissism over time among dyads.
It is possible that dynamics within the relationship may influence
individual’s NPI scores. Longitudinal research is needed to exam-
ine these potential relationships. It is also not apparent whether
findings would generalize to individuals suffering from narcissistic
personality disorder or to adults, as participants were drawn from
a population of college students. Many couples in the study had
been together for only a short time, and almost none were engaged
or married. A restricted range in the length of romantic relation-
ships may have affected associations. Further, relations may differ
depending on marriage or cohabitation. Finally, the sample of 74
couples who completed the competitive reaction time task was rela-
tively small and tests involving these variables were under-pow-
ered.
Despite these limitations, the present study addresses important
gaps in the understanding of narcissism in romantic relationships.
Findings emphasize the value of a dyadic perspective, and suggest
that the narcissism of one’s partner may have an important role in
one’s own aggressive behavior and that this may be especially the
case when one is also high in narcissism.

REFERENCES
Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W.,
& Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the narcissistic personality inventory really
measure? Assessment, 18, 67–87.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interac-
tions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders, fourth edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR). Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Association.
Atkins, D. C., Dimidjian, S., Bedics, J. D., & Christensen, A. (2009). Couple discord
and depression in couple therapy and in depressed individuals during de-
pression treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 1089­–1099.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism
to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological
Review, 103, 5–33.
48 KELLER ET AL.

Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: Phe-
notypic description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/
personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review,
28, 638–656.
Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 1254–1270.
Campbell, W. K. (2001) Is narcissism really so bad? Psychological Inquiry, 12, 214–216.
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2002) Narcissism and commitment in romantic
relationships: An investment model analysis. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 484–494.
Campbell, W. K., Foster, C. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2002). Does self-love lead to love of
others? A story of narcissistic game playing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 340–354.
Campbell, W. K., Rudlich, E. A., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and
the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 358–368.
Carnelley, K. B., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Kenneth, J. (1994). Depression, working
models of others, and relationship functioning. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66, 127–140.
Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model: A
model of directional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109.
Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and
vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 188–207.
Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic Per-
sonality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291–300.
Foster, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2005). Narcissism and resistance to doubts about
romantic partners. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 550–557.
Giancola, P. R., & Zeichner, A. (1995). Construct validity of a competitive reaction‐
time aggression paradigm. Aggressive Behavior, 21(3), 199-204.
Kalmijn, M. (1994). Assortative mating by cultural and economic occupational sta-
tus. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 422–452.
Kerig, P. K. (1996). Assessing the links between interparental conflict and child ad-
justment: The conflicts and problem-solving scales. Journal of Family Psychol-
ogy, 10, 454–473.
Kernis, M. H., Grannemann, B. D., & Mathis, L. C. (1991). Stability of self-esteem
as a moderator of the relation between level of self-esteem and depression.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 80–84.
Liben, L. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). Extending the study of gender differentiation.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67, 175–183.
Maes, H.H.M., Neale, M. C., Kendler, K. S., Hewitt, J. K., Silberg, J. L., Foley, D. L. et
al. (1998). Assortative mating for major psychiatric diagnoses in two popula-
tion based samples. Psychological Medicine, 28, 1389–1401.
Masterson, J. F. (1988). The search for the real self: Unmasking the personality disorders of
our age. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Maxwell, K., Donnellan, M. B., Hopwood, C. J., & Ackerman, R. A. (2011). The two
faces of Narcissus? An empirical comparison of the narcissistic personality
inventory and the pathological narcissism inventory. Personality and Individu-
al Differences, 50, 577–582.
NARCISSISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 49

McCullouch, M. E., Emmons, R. A., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Mooney, C. N. (2003). Nar-
cissists as “victims”: The role of narcissism in the perception of transgres-
sions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 885–893.
Merikangas, K. R. (1982) Assortative mating for psychiatric disorders and psycho-
logical traits. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39, 1173–1180.
Merikangas, K. R., & Spiker, D. G. (1982). Assortative mating among in-patients
with primary affective disorder. Psychological Medicine, 12, 753–764.
Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality
conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76, 449–476.
Morf, C. C. (1994). Interpersonal consequences of narcissists’ continual effort to
maintain and bolster self-esteem (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah,
Salt Lake City, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(6–B), 2430.
Morf, C. C., Horvath, S., & Torchetti, L. (2010). Narcissistic self-enhancement: Tales
of (successful?) self-portrayal. In M. D. Alicke & C. Sedikides (Eds.), Handbook
of self-enhancement and self-protection (pp. 399–424). New York: Guilford.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2011). Mplus User’s Guide, 5th ed. Los Angeles:
Muthén & Muthén.
Ogrodniczuk, J. S., Piper, W. E., Joyce, A. S., Steinberg, P. I., & Duggal, S. (2009).
Interpersonal problems associated with narcissism among psychiatric outpa-
tients. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 837–842.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-en-
hancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
1197–1208.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing
interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and la-
tent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in
the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological
Reports, 45, 590.
Reidy, D. E., Foster, J. D., & Zeichner, A. (2010). Narcissism and unprovoked aggres-
sion. Aggressive Behavior, 43, 414–422.
Rhodewalt, F., Madrian, J. C., & Cheney, S. (1998). Narcissism, self-knowledge or-
ganization, and emotional reactivity: The effect of daily experiences on self-
esteem and affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 75–87.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for
moment structure analysis. Unpublished Manuscript. http://statistics.ucla.
edu/preprints/uclastat-preprint-1999:19
Schramm, D. G., Marshall, J. P., Harris, V. W., & Lee, T. R. (2012). Religiosity, ho-
mogamy, and marital adjustment: An examination of newlyweds in first mar-
riages and remarriages. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 246–268.
Sedikides, C., Rudich, E. A., Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004). Are
normal narcissists socially healthy? Self-esteem matters. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 87, 400–416.
Smolewska, K., & Dion, K. L. (2005). Narcissism and adult attachment: A multivari-
ate approach. Self and Identity, 4, 59–68.
Stucke, T. S., & Sporer, S. L. (2002). When a grandiose self-image is threatened: Nar-
cissism and self-concept clarity as predictors of negative emotions and ag-
gression following ego-threat. Journal of Personality, 70, 509–032.
50 KELLER ET AL.

Taylor, S. P. (1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function

of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression. Journal of Personality,
35(2), 297–310.
Thiessen, D. D., & Gregg, B. (1980). Human assortative mating and genetic equilib-
rium: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1, 111–140.
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, 261–272.
Watson, P. J., Sawrie, S. M., Greene, R. L., & Arredondo, R. (2002). Narcissism and
depression: MMPI-2 evidence for the continuum hypothesis in clinical sam-
ples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79, 85–109.
Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61, 590–597.