On the Measure and Mismeasure of Narcissism

Abstract

Narcissism continues to suffer from a lack of consensual definition. Variability in the definition is reflected in the growing multitude of measures with oftentimes diverging nomological nets. Although the themes of narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability appear to have achieved reasonable agreement on their central importance, the lower order structure of each is not well understood and debates remain about how (and whether) they can be integrated into a coherent whole. However, it is clear that a narrow focus on higher order grandiosity without consideration of concomitant vulnerability neglects clinically important features of narcissism. Occasioned by the potential for a new personality disorder model in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth edition, several colleagues and I demonstrated that pathological narcissism, as measured by the Pathological Narcissism Inventory, could not be adequately summarized by the lower order traits of Grandiosity and Attention Seeking, and argued that this should be reflected in the diagnostic manual in some form. Miller, Lynam, and Campbell then subjected these same data to critical reanalysis and interpretation. I respond here to several points raised by Miller and colleagues. In so doing, I highlight areas of agreement, disagreement, and suggest directions for future research.