Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 113–122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Direct and interactive effects of narcissism and power on overconfidence

Lee A. Macenczak a,⁎, Stacy Campbell a, Amy B. Henley a, W. Keith Campbell b
a
Kennesaw State University, 1000 Chastain Road, Kennesaw, GA 30144, United States
b
University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Prior research has separately examined the influence that narcissism and power have on the general concept of
Received 6 August 2015 overconfidence. In this article we examine the influence of narcissism on overconfidence utilizing three different
Received in revised form 18 November 2015 methods to operationalize the overconfidence construct (Studies 1–4). In addition, we examine the role that
Accepted 26 November 2015
power plays in the relationship between narcissism and overconfidence (Studies 2–4). Results indicate that
Available online 9 December 2015
both narcissism and power both individually and collectively exert an influence on overconfidence. Furthermore,
Keywords:
when individuals who score relatively high on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory are in an elevated state of
Narcissism power, overconfidence is significantly higher than for individuals in a low state of power. This interaction effect,
Power however, was only evident when high levels of narcissism were overweighted in the analyses, by, for example,
Overconfidence oversampling (Study 4). We conclude by discussing implications and avenues for future research.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction understanding of the relationship between narcissism and overconfi-

Narcissism has been increasingly investigated as a factor influencing
behavior in organizations. In particular, the link between narcissism and
leadership has long been recognized (Freud, 1950) and research has
shown the high likelihood of narcissists to emerge as leaders (Brunell
et al., 2008). Indeed narcissism, a multifaceted personality trait that en-
compasses an inflated sense of self, feelings of superiority, entitlement,
and a constant desire for admiration (Bogart, Benotsch, & Pavlovic,
2004; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) seems to go hand in hand with the ste-
reotype of political leaders, CEOs, and other high status individuals
(Miller et al., 2015). However it is still unclear whether narcissists are
more or less effective once they achieve these positions. While some re-
search suggests that narcissists have skills and qualities that are benefi-
cial to becoming leaders in a group (Brunell et al., 2008; Watts et al.,
2013), others have found that narcissism has a range of effects on lead-
ership, including: negative effects on organizational effectiveness
(Peterson, Galvin, & Lange, 2012), null effects of narcissism on organiza-
tional effectiveness (Resick, Whitman, Weingarden, & Hiller, 2009), or
unpredictable organizational performance at extremes (Chatterjee &
Hambrick, 2007), a trade-off between success and ethics (Watts et al.,
2013), or a curvilinear relationship where narcissism is less effective
at extremes (Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis, & Fraley, 2014). Part
of the issue is that narcissism is linked to risk taking and overconfidence,
which can have a range of effects on outcomes (Campbell, Goodie, &
Foster, 2004; Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). Thus, gaining a better
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lmacenczak@gmail.com (L.A. Macenczak).
dence and especially when in positions of power, is important.
In the present paper our goal is to understand the narcissism–over-
confidence link by examining a detailed conceptualization of overconfi-
dence as well as the potential role of power. Specifically, four studies are
used to assess the relationship between narcissism and three measure-
ments of overconfidence. Additionally, in three of these studies, power
is examined as a potential additive main effect and moderator of the re-
lationship between narcissism and overconfidence. Before describing
the research, however, we want to briefly describe our key variables
of interest.
1.1. Overconfidence
Research has shown that most people maintain a deep sense of over-
confidence in their abilities and judgments (Russo & Schoemaker, 1992)
and tend to view themselves in a more positive light than may be
warranted in reality (Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004; Klayman, Soll,
González-Vallejo, & Barlas, 1999). While overconfidence can have a
beneficial impact in motivating an individual to perform, research has
indicated that it can also distort one's judgment leading to negative con-
sequences (Moore & Healy, 2008).
Overconfidence has been blamed for many outcomes across con-
texts, from lawsuits and wars to stock market bubbles and crashes.
This psychological construct has been examined in relationship to
causes of war (Johnson, 2004), labor strikes (Neale & Bazerman,
1985), merger and acquisitions (Malmendier & Tate, 2005), investing
(Odean, 2002), and entrepreneurial activities (Camerer & Lovallo,
1999). While overconfidence has been studied in relation to a number
of outcomes, it may best be characterized as being the most prevalent

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.053
0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
114 L.A. Macenczak et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 113–122
and catastrophic problem when considering that judgment and deci-
sion making can lead to such outcomes (Plous, 1993). By increasing
the understanding of what influences an individual's level of overconfi-
dence, we can potentially improve the quality of the individual's
decisions.
While the conceptualization of the construct has been examined in
relation to a variety of variables, early research confounded the different
methods to operationalize the construct, leading to inconsistent results.
Moore and Healy (2008) presented a reconciliation of the three distinct
ways in which past research has conceptualized overconfidence. Their
research found examples in which past research had assumed that the
different types of overconfidence result from the same underlying
psychological causes or studied the construct in inconsistent ways.
Their review shows that overconfidence is typically operationalized in
one of three ways either focusing on overprecision, overplacement, or
overestimation. Overprecision occurs when an individual has an inflat-
ed sense of confidence regarding the accuracy of their beliefs (Russo &
Schoemaker, 1992; Soll & Klayman, 2004). As organizations depend
on accurate decision making, having a good knowledge of what one
does and does not know is important. Overplacement refers to the
self-serving bias that one is better than others or above average on
specific characteristics (Alicke, Klotz, Breitenbecher, Yurak, &
Vredenburg, 1995; Larrick, Burson, & Soll, 2007). Evolving from Social
Comparison theory, research emerged that emphasized downward
comparisons (Hakmiller, 1966; Wills, 1981) primarily as a source of
self-enhancement and positive affect (Alicke, 1985; Goethals, Messick,
& Allison, 1991; Taylor, 1989; Taylor, Wayment, & Collins, 1993). Indi-
viduals generally seek out and recall social comparison information
that is favorable to the individual thus supporting the view that they
are superior to others. Overestimation refers to an inflated view of
one's abilities, performance, level of control, or chance of success
(Clayson, 2005). Thus, there are measurements related to an
individual's perception of their accuracy, one related to their belief in
their ability, and one that measures their perception of their own per-
formance as it relates to others' skills in the same task. See Moore and
Healy (2008) for an in-depth and insightful exploration of the dimen-
sions of overconfidence.
Moore and Healy's (2008) results indicate that the three conceptual-
izations of overconfidence are not different manifestations of the same
underlying construct and are conceptually and empirically distinct.
Thus, we deemed it important to follow the direction of previous re-
search by operationalizing the construct utilizing the separate, distinct
methods previously defined with the expectation that the different
methods would produce similar results.
1.2. Narcissism, overconfidence and decision making
Previous research on narcissism in organizations has focused on
both the bright and dark side of narcissism. Narcissism has been
considered a “mixed blessing” meaning that as the narcissist focuses
on behaviors that benefit them, the organization can either benefit or
be penalized for their actions (Campbell & Campbell, 2009; Paulhus,
1998). While it is unclear how the narcissism trait is related to perfor-
mance (Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell, & Marchisio, 2010), results indi-
cate that organizations led by a narcissist show more volatility and
extreme levels of performance (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). Since
leaders are expected to make decisions as a part of their roles that ben-
efit the organization, developing a greater understanding of how this
personality trait influences confidence in decision making may help to
improve decision making process in organizations.
Narcissists are especially prone to errors of overconfidence because
they possess the following qualities: they think they are special and
unique (Emmons, 1984), that they are entitled to more positive out-
comes in life than are others (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, &
Bushman, 2004), and that they are more intelligent and physically at-
tractive than they are in reality (Gabriel, Critelli, & Ee, 1994). Narcissists
are very confident about their abilities to complete the task at hand and
have been found to be even overly confident and more confident than
non-narcissists (Campbell, Bonacci et al., 2004; Campbell, Goodie
et al., 2004; Foster, Reidy, Misra, & Goff, 2011). Furthermore, narcissists
tend to exaggerate beliefs about their abilities and accomplishments
(John & Robins, 1994), have high optimism, and inflate their own per-
formances (Farwell & Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998). In order to maintain
their self-view, narcissists will seek the admiration of others
(Campbell, 1999; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Rosenthal & Pittinsky,
2006), partner with high-status individuals where they can gain status
through association (Campbell, 1999), and boast in order to draw atten-
tion to themselves (Buss & Chiodo, 1991). Since they also tend to ignore
or not seek disconfirming information (Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld,
Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008), these individuals continue to believe
that they are better than others.
1.3. Power, overconfidence, and decision making
Interesting, many of these outcomes of narcissism are also seen with
high power, either actual or induced. For example, previous research
found that power, like narcissism, can lead to overconfidence in deci-
sion making tasks with support being found for the presence of power
increasing overconfidence in the accuracy of one's thoughts and beliefs
(Fast, Sivanathan, Mayer, & Galinsky, 2011). These results are consistent
with other studies which have indicated that individuals in an elevated
state of power will be more optimistic and take more risk (Anderson &
Galinsky, 2006), less aversive to loss (Inesi, 2010), more inclined to take
action (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003), less impacted by the press
of a situation (Galinsky et al., 2008), have an illusion of personal control
(Fast, Gruenfeld, Sivanathan, & Galinsky, 2009), and have an increased
propensity to discount advice, relying more on their own views (See,
Morrison, Rothman, & Soll, 2011). The powerful can become aggressive
in defense of their ego when this power and self-perceived incompe-
tence are paired together (Fast & Chen, 2009). Many of these outcomes
of power can be perceived as similar to those of the narcissistic
behavior.
While both narcissism and power have been studied a great deal,
with both shown to independently influence overconfidence, it is un-
clear how the two variables work together to influence outcomes relat-
ed to decision making. There is some research showing that narcissism
and power can be linked in interesting ways. For example, previous re-
sults have indicated that select subcomponents of narcissism are corre-
lated with a personal sense of power (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012)
and that power can increase the linkage between traits and behaviors
(Bargh, Raymond, Pryor, & Strack, 1995; Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh,
2001; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). Furthermore, narcissistic
individuals have been shown to desire powerful positions (Kets de
Vries & Miller, 1984). Understanding how a sense of power impacts
the behavior of a narcissist can increase our knowledge about
some leaders' decisions. There are several possible relationships:
(a) narcissism and power can interact, so the most overconfident deci-
sions will take place in the context of high narcissism and high power,
(b) narcissism and power can have an additive effect of decision making
so that both variables have an effect, but one does not depend on the
level of the other, or (c) narcissism and power could predict the same
variance in overconfidence, so that having both in the model will not
predict better than having either one in the model. Given the past re-
search (e.g., Keltner et al., 2003), it is plausible that power will act as a
moderator of the narcissism → power relationship.
2. Material and methods
We will begin by examining the relationship between narcissism,
the subscales of narcissism, and the three types of overconfidence
(Study 1). The final three studies will examine the additive interactive
effects of narcissism and power as it relates to overconfidence in
 L.A. Macenczak et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 113–122
decision making (Studies 2–4). We replicate our primary analyses in
several studies to gain more precise estimates of the effects of interest;
and we draw from different samples in each study to gain confidence in
the generalizability of these effects.
2.1. Study 1
While the linkage between narcissism and overconfidence has been
examined previously, only one method to measure overconfidence was
included and only the total narcissism score was used (Campbell,
Bonacciet al., 2004; Campbell, Goodie et al., 2004). Recent research
has demonstrated the usefulness of examining subcomponents to nar-
cissism (Ackerman et al., 2011; Raskin & Terry, 1988). And, in the case
of overconfidence it is plausible that different factors of narcissism will
predict better than others. Notably, those subfactors of narcissism
associated with extraversion as opposed to (dis)agreeableness (Miller
et al., 2014) will be potentially more likely to predict overconfidence
(Schaefer, Williams, Goodie, & Campbell, 2004). Recent research has
also described three different methods to measure overconfidence
(Moore & Healy, 2008) that provide a more nuanced understanding of
the construct. Thus, in Study1 we examine the relationship between
the overall narcissism construct, the various subcomponents of narcis-
sism, and each of the different types of overconfidence.
The following hypotheses were made regarding the direct effect be-
tween narcissism and the types of overconfidence:
Hypothesis 1. Individuals with a higher level of narcissism will exhibit
higher levels of overprecision (1a), overplacement (1b), and overestima-
tion (1c) in their decisions.
2.1.1. Method
2.1.1.1. Participants. A sample of 182 participants were recruited using
the Qualtrics online survey panel. In order to qualify for participation,
individuals were required to be 18 years of age or older, employed,
and born and living in the U.S. Individuals were compensated $5 for
completing the survey. Following a review of the participant's re-
sponses, 47 were eliminated due to incomplete data, leaving a final
sample of 135 participants, (53% male, 80% Caucasian, and 58% between
the ages of 35 & 54).
2.1.1.2. Procedure. Once the individuals passed the initial screening qual-
ifications, they were asked to complete a brief section of demographic
information. Participants then completed the 40-item narcissistic per-
sonality inventory (NPI) (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Each item within the
NPI-40 contains two self-descriptive statements, one narcissistic and
one non-narcissistic, from which the participant must choose the one
that best describes them. One point is given for a selection of a narcissis-
tic statement (e.g. “I like having authority over other people” versus “I
don't mind following orders”). Scores can range from 0–40, with higher
scores indicating higher narcissism. We also tested a shorter version
of the NPI that utilizes 13 existing questions within the NPI-40. The
NPI-13 has been shown to produce results consistent with those of
the longer version (Gentile et al., 2013). In order to validate the use of
the shorter scale, we performed the extra step in the first study to
show that there were similar results from the 40- and 13-item scales.
Because we were performing a power manipulation in the subsequent
studies, we felt using the shorter, less fatigue inducing version of the
NPI in those studies would be the correct choice.
After completing the NPI-40, participants were told that they were
going to take a trivia test with 15 general knowledge questions. The sur-
vey utilized fifteen two-alternative forced choice general knowledge
questions, a format which had been successfully utilized in previous
studies (Nelson & Narens, 1980) (e.g. Which has a larger land mass?
Israel or New Jersey, see Appendix B for complete list of questions).
115
Participants were presented with the trivia questions and asked to se-
lect an answer. After each trivia question, in order to capture their
level of confidence that their answer was correct, participants were re-
quired to select from the following confidence levels: 50–52%, 53–60%,
61–70%, 71–80%, 81–90%, 91–97%, or 98–100% (Campbell, Bonacci
et al., 2004; Campbell, Goodie et al., 2004). For the analysis, the individ-
uals' confidence was taken as the midpoint of the selected category. Fol-
lowing completion of the trivia test, participants were asked to estimate
the number of questions that they answered correctly and the average
number of questions that other participants answered correctly.
The scores for the different types of overconfidence were computed
utilizing the following equations:
0 0
Overprecision ¼ Individual s Average Confidence–Individual s Accuracy


0
Overplacement ¼ Estimate of own score–Estimate of other s score
– ðActual own score – average accuracy of all scoresÞ
0 0
Overestimation ¼ Individual s estimated score–Individual s actual score:
2.1.2. Results
Descriptive statistics for the NPI-40 narcissism scores were M =
14.76, SD = 7.1. A correlation matrix is presented in Table 1. As expect-
ed, there was a strong correlation between the NPI-40 and NPI-13 mea-
sures as well as among the three measures of overconfidence. The
average confidence level was 79%, the average level of overprecision
was .16, the average level of overplacement was −.37, and the average
level of overestimation was − 0.67. The hypothesized relationships
(Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c) were tested via a series of regression anal-
yses. The results of these regression analyses are shown in Table 2. As
predicted, narcissism was a significant predictor of each type of
overconfidence.
The present study also examined the relationship between the
shorter-version of the NPI with the each of the three types of overconfi-
dence. Descriptive statistics for the NPI-13 narcissism scores were M =
3.67, SD = 2.57. Regression analyses were once again run utilizing the
NPI-13 scores and each type of overconfidence. As seen in Table 2, fairly
consistent with the longer version, NPI-13 significantly predicts two of
the different types of overconfidence.
In order to gain a deeper understanding of the NPI-40 structure, past
research has examined the multiple dimensions that are embedded
within the NPI-40 item pool (Ackerman et al., 2011; Emmons, 1984;
Emmons, 1987; Raskin & Terry, 1988). While there has been consider-
able debate as to the precise factor structure of the NPI, recent results
provided support for a three-factor solution consisting of Leadership/
Authority, Grandiose/Exhibitionism, and Entitlement/Exploitativeness
(Ackerman et al., 2011). Following the subscales recommended by
Ackerman et al. (2011), 25 items from the NPI-40 were used to form
the subscales (Leadership/Authority = 11 items, Grandiose/Exhibition-
ism = 10 items, Entitlement/Exploitativeness = 4 items). The first two
of these scales are associated more strongly with extraversion, and the
latter with low agreeableness (Miller et al., 2014).
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations.
M SD 1 2 3 4
1. NPI_40 14.76 7.15 1.00
2. NPI_13 3.67 2.57 .84⁎⁎ 1.00
3. Overprecision .16 .16 .44⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎ 1.00
4. Overplacement −.37 4.79 .18⁎ .10 .45⁎⁎ 1.00
5. Overestimation −.67 3.59 .36⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ .72⁎⁎ .50⁎⁎
N = 135.
⁎⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
116 L.A. Macenczak et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 113–122
Table 2
Results of regression analyses predicting overconfidence.
Overprecision Overplacement Overestimation
NPI-40 .44⁎⁎⁎ .18⁎
R2 .19 .03
F 31.48⁎⁎⁎ 4.20⁎ 20.34⁎⁎⁎
NPI-13 .43⁎⁎⁎ .10
R2 .19 .01
F 30.20⁎⁎⁎ 1.28 13.48⁎⁎⁎
Leadership/Authority .25⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎
Grandiose/Exhibitionism .24⁎ −.10
Entitlement/Exploitativeness .08 −.12
R2 .20 .08
Model F 10.58⁎⁎⁎ 3.74⁎ 7.23⁎⁎⁎
Note: Standardized regression coefficients are reported.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
To examine how the subscales influence each type of overconfi-
dence, the subscales were simultaneously entered into a multiple re-
gression with each type of overconfidence. The Leadership/Authority
and Grandiose/Exhibitionism subscales were both significant with
two of the overconfidence types, see Table 2. The Entitlement/
Exploitativeness subscale did not significantly predict any type of
overconfidence.
2.1.3. Summary
As expected the results indicated that narcissism is positively related
to the different measures of overconfidence. Results indicate general
consistency in both types of narcissism scales predicting overconfi-
dence. As previous research has indicated that is common to find situa-
tions in which people exhibit underconfidence by underplacing their
performance relative to others on difficult tasks (Moore & Healy,
2008), it is not unexpected that the relationship between NPI-40 and
overplacement was weaker than the other overconfidence types and
was not significant when utilizing NPI-13. The trivia test was designed
not to be an easy task, as the questions were considered difficult for
most participants. Participants only averaged 9 correct answers out of
15, an average accuracy of 60%.
An analysis of the subcomponents shows that the Leadership/
Authority and Grandiose/Exhibitionism were the main subcomponents
that influenced overconfidence. Both of these subcomponents influ-
enced multiple types of overconfidence, while the Entitlement/
Exploitativeness subcomponents exerted little influence on any type
of overconfidence. It is likely that the link of the first two dimensions
with extraversion and approach orientation accounts for the stronger
link with overconfidence (Foster & Trimm, 2008; Schaefer et al., 2004).
2.2. Study 2
Now that we were able to demonstrate the narcissism and overcon-
fidence link, we next examined narcissism and the role of power.
Elevated power and narcissism both create a greater sense of optimism
and reduce the amount of influence environmental factors have upon
the individual's decision making (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006; Farwell
& Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998; Galinsky et al., 2008). Power may not inher-
ently corrupt, but reduces the strength of the situational influence and
allows the individual to focus more on his or her own opinion and
self-serving desires through the activation of the behavioral approach
system which is also consistent with narcissism (Galinsky et al., 2008).
Power impacts the cognitive decision making process (Keltner et al.,
2003) as does narcissism, which reveals motivational factors that are
often viewed as cognitive processes (Campbell, Bonacci et al., 2004;
Campbell, Goodie et al., 2004). The narcissist self-conception becomes
a part of his or her motivational system, which includes goals of being
better than others, power, and having their selfish needs met (Morf &
Rhodewalt, 2001). Narcissism creates a focus on an individual's self-
view, and how a person maintains that view, and what a person will
do to maintain it, becomes increasingly important.
.36⁎⁎⁎
Chen et al. (2001) found that the orientation of an individual moder-
.13 ated the behavior for a high power individual: exchange-oriented indi-
viduals in an elevated state of power acted in a self-serving manner,
.30⁎⁎⁎ while communally-oriented individuals acted in a more socially respon-
.09
sible manner. The traditional definition for narcissism appears to be
.18 similar to that of exchange-orientation, with both focusing on promot-
.23⁎ ing one's self-interests. Non-narcissists appear to be more closely relat-
.07 ed to communally-oriented individuals with both focusing on overall
.14 benefits for others. Power is also thought to strengthen the correspon-
dence between traits and expression as Chen et al. (2001) found that
the possession of high power leads individuals who were communally
oriented to demonstrate greater generosity while exchange-oriented
individuals engage in more self-serving behaviors when they have
power. This same link to strengthening traits and expression was not
found in low-power situations.
As power has been shown to enhance behaviors in specific environ-
ments we hypothesize that elevated power will increase the behavioral
outcomes of narcissism. We made two sets of hypotheses. First, there is
the additive hypothesis (a.k.a., simultaneous main effect model):
Hypothesis 2. Narcissism and power will positively and additively predict
increases in overprecision (2a) overplacement (2b) and overestimation
(2c).
Next, there are the interaction hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3. Narcissism and power will interact such that under
conditions of high power relative to low power, the relationship between
narcissism and overprecision (3a) overplacement (3b) and overestimation
(3c) will be higher.
In Study 2, to measure narcissism and overconfidence we followed a
process similar to that used in the initial study. As the correlation be-
tween NPI-40 and NPI-13 in Study 1 was high, generally produces sim-
ilar results, and uses less attention on the part of participants, for the
remaining studies we used the shorter version of the narcissism test.
We induced power via a priming manipulation.
2.2.1. Method
2.2.1.1. Participants. For this study participants were solicited from
Amazon's Mechanical Turk website. Amazon's service allows re-
searchers to collect data online from a broad source of individuals,
which can provide a diverse sample (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling,
2011). To participate in the survey, individuals must have been
18 years of age or older and reside in the U.S. Individuals were compen-
sated $0.75 to participate in the survey. As the users on the Mechanical
Turk website earn compensation based on the number of activities they
complete, to insure that the participants spent enough time carefully
considering the activities and that the power manipulation was effec-
tive, a minimum response time was required. To develop the minimum
response time we took the average completion time for all surveys and
then eliminated those where the time were less than the mean minus 1
standard deviation. Additionally, each case was examined for complete
data and compliance with the manipulation exercise. There were 205
participants who completed the process. Of those completed 58 were
eliminated for not following directions in the power manipulation
(e.g. writing nonsense letter strings) and not meeting the time require-
ments. The final was sample of 147 participants (51% female, 80% Cau-
casian, 74% between the ages of 26 & 54).
2.2.1.2. Procedure. After completing a brief section of demographic infor-
mation, participants were asked to complete a 13-item NPI (Gentile
 L.A. Macenczak et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 113–122 117

et al., 2013). Following the NPI assessment, participants were primed
with either high or low power. Specifically, participants were asked to
recall and write about a situation in which they had or lacked power
over another individual or group (Galinsky et al., 2003). Participants in
the high-power condition described a situation where they controlled
another person or group, while the low-power condition participants
described a situation in which someone had power over them. Partici-
pants were randomly assigned to each condition (high power condition,
n = 78, low power condition, n = 69). As expected, individuals primed
to the high power condition had higher perceptions of power (M =
2.03) than those in the low power condition (M = 1.68), p b .01.
As in Study 1, participants were then told that they were going to
take a trivia test with 15 general knowledge questions. Participants
were then presented with the same questions and confidence intervals.
Following the trivia test, they were asked to estimate the number of
questions that they had answered correctly as well as the average num-
ber of questions that other participants had answered correctly.
2.2.2. Results
Descriptive statistics for the NPI-13 scores were M = 2.90, SD =
2.96. The average confidence level was 77%, the average level of
overprecision was .12, the average level of overplacement was −.07,
and the average level of overestimation was − 1.99. Consistent with
the results found in Study 1, narcissism was found to be a significant
predictor of each type of overconfidence (Table 3).
In Step 2 of the model, we entered power to test the additive model,
and found that narcissism and power predicted both overprecision
and overestimation but not overplacement, fairly consistent with
Hypothesis 2. In Step 3 we entered the interaction term and found, in-
consistent with Hypothesis 3, there is not significant interaction be-
tween narcissism and power (Aiken & West, 1991).
post hoc analysis, we coded NPI scores +1 standard deviation as high,
and the remaining lower scores as low.
Using this method that overweights high narcissism scores, we uti-
lized a 2-way ANOVA to examine the interaction effect and found re-
sults consistent with Hypothesis 3. There was significant interaction
between power and narcissism for overprecision, F(1,143) = 4.42,
p = .04, R2 = .13, and overestimation, F(1,143) = 6.66, p = .01, R2 =
.14. No interactive effect was found for overplacement, F(1,142) = .98,
p = .32.
While this exploratory process gave an indication that there maybe
an interaction at the high levels of narcissism, the process used to
group the data also led to unequal cell sizes. Since this issue limited
our ability to rely on the results, we also decided to explore the data
using quartiles, which we believed would offer a view of the effects at
different levels of narcissism. The narcissism scores were divided into
quartiles and examined utilizing a 2-way ANOVA. Results showed that
there was no overall interaction effect between narcissism and power;
however, in reviewing the results from a Bonferroni test, an interaction
was detected at the highest quartile for overprecision (p b .01) and over-
estimation (p = .01), similar to the prior analyses.
2.2.4. Summary
We replicated the findings of Study 1. We found support for an addi-
tive model of narcissism and power in predicting overconfidence. How-
ever, support for an interaction model was only found when we
conducted exploratory analyses that overweighted high narcissism
scores. Given our exploratory results – and the important need to repli-
cate all findings – we conducted a replication in using a different
sample.
2.3. Study 3

2.2.3. Post-hoc exploratory analysis
Since there is no defined point at which someone is considered high
in narcissism (Foster & Campbell, 2007) and past research has indicated
that the effects of narcissism grow as narcissism increases (ex. Campbell
& Campbell, 2009; Campbell, Goodie et al., 2004; Chatterjee &
Hambrick, 2007), we performed an exploratory post hoc analysis to in-
vestigate whether an interaction between narcissism and power exists
only at elevated levels of narcissism. Past research has indicated that
the effects of narcissism can vary at high and low levels of narcissism
(Zuckerman & O'Loughlin, 2009) so we wanted to explore the possibil-
ity of an interaction at the high level of narcissism. Recent research has
shown that interaction effects are exceptionally challenging to find and
replicate without a high level of power (Ebersole et al., 2015). One way
to increase the power to detect an interaction is to overweight partici-
pants at the end of a continuum. To create the subset of data for the
In Study 3, we once again utilized the same model to examine the in-
teractive effects of narcissism and power. The sample for this study was
drawn from students at a major southeastern university. At the discre-
tion of the instructors, students were given extra course credit for par-
ticipating in the experiment. The purpose of this study was to validate
the results from the second study utilizing a different sample.
2.3.1. Method
2.3.1.1. Participants. A sample of 267 business students, (53% male, 67%
Caucasian, and 77% between the ages of 26–34), were recruited from
both undergraduate and graduate level classes at a major southeastern
university. Following a review of the cases, 10 were eliminated due
to incomplete data and not following the directions in the power
manipulation.

Table 3
Study 2 — narcissism influence on overconfidence.

Dependent variables

Variable Overprecision Overplacement Overestimation

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Predictor variables
NPI .32⁎⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎⁎ −.14 .30⁎⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎⁎ .16 .31⁎⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎⁎ −.10
Power .17⁎ .18⁎ .07 .07 .15⁎ .15⁎
Interaction term
NPI × Power .48 .14 .42
Model F 16.94⁎⁎⁎ 11.22⁎⁎⁎ 8.77⁎⁎⁎ 14.11⁎⁎⁎ 7.47⁎⁎ 5.05⁎⁎ 15.67⁎⁎⁎ 9.87⁎⁎⁎ 7.54⁎⁎⁎
R2 .11 .14 .16 .09 .10 .10 .10 .12 .14
Adj. R2 .10 .12 .14 .08 .08 .08 .09 .11 .12
Δ R2 .03⁎ .02 .01 .00 .02⁎ .02

Note: Standardized regression coefficients are reported.

⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎ p b .05.
118 L.A. Macenczak et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 113–122

2.3.1.2. Procedure. The same process utilized in the previous studies was
followed for this study with participants taking the NPI-13, primed for
either a high or low power condition (high power condition, n = 125,
low power condition, n = 132), and taking a test with fifteen general
knowledge questions.
2.3.2. Results
Descriptive statistics for the NPI-13 scores were M = 4.57, SD =
2.79. The average confidence level was 74%, the average level of
overprecision was .13, the average level of overplacement was −.56,
and the average level of overestimation was − 1.54. Consistent with
the results from Studies 1 & 2, narcissism was found to be a significant
predictor of each type of overconfidence (see Table 4).
In Step 2 of the model, we entered power to test the additive model,
and found that narcissism and power both predicted all three types of
overconfidence, consistent with Hypothesis 2. In Step 3 we entered
the interaction term and found, inconsistent with Hypothesis 3, no sig-
nificant interaction between narcissism and power (Aiken & West,
1991).
2.3.3. Post-hoc analysis: replication
To examine whether the interaction effect between power and nar-
cissism exists only at elevated levels of narcissism, we followed the
same process utilized in Study 2. NPI scores + 1 standard deviation
were scored as high, and the remaining lower scores as low.
Using this method, we utilized a 2-way ANOVA to examine the
interaction effect and found results consistent with Hypothesis 3.
There was significant interaction between power and narcissism for
all three types of overconfidence (Overprecision, F(1,253) = 3.85,
p = .05; Overplacement, F(1,253) = 3.93, p = .05; Overestimation,
F(1,253) = 5.94, p = .02).
We also used the secondary exploratory process utilizing quartiles to
examine the results. Results showed that there was no overall interac-
tion effect between narcissism and power; however, in reviewing the
results from a Bonferroni test, an interaction was detected at the highest
quartile for overprecision (p b .01), overplacement (p = .01), and over-
estimation (p = .01), similar to the prior analyses.
2.4. Study 4
Since the post-hoc analyzes used in the previous studies indicated
that the interaction between narcissism and power is only seen at the
higher level of narcissism, we decided to test the model by focusing pri-
marily on people with high levels of narcissism. Since there is no ideal
way to look at extremes of distribution, the purpose of this study was
to validate the post-hoc results from the previous two studies utilizing
a sample focused on individuals with higher levels of narcissism.
2.4.1. Method
2.4.1.1. Participants. A sample of 310 individuals was recruited to partic-
ipate in the study using the Qualtrics online survey panel. In order to
qualify for participation, individuals were required to be within the
ages of 18 and 35, employed, and living in the U.S. Individuals were
compensated $7.50 for completing the survey. Utilizing the same pro-
cess as in Study 2, we developed a minimum response time for complet-
ed surveys, reviewed the cases for complete data, and insured that
directions were followed on the power manipulation. This process
eliminated 60 responses leaving a final sample of 250 individuals,
(64% female, 68% Caucasian, with a mean age of 28). This sample
contained more females at the higher levels of narcissism than
contained in the previous two studies. Otherwise, the demographics
were similar.
In order to insure that our sample contained a higher mean level of
narcissism than usual, we oversampled for narcissism by using the
single-item narcissism scale (SINS) to screen potential participants
(Konrath, Meier, & Bushman, 2014). The item asks, “To what extent do
you agree with this statement: “I am a narcissist.” (Note: the word “nar-
cissist” means egotistical, self-focused, and vain.).” Responses were
based on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 “not very true of me” to 7
“very true of me.” Only individuals responding at the level of 4 or higher
were allowed to participate in the survey.
2.4.1.2. Procedure. The same process utilized in the previous studies was
followed for this study with participants taking the NPI-13, primed for
either a high or low power condition (high power condition, n = 125,
low power condition, n = 125), and taking a test with fifteen general
knowledge questions. As expected, individuals primed to the high
power condition had higher perceptions of power (M = 2.59) than
those in the low power condition (M = 2.34), p b .01.
2.4.2. Results
Descriptive statistics for the NPI-13 scores were M = 7.95, SD =
3.52. The average confidence level was 83%, the average level of
overprecision was .19, the average level of overplacement was 1.81,
and the average level of overestimation was 0.92. Consistent with the
results from Studies 1 & 2, narcissism was found to be a significant pre-
dictor of each type of overconfidence (see Table 5).
In Step 2 of the model, we entered power to test the additive model,
and found that narcissism and power both predicted all three types
of overconfidence, consistent with Hypothesis 2 (Overprecision,
Narcissism β = .14⁎, Power β = .14⁎; Overplacement, β = .34⁎⁎⁎,
Power β = .14⁎; Overestimation, (Narcissism β = .31⁎⁎⁎, Power β =
.14⁎). In Step 3 we entered the interaction term and found, consistent
with Hypothesis 3, significant interaction between narcissism and

Table 4
Study 3 — narcissism influence on overconfidence.

Dependent variables

Variable Overprecision Overplacement Overestimation

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Predictor variables
NPI .29⁎⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎⁎ .10 .27⁎⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎⁎ .08 .31⁎⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎⁎ .12
Power .17⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎ .13⁎ .13⁎ .12⁎ .12⁎
Interaction term
NPI × Power .20 .20 .20
Model F 22.93⁎⁎⁎ 15.90⁎⁎⁎ 11.0⁎⁎⁎ 20.05⁎⁎⁎ 12.69⁎⁎⁎ 8.87⁎⁎⁎ 26.22⁎⁎⁎ 15.41⁎⁎⁎ 10.66⁎⁎⁎
R2 .08 .11 .12 .07 .10 .10 .09 .11 .11
Adj. R2 .08 .10 .11 .07 .09 .08 .09 .10 .10
Δ R2 .03⁎⁎ .00 .02⁎ .00 .02⁎ .00

Note: Standardized regression coefficients are reported.

⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎ p b .05.
 L.A. Macenczak et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 113–122 119

Table 5
Study 4 – narcissism influence on overconfidence – focus on high narcissists.

Dependent variables

Variable Overprecision Overplacement Overestimation

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Predictor variables
NPI .14⁎ .14⁎ −.36 .34⁎⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎⁎ −.06 .31⁎⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎⁎ −.17
Power .14⁎ −.24 .14⁎ −.16 .14⁎ −.22
Interaction term
NPI × Power .65⁎⁎ .52⁎ .63⁎⁎
Model F 4.91⁎ 4.94⁎⁎ 5.80⁎⁎ 33.19⁎⁎⁎ 19.77⁎⁎⁎ 15.16⁎⁎ 26.56⁎⁎⁎ 16.36⁎⁎⁎ 13.65⁎⁎⁎
R2 .02 .04 .07 .12 .14 .16 .10 .12 .14
Adj. R2 .02 .03 .06 .01 .13 .15 .09 .11 .13
Δ R2 .02⁎ .03⁎⁎ .02⁎ .02⁎ .02⁎ .03⁎⁎

Note: Standardized regression coefficients are reported.

⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎ p b .05.

power (Overprecision β = .65⁎⁎, Overplacement β = .52⁎, Overestima-
tion β = .63⁎⁎) (Aiken & West, 1991). To illustrate the nature of this in-
teraction, separate regression lines were plotted for individuals +1SD
and −1SD around the mean on the narcissism measure following pro-
cedures by Aiken and West (1991). A plot of the relationship for both
subgroups is presented in Appendix A. Inspection of these figures docu-
ments that higher levels of overconfidence were consistently associated
with higher levels of narcissism, but this effect was enhanced for the
groups who were in a state of high power.
3. Discussion
Across four studies, we found evidence that (a) narcissism predicts
overconfidence, (b) the effect of narcissism and power together work
in an additive ways to predict overconfidence, and (c) when high
narcissism is overweighted (but not otherwise) there is an interactive
effect such that narcissism and power together lead to especially
elevated overconfidence. We examined the interaction issue by
overweighting narcissism in an exploratory way in Study 2, replicated
the process in Study 3. As we did not want to overinterpret the interac-
tive results from Studies 2 and 3 in which we focused on only parts of
the sample, we used a strategy in Study 4 to examine the same effect
by oversampling for high narcissists and using a standard regression
to test for interaction in a full sample. Because of this consistent pattern
of findings, we have confidence that the interaction between narcissism
and power is important and reliable.
3.1. Theoretical and empirical contributions
There are two main contributions of the current research. First we
looked at the joint influence of power and narcissism and how they
are related to overconfidence. As there are multiple methods to mea-
sure overconfidence, we operationalized the construct utilizing each.
Our current research has shown how both narcissism and power consis-
tently and additively predict specific types of overconfidence. These
findings help deepen our understanding of how the personality trait
of narcissism influences various aspects of decision making, specifically
in situations where the individual is in a state of power.
Second, we examined the moderating effect of power on the rela-
tionship between narcissism and overconfidence. It is plausible that
the inconsistent relationship between leadership and narcissism could
be better understood through the identification of moderators of the
impact of narcissism on leader behaviors and effectiveness (Campbell
et al., 2010). The results of the current study suggest that power could
be one such moderator. When narcissism is paired with power, there
is a heightened probability of risky decision making. The fact that they
explain different variance is interesting and not implied by the fact
that they both predict overconfidence individually. In this case, you
have two variables that predict an outcome and in an additive way.
An additive effect is not the only effect that could have happened. For
example, work on the dark triad often shows that the predictors account
for similar rather than additive variance. The effect in the current study
is additive and multiplicative at high levels. Either way, the combination
of narcissism and power will be potentially more problematic than ei-
ther predictor by itself.
As power exists in all organizations, leaders should be aware of the
effects and specifically, how states of power and the trait of narcissism
together can impact outcomes in an organization. Organizations should
insure that processes are in place to monitor and balance the decision
making of top managers to prevent the negative effects of overconfi-
dence from disrupting decision making. While there may be some situ-
ations in which overconfidence produces positive results, like the
beginning of a bull market, in general, when left unbalanced, managers
may believe that their decisions are more precise than they are in reality
and may overestimate their accuracy leading to poor organizational
outcomes.
The worst combination is high power and high narcissism with both
working additively and interactively to influence confidence in decision
making. Since those high in narcissism often seek high position of
power, this can make for a dangerous combination if left unchecked.
Past literature examining leaders has indicated that narcissists often
emerge as leaders in organizations (Brunell et al., 2008). A good exam-
ple of this would be the situation that occurred at Enron. There, many
leaders that were likely high in narcissism, made overly risky decisions
in which they had high degrees of confidence. Organizations should
have processes in place to monitor the decision making of top managers
to insure that those in power have proper processes in place to insure
that decisions are properly vetted.
3.2. Limitations
Although the current paper presents consistent findings across three
studies, it is not without its limitations. First, the participants were not
all managers within a business. To participate in the online panels, par-
ticipants were required to be employed, with 43% being in management
positions. In the student sample, participants were not required to be
employed but just meet a minimum age requirement. Even with these
very different samples of participants, we did find consistent results
across the sample, which gives us some confidence in the generalizabil-
ity of these findings.
Second, the experiments were conducted in an online or controlled
environment. To ascertain whether there is a possible impact to the or-
ganization, it would be interesting to test the model in a field study with
situations more specific to the individual's position. Our results indicate
120 L.A. Macenczak et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 113–122

that on a general type of exercise the different types of overconfidence Appendix A

are impacted by narcissism and power, but it is unknown whether the
impact would be seen when the decision is related to one's actual posi- Study 4 — Interaction effect of narcissism and power on
tion. As an individual's tenure, familiarity and knowledge of the issue overprecision.
and environment may also contribute to the individual's decision mak-
0.3
ing ability, utilizing a field study would greatly improve the ecological
validity of the outcome variable and test the actual impact of power 0.28
rather than utilizing a power prime. 0.26
Finally, this study utilizes a process whereby we measure the impact
0.24
of power and narcissism at a point in time. It is unclear as to the longer-

Overprecision
term impact of these factors on overconfidence. Additional research 0.22
would be required to examine how the influence of power and narcis- 0.2
sism evolve over time as it is possible there could be a learning process 0.18 Low Power
that mitigates overconfidence with experience. High Power
0.16
0.14
3.3. Future research
0.12
There are several possible avenues for future research into this topic. 0.1
First, it would be useful to confirm the ecological validity of this finding Low High
by studying decision making in organizations. One possibility would be Narcissism
to do diary research on a sample of organizational leaders to see if mo-
mentary fluctuations in power interacted with trait narcissism to pre-
dict specific decisions in the organizational context. Study 4 — Interaction effect of narcissism and power on
Second, gaining insight into strategies that would mitigate the nar- overplacement.
cissism and power to risky decision link would be an important step
to developing interventions. There are several possible mechanisms 4.5
that could be investigated. Increasing communal concerns in some con-
4
texts might be effective (Finkel, Campbell, Buffardi, Kumashiro, &
Rusbult, 2009). Likewise, increasing individual accountability for deci- 3.5
sion process and outcomes may increase attention to details and thus,
might reduce risk taking (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Mero & Motowidlo, 3
Overplacement

1995; Weigold & Schlenker, 1991). Finally, the decision making model
2.5
for managers is complex with many factors influencing outcomes
(Vroom, 2000). Narcissism and power may influence how managers 2 Low Power
identify the problem, choose a decision style, develop alternatives, or se- High Power
1.5
lect the best solution. The factors may also influence how the various sit-
uation factors (i.e. decision significance, importance of commitment, 1
leader expertise, etc.) influence the selection of the proper leadership
decision styles (i.e. decide, consult individually/group, facilitate, dele- 0.5
gate). Increasing our understanding or how these factors can influence
0
the decision making model may lead to a change in the model when Low High
narcissism and power is present.
Narcissism
Finally, future research could look for additional factors in addition
to narcissism and power that might further add to risk taking. One can-
didate would be ego involvement. In cases of high involvement risk tak- Study 4 — Interaction effect of narcissism and power on
ing may increase. Another candidate would be ego threat. It is plausible overestimation.
that under conditions on ego threat narcissistic individuals would show
greater risk taking. 2.5
States of power are present in all organizations and the effects of
power have been shown to impact most areas of the organization. 2
How individual traits, such as narcissism, influence individuals
1.5
when in positions of power is something that is important to how orga-
nizations perform in the future. This study has indicated that power and
Overestimation

1
narcissism work together to influence the different types of overconfi-
dence. Future studies should examine whether the additive and interac- 0.5
tive effects of power of narcissism would be present in other situations. Low Power
As narcissist have a desire for power, understanding how the narcissism 0 High Power
influences other areas of leader behavior would be beneficial.
-0.5

Data transparency -1

-1.5
The data reported in this manuscript has not been previously pub- Low High
lished and was collected for specific use in the current studies. Sources
Narcissism
for the data were Amazon's Mechanical Turk, Qualtrics User Panels,
and students at two different colleges/universities.
 L.A. Macenczak et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 113–122 121

Appendix B References
Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A.
1) What is the name of the mountain range in which Mount Everest is (2011). What does the narcissistic personality inventory really measure? Assessment,
18(1), 67–87.
located? Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
a) Alps Sage Publications, Incorporated.
b) Himalayas Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controlla-
bility of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1621–1630.
Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., & Vredenburg, D. S. (1995). Per-
2) Which person served as President of the United States first? sonal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality
a) Woodrow Wilson and Social Psychology, 68(5), 804–825.
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal
b) Theodore Roosevelt of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511–536.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of
3) Which has a larger land mass? Personality, 80(2), 313–344.
Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling:
a) Israel An automatic power → sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment
b) New Jersey and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 768–781.
Bogart, L. M., Benotsch, E. G., & Pavlovic, J. D. P. (2004). Feeling superior but threatened:
The relation of narcissism to social comparison. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
4) How many Supreme Court Justices are there?
26(1), 35–44.
a) 7 Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K.
b) 9 G. (2008). Leader emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1663–1676.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's mechanical turk a new
5) Which has a larger land mass? source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science,
a) Texas 6(1), 3–5.
b) Afghanistan Buss, D. M., & Chiodo, L. M. (1991). Narcissistic acts in everyday life. Journal of Personality,
59(2), 179–215.
Camerer, C., & Lovallo, D. (1999). Overconfidence and excess entry: An experimental ap-
6) Which river is longer? proach. The American Economic Review, 89(1), 306–318.
a) Mississippi Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77(6), 1254–1270.
b) Yangtze Campbell, W. K., & Campbell, S. M. (2009). On the self-regulatory dynamics created by the
particular benefits and costs of narcissism: A contextual reinforcement model and ex-
7) Which country has the highest average life expectancy? amination of leadership. Self and Identity, 8, 214–232.
Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J., & Bushman, B. (2004a). Psychological
a) Japan
entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure.
b) United States Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29–45.
Campbell, W. K., Goodie, A. S., & Foster, J. D. (2004b). Narcissism, confidence, and risk at-
8) What is the last name of the astronomer who published in 1543 his titude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(4), 297–311.
Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2010). Narcissism in or-
theory that the earth revolves around the sun? ganizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268–284.
a) Copernicus Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It's all about me: Narcissistic chief executive of-
b) Galileo ficers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 52(3), 351–386.
Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the
9) Based on the latest estimates, which country has the largest effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 173–187.
population? Clayson, D. E. (2005). Performance overconfidence: Metacognitive effects or misplaced
student expectations? Journal of Marketing Education, 27(2), 122–129.
a) Brazil Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment implications for health,
b) Indonesia education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69–106.
Ebersole, C. R., Atherton, O. E., Belanger, A. L., Skulborstad, H. M., Adams, R. B., Allen, J., &
Nosek, B. A. (2015, MarchN). Many labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the
10) Which animated Disney movie has generated the most revenue?
academic semester via replication. (Retrieved from osf.io/ct89g).
a) The Lion King Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the narcissistic personality
b) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 291–300.
Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52(1), 11–17.
11) How many member states are there in the European Union (EU)? Farwell, L., & Wohlwend-Lloyd, R. (1998). Narcissistic processes: Optimistic expectations,
a) 28 favorable self-evaluations, and self-enhancing attributions. Journal of Personality,
b) 32 66(1), 65–83.
Fast, N. J., & Chen, S. (2009). When the boss feels inadequate. Psychological Science, 20(11),
1406–1413.
12) Nairobi is the capital of what country? Fast, N. J., Gruenfeld, D. H., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Illusory control.
a) Ethiopia Psychological Science, 20(4), 502–508.
Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Power and overconfident
b) Kenya decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2),
249–260.
13) Based on the latest census data, which of these cities is larger, Dallas Finkel, E. J., Campbell, W. K., Buffardi, L. E., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. E. (2009). The
metamorphosis of narcissus: Communal activation promotes relationship commit-
or San Diego? ment among narcissists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(10), 1271–1284.
a) Dallas Foster, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2007). Are there such things as “narcissists” in social psy-
b) San Diego chology? A taxometric analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory. Personality
and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1321–1332.
Foster, J. D., & Trimm, R. F. (2008). On being eager and uninhibited: Narcissism and
14) What is the name of the organ that produces insulin in the human approach–avoidance motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7),
body? 1004–1017.
Foster, J. D., Reidy, D. E., Misra, T. A., & Goff, J. S. (2011). Narcissism and stock market
a) Pancreas
investing: Correlates and consequences of cocksure investing. Personality and
b) Spleen Individual Differences, 50(6), 816–821.
Freud, S. (1950). Libidinal types. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete
15) How many teams are there in the National Football League (NFL)? psychological works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. 21. (pp. 217–220). London: Hogarth
(Original Work Published in 1931).
a) 28 Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994). Narcissistic illusions in self-evaluations of
b) 32 intelligence and attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 143–155.
122 L.A. Macenczak et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 113–122
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453–466.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008).
Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity,
and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450–1466.
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.
Goethals, G. R., Messick, D. M., & Allison, S. T. (1991). The uniqueness bias: Studies
of constructive social comparison. In J. Suls, & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison:
Contemporary theory and research (pp. 149–176). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-
sociates, Inc.
Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2014). Narcissism
and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships.
Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 1–47.
Hakmiller, K. L. (1966). Threat as a determinant of downward comparison. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 32–39.
Inesi, M. E. (2010). Power and loss aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 112(1), 58–69.
John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differ-
ences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66(1), 206–219.
Johnson, D. D. (2004). Overconfidence and war: The havoc and glory of positive illusions.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1984). The neurotic organization. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Klayman, J., Soll, J. B., González-Vallejo, C., & Barlas, S. (1999). Overconfidence: It depends
on how, what, and whom you ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 79(3), 216–247.
Konrath, S., Meier, B. P., & Bushman, B. J. (2014). Development and validation of the single
item narcissism scale (SINS). PloS One, 9(8), e103469.
Larrick, R. P., Burson, K. A., & Soll, J. B. (2007). Social comparison and confidence: When
thinking you're better than average predicts overconfidence (and when it does
not). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 76–94.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability.
Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275.
Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. The
Journal of Finance, 60(6), 2661–2700.
Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1995). Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and
the favorability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 517–524.
Miller, J., Maples, J., Buffardi, L., Cai, H., Gentile, B., Kisbu-Sakarya, Y., ... Sedikides, C.
(2015a). Narcissism and United States' culture: The view from home and around the
world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Miller, J., McCain, J., Lynam, D. R., Few, L. R., Gentile, B., MacKillop, J., & Campbell, W. K.
(2014,). A comparison of the criterion validity of popular measures of narcissism
and narcissistic personality disorder via the use of expert ratings. Psychological
Assessment, 26(3), 958.
Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review,
115(2), 502–517.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic
self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177–196.
Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfi-
dence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1),
34–49.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1980). Norms of 300 general-information questions: Accuracy
of recall, latency of recall, and feeling-of-knowing ratings. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 19(3), 338–368.
Odean, T. (2002). Volume, volatility, price, and profit when all traders are above average.
The Journal of Finance, 53(6), 1887–1934.
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.
Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant leadership: Exploring execu-
tive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 565–596.
Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic person-
ality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902.
Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-side and
the dark-side of CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, trans-
formational leadership, and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6),
1365–1381.
Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
17(6), 617–633.
Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1992). Managing overconfidence. Sloan Management
Review, 33(2), 7–17.
Schaefer, P. S., Williams, C. C., Goodie, A. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2004). Overconfidence and
the big five. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(5), 473–480.
See, K. E., Morrison, E. W., Rothman, N. B., & Soll, J. B. (2011). The detrimental effects of
power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 272–285.
Soll, J. B., & Klayman, J. (2004). Overconfidence in interval estimates. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 299–314.
Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. USA:
Basic Books.
Taylor, S. E., Wayment, H. A., & Collins, M. A. (1993). Positive illusions and affect regula-
tion. In D. M. Wegner, & J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Handbook of mental control
(pp. 325–343). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the decision-making process. Organizational
Dynamics, 28(4), 82–94.
Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Smith, S. F., Miller, J. D., Campbell, W. K., Waldman, I. D., ...
Faschingbauer, T. J. (2013.). The double-edged sword of grandiose narcissism: Impli-
cations for successful and unsuccessful leadership among U.S. presidents.
Psychological Science, 24(12), 2379–2389.
Weigold, M. F., & Schlenker, B. R. (1991). Accountability and risk taking. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(1), 25–29.
Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological
Bulletin, 90(2), 245–271.
Zuckerman, M., & O'Loughlin, R. E. (2009). Narcissism and well-being: A longitudinal per-
spective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 957–972.