Received: 4 July 2017

| Revised: 14 June 2018

| Accepted: 5 September 2018

DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12436

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Misperceiving grandiose narcissism as self‐esteem: Why

narcissists are well liked at zero acquaintance

Miranda Giacomin1 | Christian H. Jordan2

1
Department of Psychology, MacEwan
University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
2
Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier
University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Correspondence
Miranda Giacomin, Department of
Psychology, MacEwan University, 10700
104 Ave, Edmonton Alberta T5J 4S2,
Canada.
Email: miranda.giacomin@macewan.ca
Funding information
Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada
Abstract
Objective: We examine why people form positive first impressions of grandiose
narcissists, even though they can identify others’ narcissism. We test whether this
occurs because narcissists are perceived to have especially high self‐esteem, which
is socially valued.
Method: Across four studies, undergraduate perceivers viewed photographs of tar-
gets (for whom narcissism and self‐esteem were known) and rated perceptions of
their narcissism and self‐esteem, as well as how much they liked them.
Results: Perceivers rated more narcissistic targets to be higher in self‐esteem (even
compared to targets with equally high self‐esteem) and liked them more. Perceptions
of self‐esteem, moreover, mediated the effect of target narcissism on liking (Study
1). This effect disappeared when targets’ narcissism was made salient, suggesting
that trait narcissism is not inherently attractive (Study 2). Finally, path models re-
vealed a negative effect of perceptions of narcissism on liking that was suppressed by
a positive effect of perceptions of self‐esteem on liking (Study 3a), even for ratings
of people’s online dating profiles (Study 3b).
Conclusions: Positive initial impressions of narcissists may be driven by inflated
perceptions that they have high self‐esteem.

KEYWORDS
impression formation, narcissism, person perception, self‐esteem

1 | IN T RO D U C T ION
People can accurately perceive grandiose narcissism in oth-
ers based on minimal information (e.g., Giacomin & Rule,
2018; Holtzman, 2011; Holtzman & Strube, 2013; Naumann,
Vazire, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2009; Vazire, Naumann,
Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2008). They use cues associated with
grandiose narcissists’ physical appearance—such as stylish,
expensive clothing and neater, more organized appearance
(Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010; Vazire et al., 2008)—to
accurately perceive narcissism in others, yet still form pos-
itive first impressions of grandiose narcissists.1 People ini-
tially like narcissists more than less narcissistic individuals,
but over time like them less, as they become more hostile in
groups, neglectful in relationships, and exploitative as lead-
ers (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006; Paulhus, 1998; Wurst et
al., 2017). We investigate why people initially seem to over-
look others’ narcissism and form positive, yet misguided,
first impressions of narcissists. Across four studies, we ex-
amine whether grandiose narcissists make positive first im-
pressions, in part, because perceivers focus predominantly
on perceptions that narcissists have high self‐esteem rather
than their evident narcissism. Our studies, moreover, are rel-
atively novel in examining how targets’ personality along two
conceptually distinct dimensions (i.e., narcissism and self‐es-
teem) jointly determine the first impressions they make.

Journal of Personality. 2019;87:827–842. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jopy © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 827

828
|    GIACOMIN and JORDAN
1.1 | The role of self‐esteem in
perceptions of narcissism
Many factors contribute to narcissists’ initial popularity.
Narcissists display more dominance and self‐assuredness
than non‐narcissists; the positive impressions they convey
also depend on the extent to which they behave assertively
rather than aggressively in interactions (e.g., Back et al., 2010;
Küfner, Nestler, & Back, 2013; Leckelt, Küfner, Nestler, &
Back, 2015). These findings help identify behaviors that af-
fect impressions of narcissists, but people can perceive nar-
cissism without observing any behavior, based on physical
appearance alone. Although Back et al. (2010) observed that
narcissists’ clothing and hair increase their popularity, it is
not clear why these physical cues make narcissists more at-
tractive, especially given that people can accurately perceive
narcissism. We believe that people overestimate narcissists’
self‐esteem, a socially valued trait, which contributes to un-
duly positive impressions of narcissists. It is important to
understand how people form impressions of others based
on physical appearance, as this happens with increasing fre-
quency through popular dating apps (e.g., Tinder).
To accurately perceive others’ personality, perceivers
must be able to observe and validly utilize the personality‐
relevant cues displayed by others (Brunswik, 1956; Funder,
1995, 2012; Nestler & Back, 2013). This process, however,
is fallible. After watching short, videotaped introductions,
for example, perceivers based perceptions of targets’ self‐es-
teem on their vocal self‐assuredness, though this cue is not
validly related to their self‐esteem (Hirschmüller, Schmukle,
Krause, Back, & Egloff, 2018). Perceivers can also err if they
accurately perceive one attribute but use it to draw inappro-
priate inferences about other attributes. People hold lay theo-
ries about how personality traits covary and make inferences
about others based on proxy traits (Uleman, Adil Saribay,
& Gonzalez, 2008). People rely on perceptions of self‐es-
teem, for instance, to draw extensive inferences about others.
People like others whom they perceive to have higher self‐es-
teem and infer that they possess many positive qualities (e.g.,
extraversion, competence; Cameron, McGregor, & Kwang,
2013; Cameron, Stinson, Hoplock, Hole, & Schellenberg,
2016; Zeigler‐Hill & Besser, 2014; Zeigler‐Hill & Myers,
2009, 2011; Zeigler‐Hill, Besser, Myers, Southard, & Malkin,
2013). Because people associate high self‐esteem with desir-
able qualities, we expect them to like narcissists more to the
extent that they perceive them to have higher self‐esteem.
Granted, perceptions that narcissists have high self‐es-
teem are likely fairly accurate. Grandiose narcissists do, on
average, have higher self‐esteem than less narcissistic indi-
viduals (e.g., Bosson et al., 2008). Narcissism and self‐es-
teem, however, are conceptually distinct, and the association
between them is modest enough that people can overesti-
mate narcissists’ self‐esteem (average r ≈ 0.26; see Brown
& Zeigler‐Hill, 2004; Brummelman, Thomaes, & Sedikides,
2016). We expect that people will accurately perceive nar-
cissists to have higher self‐esteem than individuals low in
both narcissism and self‐esteem. We are interested, however,
in whether people also perceive narcissists to have higher
self‐esteem than individuals who are actually equally high
in self‐esteem but low in narcissism and consequently like
narcissists more.
1.2 | Overview
Across four studies, we examine whether people perceive
narcissists to have especially high self‐esteem, contributing
to favorable impressions of them. In Studies 1 and 2, we pre-
select targets with (a) high narcissism and self‐esteem, (b)
low narcissism but high self‐esteem, and (c) low narcissism
and self‐esteem. We expect perceivers to like narcissists
more than non‐narcissists, even those with equivalent self‐
esteem. Study 2 tests whether drawing perceivers’ attention
to targets’ narcissism makes narcissistic targets less likable.
If perceivers like narcissists more because they focus on per-
ceptions of self‐esteem and largely overlook their perceptions
of narcissism, then making targets’ narcissism salient should
make perceivers like narcissists less, suggesting that higher
narcissism does not make targets inherently more attractive.
Studies 3a and 3b examine the full range of narcissism and
self‐esteem and test whether perceptions of both self‐esteem
and narcissism mediate the effect of target narcissism on lik-
ing for smiling photographs (Study 3a) and online dating
profile photographs (Study 3b). We expect that perceptions
of narcissism actually decrease liking of narcissists but that
this effect is suppressed by a positive effect of perceptions
of self‐esteem on liking. Together, these studies can suggest
that narcissists make positive impressions at zero acquaint-
ance in part because people perceive them to have unduly
high self‐esteem and overlook their narcissism.
2 | STUDY 1
We first test whether perceptions of self‐esteem differ
as a function of narcissism even for targets with equiva-
lent levels of self‐esteem. We preselected targets with (a)
high self‐esteem/high narcissism, (b) high self‐esteem/
low narcissism, and (c) low self‐esteem/low narcissism.
(Few people are low self‐esteem/high narcissism, preclud-
ing their inclusion as targets.) We ensured the high self‐
esteem groups had equivalent mean levels of self‐esteem.
By comparing perceivers’ ratings of target groups, we can
determine whether perceptions of self‐esteem differ across
equally high self‐esteem targets as a function of narcissism.
We expect participants to perceive higher self‐esteem in
narcissists than less narcissistic individuals with equivalent
GIACOMIN and JORDAN
self‐esteem. We also expect perceivers to like narcissists
more, and for this effect to be mediated by perceptions of
self‐esteem rather than narcissism. Such results would sug-
gest perceivers rely on perceptions of self‐esteem when
forming impressions of narcissists and neglect perceptions
of narcissism.
We also explore the possibility that people like narcis-
sists more, despite recognizing their narcissism, because
they misunderstand the nature of narcissism. Narcissists
are more egoistic and less communal than less narcissis-
tic individuals (Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002).
Accordingly, we had perceivers rate targets on egoistic and
communal qualities. Perceivers may like narcissists more,
despite recognizing their narcissism, if they fail to recog-
nize that they are egoistic and less communal. Alternatively,
however, they may accurately perceive that narcissists are
egoistic and less communal, but nevertheless like them
anyway. This latter pattern of results would further suggest
that perceivers rely on perceptions of self‐esteem and ne-
glect perceptions of narcissism when forming first impres-
sions of others.
2.1 | Method
2.1.1 | Targets
Data from 47 undergraduates were collected to serve as
target stimuli for subsequent studies. They participated
in a study described to them as investigating a variety of
attitudes in exchange for partial course credit or $11.00
(CDN). Two photographs (one smiling, one with neutral
expression) were taken of each target above the waist
against a gray background. Thirty‐three undergraduates
(14 males; Mage = 22.21, SD = 3.91; 72% Caucasian, 16%
Middle Eastern, 9% Asian, 3% African American) con-
sented to have their photographs shown to future partici-
pants. There were no differences between targets who did
and did not consent on narcissism, self‐esteem, or demo-
graphic information.
Narcissism
Targets completed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
(NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988; α = 0.78), consisting of 40
TABLE 1 Study 1: Targets’ self‐reported self‐esteem and narcissism as a function of target type
Target type
High self‐esteem, high
Self‐reported personality narcissism
Self‐esteem 8.50 (0.40)a
Narcissism 21.00 (4.95)a
Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. Within each row, means sharing a common subscript are not significantly different at p < 0.05.
  
| 829
forced‐choice items, with one option more narcissistic than
the other. Narcissistic choices were summed to create a nar-
cissism score.
Self‐esteem
Targets completed the 10‐item Rosenberg Self‐Esteem
Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965; α = 0.78), indicating how
much they agree with each item (1 = strongly disagree,
9 = strongly agree). Items were averaged, with higher scores
indicating higher self‐esteem.2
Interview
Targets completed a videotaped interview, answering a series
of questions, which were transcribed verbatim (for details,
see the supplemental materials or Giacomin & Jordan, 2016).
The interview began with simple get‐to‐know‐you questions
(e.g., “What is your academic major?”) to make participants
comfortable and then got more personal (e.g., “Describe your
best attribute”).
2.1.2 | Target selection
We selected five high self‐esteem/high narcissism targets
(three females; Mage = 21.60, SD = 1.95), five high self‐es-
teem/low narcissism targets (five females; Mage = 20.80,
SD = 0.84), and five low self‐esteem/low narcissism tar-
gets (three females; Mage = 23.80, SD = 6.10), based on
tertile splits of the initial sample (see Table 1). We al-
lowed targets to vary naturalistically along all dimensions
other than self‐esteem and narcissism, though this created
a gender imbalance across target types. To alleviate con-
cerns that our results are due to target gender, we replicated
the analyses excluding male targets, and results remained
identical. Target gender also did not moderate any of the
results.
2.1.3 | Perceivers
We needed 116 perceivers to achieve 80% power to de-
tect a medium effect size in a mixed‐model ANOVA
(Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Undergraduates
(N = 128; 92 females; Mage = 18.84, SD = 5.70) participated
for partial course credit.
High self‐esteem, low Low self‐esteem, low
narcissism narcissism
8.20 (0.74)a 6.60 (0.27)b
9.20 (1.92)b 6.80 (3.03)b
830
|    GIACOMIN and JORDAN

2.1.4 | Procedure and materials 2.2.1 | Perceptions of self‐esteem

Perceivers rated the high self‐esteem/high narcissism, high Main effects of target type, F(2, 252) = 131.36, p < 0.001,
self‐esteem/low narcissism, and low self‐esteem/low narcis- 𝜂p2 = 0.51, and information condition, F(1, 126) = 8.06, p =
sism targets in random order. Perceivers viewed each target’s 0.005, 𝜂p2 = 0.06, were qualified by a significant interaction,
photograph (photograph‐only condition) or each target’s pho- F(2, 252) = 4.71, p = 0.010, 𝜂p2 = 0.04 (Table 3). Perceivers
tograph and interview transcript (photograph‐and‐transcript in both conditions rated high self‐esteem/high narcissism
condition). The latter condition was included to test whether targets higher in self‐esteem than high self‐esteem/low nar-
targets’ self‐descriptions affect perceptions beyond impres- cissism targets (all Fs ≥ 20.36, ps < 0.001), and they rated
sions conveyed by physical appearance alone. Perceivers both high self‐esteem groups higher in self‐esteem than
rated the questions “What do you think this person’s level of low self‐esteem/low narcissism targets (all Fs ≥ 22.28, ps
self‐esteem is?” (1 = very low, 9 = very high) and “How nar- < 0.001). Narcissistic targets were thus perceived to have
cissistic do you think this person is?” (1 = not at all narcis- higher self‐esteem.3
sistic, 9 = extremely narcissistic). They also rated how much
they would like the target (1 = not at all, 9 = very much) and
the likelihood they would be friends with the target (1 = not
2.2.2 | Perceptions of narcissism
at all likely, 9 = extremely likely); these ratings were com- There was a main effect of target type, F(2, 252) = 53.35,
bined to create a liking measure (α = 0.94). Lastly, perceivers p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.30, but not information condition, F(1, 126)
rated targets on five communal attributes (i.e., caring, help- = 1.76, p = 0.188, 𝜂p2 = 0.01, and a significant interaction,
ful, trustworthy, self‐sacrificing, compassionate; α = 0.89) F(2, 252) = 3.07, p = 0.048, 𝜂p2 = 0.02 (Table 3). Perceivers
and four egoistic attributes (i.e., manipulative, arrogant, self- rated high self‐esteem/high narcissism targets as more nar-
ish, attention seeking; α = 0.96; 1 = very low, 9 = very high). cissistic than high self‐esteem/low narcissism targets in the
photograph‐only condition, F(1, 66) = 22.09, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 =
0.25, but not in the photograph‐and‐transcript condition, F(1,
2.2 | Results
61) = 4.51, p = 0.038, 𝜂p2 = 0.07, and from low self‐esteem/
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and correlations low narcissism targets in both conditions (all Fs ≥ 45.08, ps
for study variables at the perceiver level. Each dependent < 0.001). They also rated high self‐esteem/low narcissism
variable was submitted to a 2 (information condition: targets as more narcissistic than low self‐esteem/low narcis-
photograph only, photograph and transcript) × 3 (target sism targets (all Fs ≥ 8.89, ps ≤ 0.004). Perceivers thus rec-
type: high self‐esteem/high narcissism, high self‐esteem/ ognized narcissists’ narcissism.4
low narcissism, low self‐esteem/low narcissism) mixed‐
model ANOVA. We follow up significant interactions
with simple effect tests within target type, corresponding
2.2.3 | Liking
to our primary predictions. All results are significant using There was a significant main effect of target type, F(2, 252)
a Bonferroni correction with Holm (1979) modification to = 40.65, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.24, but not information condition,
control experiment‐wise error. F(1, 126) = 0.13, p = 0.717, 𝜂p2 = 0.01, and no interaction,
F(2, 252) = 1.60, p = 0.204, 𝜂p2 = 0.01 (Table 3). Participants
liked high self‐esteem targets (both high self‐esteem/high
TABLE 2 Study 1: Descriptive statistics and correlations
narcissism and high self‐esteem/low narcissism targets) more
between primary dependent variables
than low self‐esteem/low narcissism targets (all Fs ≥ 15.07,
Perceptions ps < 0.001). Notably, they liked high self‐esteem/high nar-
cissism targets more than high self‐esteem/low narcissism
1 2 3 4 5
** **
targets, F(1, 126) = 36.59, p < 0.001. Thus, perceivers liked
1. Self‐esteem –0.13 0.50 0.39 –0.24** narcissists more than less narcissistic individuals who are
2. Narcissism –0.19* –0.29** 0.73** equally high in self‐esteem.
**
3. Liking 0.54 –0.19*
4. Communal –0.27**
traits
2.2.4 | Perceptions of communal and
egoistic attributes
5. Egoistic
traits For ratings of communal attributes, there was no main ef-
M 5.69 3.40 5.30 6.10 3.27 fect of information condition, F(1, 126) = 0.03, p = 0.860,
SD 0.87 1.15 1.02 0.82 1.13 𝜂p2 = 0.00, but there was a main effect of target type, F(2,
* **
p < 0.05. p < 0.01. 252) = 17.85, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.12, which was qualified
GIACOMIN and JORDAN   
| 831

TABLE 3 Study 1: Ratings of the primary dependent variables as a function of target type and information condition

Target Type

High self‐esteem, high High self‐esteem, low Low self‐esteem, low

Personality ratings narcissism narcissism narcissism
Self‐esteem
Photograph only 6.03 (0.93)a 5.47 (1.05)b 4.96 (1.20)c
Photograph and transcript 6.49 (0.95)d 6.11 (0.79)e 5.14 (0.85)c
Narcissism
Photograph only 3.77 (1.32)a 3.18 (1.26)b 2.90 (1.14)c
Photograph and transcript 3.89 (1.35)a 3.67 (1.25)a 3.10 (1.21)c
Liking
Photograph only 5.56 (1.02)a 5.20 (1.18)b 5.01 (1.28)c
Photograph and transcript 5.77 (1.09)a 5.26 (1.04)b 4.95 (1.21)c
Communal traits
Photograph only 6.06 (0.88)a 6.42 (0.86)b 6.45 (0.91)b
Photograph and transcript 6.19 (0.93)a 6.34 (0.91)b 6.32 (0.93)ab
Egoistic traits
Photograph only 3.63 (1.30)a 3.30 (1.32)b 3.05 (1.22)c
Photograph and transcript 3.52 (1.25)a 3.29 (1.04)b 2.89 (1.13)c
Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. For each dependent variable, means sharing a common subscript are not significantly different at p < 0.05 within each row
and column.

by a significant interaction, F(2, 252) = 3.78, p = 0.024,

𝜂p2 = 0.03 (Table 3). Perceivers rated high self‐esteem/high
narcissism targets as less communal than the high self‐es-
teem/low narcissism targets in the photograph‐only con-
dition, F(1, 66) = 25.08, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.28, but not in
the photograph‐and‐transcript condition, F(1, 61) = 4.39,
p = 0.040, 𝜂p2 = 0.07. High self‐esteem/high narcissism tar-
gets were perceived as less communal than low self‐esteem/
low narcissism targets in the photograph‐only condition,
F(1, 66) = 29.57, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.31, but not in the photo-
graph‐and‐transcript condition, F(1, 60) = 2.94, p = 0.092, 𝜂p2
= 0.05. Perceptions of high self‐esteem/low narcissism tar-
gets and low self‐esteem/low narcissism targets did not differ
in either condition (Fs ≤ 0.29, ps ≥ 0.592).
For egoistic attributes, there was also a main effect of tar-
get type, F(2, 252) = 40.61, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.24, no main
effect of information condition, F(1, 126) = 0.22, p = 0.640,
𝜂p2 = 0.00, and no interaction, F(2, 252) = 0.71, p = 0.492,
𝜂p2 = 0.01 (Table 3). Perceivers in both conditions rated high
self‐esteem/high narcissism targets as more egoistic than
both high self‐esteem/low narcissism targets (all Fs ≥ 5.35,
ps ≤ 0.024) and low self‐esteem/low narcissism targets (all
Fs ≥ 33.91, ps ≤ 0.001). High self‐esteem/low narcissism tar-
gets were perceived to be more egoistic than low self‐esteem/
low narcissism targets in both conditions (all Fs ≥ 7.04, ps ≤
0.010). Thus, perceivers viewed narcissists as less communal
and more egoistic than those with high self‐esteem but low
narcissism.
2.2.5 | Mediation
To test whether perceptions of self‐esteem or narcissism me-
diate the effect of target type on liking, we conducted within‐
person mediation analyses (Judd, Kenny, & McClelland,
2001). We regressed change (i.e., difference scores across
target type) in liking on change in the mediator (i.e., percep-
tions of narcissism or self‐esteem) and mean values of the
mediator across target types, using two orthogonal contrasts:
We compared the two high self‐esteem target groups (high
self‐esteem/high narcissism and high self‐esteem/low narcis-
sism targets) to low self‐esteem/low narcissism targets (con-
trast: 1, 1, –2), and high self‐esteem/high narcissism targets
to high self‐esteem/low narcissism targets (contrast: 1, –1, 0).
For simplicity, we collapsed across information conditions.
We first test whether perceptions of self‐esteem mediated
the relation between target type and liking. For the overall
effect of target self‐esteem (contrast: 1, 1, –2), change in
perceptions of self‐esteem was associated with change in
liking, β = 0.25, t(124) = 2.94, p = 0.004, 95% confidence
interval (CI; all subsequent analyses refer to 95% interval)
[0.09, 0.45]. Furthermore, the constant was not significant,
b = 0.01, SE = 0.12, t(124) = 0.06, p = 0.956, CI [–0.23,
0.24], suggesting full mediation. For the effect of narcissism
among high self‐esteem targets (contrast: 1, –1, 0), changes
in perceptions of self‐esteem were also significantly related
to changes in liking, β = 0.33, t(124) = 3.89, p < 0.001, CI
[0.16, 0.49]. The constant was not significant, b = 0.16, SE
832
|    GIACOMIN and JORDAN
= 0.22, t(124) = 0.71, p = 0.482, CI [–0.29, 0.60]. Thus,
perceptions of self‐esteem mediate the effect of target type
on liking.
Next, we tested whether perceptions of narcissism medi-
ated the effect of target type on liking. For the overall effect
of target self‐esteem (contrast: 1, 1, –2), change in percep-
tions of narcissism was associated with change in liking, β
= –0.19, t(124) = –2.18, p = 0.031, CI [–0.32, –0.02], albeit
negatively, suggesting that increases in perceptions of narcis-
sism predicted less liking. The constant was, however, signif-
icant, b = 0.28, SE = 0.10, t(124) = 2.85, p = 0.005, CI [0.09,
0.47]. For the effect of narcissism among high self‐esteem
targets (contrast: 1, –1, 0), changes in perceptions of narcis-
sism were unrelated to changes in liking, β = –0.07, t(124)
= –0.82, p = 0.411, CI [–0.27, 0.11], and the constant was
significant, b = 0.90, SE = 0.19, t(124) = 4.87, p < 0.001, CI
[0.54, 1.27]. Thus, perceptions of narcissism do not mediate
the effect of target type on liking.
2.3 | Discussion
People overestimate how high narcissists’ self‐esteem actu-
ally is, relative to less narcissistic individuals with equally
high self‐esteem. Perceivers also liked narcissists more than
those high in self‐esteem but low in narcissism, even though
they accurately perceived them to be more narcissistic, less
communal, and more egoistic. Moreover, the extent to which
perceivers liked targets was mediated by perceptions of their
self‐esteem but not perceptions of narcissism. These results
suggest that narcissists are well liked because perceivers
focus on their apparently high self‐esteem (which is socially
valued) but largely disregard their high narcissism.
3 | ST U DY 2
In Study 2, we further test whether people like narcissists
because they focus predominantly on perceptions of high
self‐esteem and neglect perceptions of narcissism. If this is
so, then making targets’ narcissism salient should attenuate
the extent to which narcissists are well liked. Accordingly,
we manipulated whether perceivers were explicitly told
about targets’ self‐esteem and narcissism (see also Zeigler‐
Hill & Myers, 2009). Perceivers viewed the same targets as
in Study 1. We expected to replicate Study 1 when partici-
pants were not told about targets’ self‐esteem and narcis-
sism. In addition, we expected participants to continue to
like targets explicitly labeled as having high self‐esteem.
However, we expected perceivers to like narcissistic targets
less when made explicitly aware of targets’ narcissism be-
cause in this case perceivers cannot easily disregard targets’
narcissism.
3.1 | Method
3.1.1 | Participants
We needed 160 participants to achieve 80% power to detect
a medium effect size in a mixed‐model ANOVA (Faul et al.,
2007). Undergraduates (N = 194; 162 females; seven un-
disclosed; Mage = 18.82, SD = 2.67) participated for partial
course credit.
3.1.2 | Procedure
Participants viewed photographs of the 15 targets from Study
1. Participants were randomly assigned to receive information
about (a) targets’ self‐esteem level or not, and (b) targets’ nar-
cissism level or not. That is, some participants viewed targets
without any information about their narcissism or self‐esteem,
exactly as in Study 1. Other participants were told about tar-
gets’ self‐esteem, narcissism, or both. Self‐esteem and narcis-
sism were designated as “high” or “low” or were not listed.
This information was listed below the photograph along with
information on gender, hometown, and major, which was
included to make the presentation of self‐esteem and narcis-
sism information seem less unusual to participants. It might,
for example, indicate below a photograph: “Gender: Female,
Hometown: Waterloo, Major: Psychology, Self‐esteem: High,
Narcissism: Low” (see the Supplemental Materials).
3.1.3 | Dependent variables
For each target, participants rated self‐esteem, narcissism,
liking (α = 0.94), and communal (α = 0.89) and egoistic (α =
0.96) attributes, exactly as in Study 1.
3.2 | Results
Table 4 presents descriptive statistics and correlations for
study variables at the perceiver level. Each dependent vari-
able was submitted to a 3 (target type: high self‐esteem/high
narcissism, high self‐esteem/low narcissism, low self‐es-
teem/low narcissism) × 2 (self‐esteem information: speci-
fied, unspecified) × 2 (narcissism information: specified,
unspecified) mixed‐model ANOVA (Table 5). We decom-
pose significant interactions by comparing first across target
type and then within target type across information condi-
tions. We again use a modified Bonferroni correction (Holm,
1979).
3.2.1 | Perceptions of self‐esteem
For self‐esteem ratings, there were main effects of narcissism
information, F(1, 187) = 7.99, p = 0.005, 𝜂p2 = 0.04, and tar-
get type, F(2, 374) = 335.10, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.64, and a
GIACOMIN and JORDAN   
| 833

TABLE 4 Study 2: Descriptive statistics and correlations Across all information conditions, perceivers rated high
between primary dependent variables self‐esteem/high narcissism targets higher in narcissism than
Perceptions
high self‐esteem/low narcissism targets and low self‐esteem/
low narcissism targets (all Fs ≥ 17.50, ps < 0.001), replicat-
1 2 3 4 5 ing Study 1. Perceivers also rated high self‐esteem/low nar-
1. Self‐esteem 0.14†
0.56**
0. 41 **
0.03 cissism targets higher in narcissism than low self‐esteem/low
2. Narcissism –0.12 –0.29 **
0.69** narcissism targets when they were told about targets’ self‐es-
3. Liking 0.56 **
–0.16* teem but not narcissism, F(1, 47) = 35.05, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 =
4. Communal –0.31**
0.43, or both self‐esteem and narcissism, F(1, 47) = 5.43,
traits p = 0.024, 𝜂p2 = 0.10, but not when they were given no infor-
5. Egoistic mation, F(1, 47) = 3.35, p = 0.073, 𝜂p2 = 0.07, or told only
traits about targets’ narcissism, F(1, 46) = 1.28, p = 0.263, 𝜂p2 =
M 5.72 3.77 5.32 6.31 3.52 0.03. Thus, participants tended to track the information given
to them about targets’ narcissism.
SD 0.81 1.15 1.07 0.79 1.24
† * ** In addition, perceivers rated high self‐esteem/high narcis-
p < 0.06. p < 0.05. p < 0.01.
sism targets higher in narcissism when told about their nar-
cissism relative to when they were not, F(1, 190) = 93.05,
p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.33. Thus, participants attended to narcis-
significant Target Type × Self‐Esteem Information interac- sism information. Perceivers may also underestimate the
tion, F(2, 374) = 81.60, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.30 (Table 5). narcissism of highly narcissistic individuals when they lack
Replicating Study 1, perceivers rated high self‐esteem/ direct information about their narcissism. Conversely, per-
high narcissism targets higher in self‐esteem than high self‐ ceivers may interpret a label of “high” narcissism to indicate
esteem/low narcissism targets and low self‐esteem/low nar- a higher degree of narcissism than suggested by targets’ self‐
cissism targets, and rated high self‐esteem/low narcissism reported narcissism.
targets as higher in self‐esteem than low self‐esteem/low nar- Likewise, perceivers rated high self‐esteem/low narcis-
cissism targets, when perceivers were explicitly told targets’ sism targets lower in narcissism when they were told of their
self‐esteem level and when they were not (all Fs ≥ 12.71, narcissism relative to when they were not, F(1, 190) = 4.31,
ps ≤ 0.001). Perceivers were not oblivious to information p = 0.039, 𝜂p2 = 0.02. This suggests that perceivers may over-
about targets’ self‐esteem, however: They rated high self‐es- estimate the narcissism of high self‐esteem individuals who
teem/low narcissism targets higher in self‐esteem when they are low in narcissism when they lack direct information about
were explicitly told these targets had high self‐esteem rela- their narcissism. This pattern primarily occurred, however,
tive to when they were not, F(1, 190) = 23.73, p < 0.001, when participants were also informed of targets’ self‐esteem.
𝜂p2 = 0.11. They also rated low self‐esteem/low narcissism That is, when perceivers were told about targets’ self‐esteem,
targets lower in self‐esteem when they were told these indi- they rated high self‐esteem/low narcissism targets lower in
viduals had low self‐esteem relative to when they were not, narcissism if they were also told about their narcissism rela-
F(1,189) = 73.21, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.28. Information about tive to when they were not, F(1, 95) = 9.41, p = 0.003, 𝜂p2 =
self‐esteem did not affect perceptions of high self‐esteem/ 0.09. In contrast, information about targets’ narcissism did
high narcissism targets’ self‐esteem, F(1,190) = 1.46, p = not affect perceptions of low self‐esteem/low narcissism tar-
0.229, 𝜂p2 = 0.01. gets, F(1, 189) = 0.06, p = 0.806, 𝜂p2 = 0.00.
Lastly, perceivers rated high self‐esteem targets (high self‐
esteem/high narcissism and high self‐esteem/low narcissism
3.2.2 | Perceptions of narcissism
targets) higher in narcissism when they were told about their
For narcissism ratings, there were main effects of target self‐esteem, relative to when they were not, but only when
type, F(2, 374) = 258.42, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.58, and nar- targets’ narcissism was unspecified, (Fs ≥ 9.87, ps ≤ 0.002).
cissism information, F(1, 187) = 12.56, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = When given information about targets’ high self‐esteem, par-
0.06. There were also significant two‐way interactions ticipants may assume they are also more narcissistic, unless
between target type and self‐esteem information, F(2, specifically told otherwise.
374) = 5.01, p = 0.007, 𝜂p2 = 0.03, target type and narcis-
sism information,F(2, 374) = 76.59, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.29,
and self‐esteem information and narcissism information,
3.2.3 | Liking
F(1, 187) = 7.94, p = 0.005, 𝜂p2 = 0.04, as well as a signifi- There was a main effect of target type on liking, F(2, 374) =
cant three‐way interaction, F(2, 374) = 4.24, p = 0.015, 𝜂p2 12.86, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.06, that was qualified by an inter-
= 0.02 (Table 5). action between target type and narcissism information, F(2,
834
|    GIACOMIN and JORDAN

TABLE 5 Study 2: Ratings of the dependent variables as a function of target type, self‐esteem information, and narcissism information

Target type

High self‐esteem, High self‐esteem, Low self‐esteem,

Dependent variable Target narcissism status Target self‐esteem status high narcissism low narcissism low narcissism
Self‐esteem ratings Narcissism specified
Self‐esteem unspecified 6.82 (1.01)a 5.71 (1.12)b 5.25 (0.98)c
Self‐esteem specified 6.99 (0.92)a 6.64 (1.01)b 3.95 (1.42)c
Narcissism unspecified
Self‐esteem unspecified 6.41 (0.80)a 5.34 (0.99)b 5.03 (1.11)c
Self‐esteem specified 6.60 (1.21)a 6.33 (1.16)b 3.42 (1.10)c
Narcissism ratings Narcissism specified
Self‐esteem unspecified 6.41 (1.59)a 3.11 (1.52)b 3.00 (1.55)b
Self‐esteem specified 6.03 (1.57)a 3.11 (1.24)b 2.72 (1.29)c
Narcissism unspecified
Self‐esteem unspecified 3.59 (1.17)a 3.09 (1.26)b 2.84 (1.24)b
Self‐esteem specified 4.69 (1.45)a 4.05 (1.50)b 2.78 (1.24)c
Liking Narcissism specified
Self‐esteem unspecified 5.22 (1.30)a 5.57 (1.34)b 5.24 (1.25)a
Self‐esteem specified 5.24 (1.34)ab 5.48 (1.29)b 5.07 (1.22)a
Narcissism unspecified
Self‐esteem unspecified 5.84 (0.90)a 5.49 (1.29)b 5.24 (1.33)c
Self‐esteem specified 5.32 (1.10)a 5.28 (1.17)a 4.85 (1.12)c
Communal attributes Narcissism specified
Self‐esteem unspecified 5.46 (1.10)a 6.39 (1.01)b 6.29 (1.01)b
Self‐esteem specified 5.54 (1.01)a 6.42 (0.89)b 6.31 (1.00)b
Narcissism unspecified
Self‐esteem unspecified 6.33 (0.83)a 6.59 (0.85)b 6.49 (0.84)ab
Self‐esteem specified 5.82 (0.97)a 6.29 (0.90)b 6.47 (0.90)b
Egoistic attributes Narcissism specified
Self‐esteem unspecified 4.78 (1.54)a 3.37 (1.45)b 3.29 (1.49)b
Self‐esteem specified 4.74 (1.46)a 3.35 (1.35)b 2.96 (1.25)c
Narcissism unspecified
Self‐esteem unspecified 3.30 (1.20)a 2.97 (1.16)b 2.73 (1.08)c
Self‐esteem specified 4.19 (1.37)a 3.66 (1.41)b 3.05 (1.35)c
Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. For each dependent variable, across rows, means sharing a common subscript are not significantly different at p < 0.05.

374) = 6.74, p = 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.04 (Table 5). When perceiv-
ers were not told about targets’ narcissism, they liked high
self‐esteem/high narcissism targets more than high self‐es-
teem/low narcissism targets, F(1, 96) = 6.11, p = 0.015, 𝜂p2 =
0.06, and low self‐esteem/low narcissism targets, F(1, 94) =
26.18, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.22. This pattern was reversed, how-
ever, when perceivers were told about targets’ narcissism:
Perceivers liked high self‐esteem/high narcissism targets less
than high self‐esteem/low narcissism targets, F(1, 94) = 4.96,
p = 0.028, 𝜂p2 = 0.05, and to the same degree as low self‐es-
teem/low narcissism targets, F(1, 94) = 0.36, p = 0.548, 𝜂p2
= 0.00. Lastly, regardless of whether participants were told
about targets’ narcissism or not, they liked high self‐esteem/
low narcissism targets more than low self‐esteem/low narcis-
sism targets (Fs ≥ 13.10, ps < 0.001). When perceivers are
explicitly told that narcissists are high in narcissism, they like
them less, suggesting that perceptions of higher narcissism do
not necessarily make individuals more attractive.
3.2.4 | Perceptions of communal and
egoistic attributes
For ratings of communal attributes, there were main effects
of target type, F(2, 374) = 69.60, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.27, and
GIACOMIN and JORDAN
narcissism information, F(1, 187) = 4.99, p = 0.027, 𝜂p2 =
0.03, which were qualified by a Target Type × Narcissism
Information interaction, F(2, 374) = 10.52, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 =
0.05 (Table 5). Whether perceivers were told about targets’
narcissism or not, they rated high self‐esteem/high narcissism
targets as less communal than high self‐esteem/low narcis-
sism targets and low self‐esteem/low narcissism targets (all
Fs ≥ 26.14, ps < 0.001). They also rated high self‐esteem/
high narcissism targets as even less communal when explic-
itly told about their narcissism compared to when they were
not explicitly told, F(1, 190) = 16.08, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.08.
For ratings of egoistic attributes, there were significant
main effects of target type, F(2, 374) = 142.63, p < 0.001,
𝜂p2 = 0.43, and narcissism information, F(1, 187) = 26.64,
p = 0.014, 𝜂p2 = 0.032, which were qualified by a significant
Target Type × Narcissism Information interaction, F(2, 374)
= 22.52, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.11 (Table 5).5 Whether narcis-
sism was specified or not, high narcissism/high self‐esteem
targets were rated as more egoistic than high self‐esteem/low
narcissism targets and low self‐esteem/low narcissism targets
(all Fs ≥ 26.39, ps < 0.001). High self‐esteem/low narcissism
targets were also rated as more egoistic than low self‐esteem/
low narcissism targets (all Fs ≥ 9.32, ps < 0.003). High self‐
esteem/high narcissism targets were also rated as more egois-
tic when perceivers were told about their narcissism relative to
when they were not, F(1, 190) = 24.68, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.12.
Narcissism information, in contrast, did not affect ratings of
egoistic attributes for non‐narcissistic targets (all Fs ≤ 1.54, ps
≥ 0.216). Participants, as in Study 1, had a clear idea of what it
means to be narcissistic in terms of egoistic attributes.
3.3 | Discussion
Replicating Study 1, when participants were not told about
targets’ narcissism, they accurately perceived narcissists to
be more narcissistic, less communal, and more egoistic than
non‐narcissistic targets, including those with equally high
self‐esteem. They also, however, overestimated narcissists’
self‐esteem and liked them more than high self‐esteem tar-
gets with lower narcissism. This pattern of liking, however,
was completely reversed when participants were explicitly
informed of targets’ narcissism. Perceivers continued to view
narcissists as more narcissistic, less communal, and more
egoistic than targets with high self‐esteem but low narcissism
(tendencies that were, in fact, accentuated), but they liked
them less. This reversal is consistent with our contention that
perceivers typically like narcissists at zero acquaintance be-
cause they focus on exaggerated perceptions of these targets’
high self‐esteem and neglect accurate perceptions of their nar-
cissism. It is possible that an explicit label of high narcissism
made participants less likely to report liking targets because
narcissism may be socially undesirable. Nevertheless, Study
  
| 835
2 suggests that people do not view narcissism as inherently
attractive or socially desirable when it is pointed out to them.
4 | STUDIES 3A AND 3B
Our focus on specific target types in Studies 1 and 2 allows
us to stringently test differences in perceptions of targets who
are equally high in self‐esteem but differ in narcissism, but it
also restricts the variability in target narcissism and self‐es-
teem. In Studies 3a and 3b, we present perceivers with targets
representing a broader range of self‐esteem and narcissism
using two new samples of targets. In Study 3a, we use a new
sample of undergraduate targets, and in Study 3b, we use
male Tinder dating profile photographs to further generalize
our findings to a meaningful context. Tinder is a mobile app
that helps people to meet and potentially form romantic re-
lationships. People view photos of other users and “swipe”
right to “like” a potential match or “swipe” left to ignore the
potential match. Thus, people make decisions about who
they are interested in pursuing romantically largely based on
physical appearance.
In both samples, we had perceivers rate targets’ self‐es-
teem and narcissism and report their liking of targets. Doing
so within a broader range of target narcissism and self‐esteem
helps ensure our results are not an artifact of examining only
specific types of targets, and it allows us to test a fully spec-
ified path model of our proposed mediation. Consistent with
earlier findings, we expect perceivers to accurately perceive
targets’ self‐esteem and narcissism and to like narcissistic tar-
gets more than less narcissistic targets. We expected percep-
tions of self‐esteem to mediate the effect of target narcissism
on liking. In contrast, we expected perceptions of narcissism
to reduce liking of targets. Such results would suggest that
liking of narcissists at zero acquaintance is driven primar-
ily by perceptions that they have high self‐esteem rather than
perceptions of their narcissism, even for actual online dating
profile photos.
4.1 | Method
4.1.1 | Targets
For Study 3a, we took smiling photographs of 34 new under-
graduate targets (nine males) who had completed the NPI (α
= 0.84) and RSES (α = 0.90).6 In Study 3b, we included only
male undergraduate targets (N = 20; Mage = 19.38, SD = 1.87)
who completed the NPI (α = 0.84) and the RSES (α = 0.86),
and provided researchers with their Tinder profile photograph.
4.1.2 | Perceivers
In Study 3a, undergraduates (N = 252; 175 females, one un-
disclosed; Mage = 18.55, SD = 1.32) participated for partial
836
|    GIACOMIN and JORDAN

course credit, with one participant excluded for invariant re- positively to perceived narcissism. In Study 3a, target self‐
sponding across items. In Study 3b, female undergraduates esteem related positively to perceived self‐esteem, though
who self‐identified as heterosexual (N = 225; Mage = 19.03, this was not significant in Study 3b. Interestingly, target self‐
SD = 2.68) participated for partial course credit.7 Sample size esteem related negatively to perceived narcissism; that is,
recommendations made by Westfall, Kenny, and Judd (2014) perceivers viewed high self‐esteem targets, overall, as less
suggest we should have 80% power to detect medium effect narcissistic. Target narcissism, however, related positively to
sizes. perceived self‐esteem, demonstrating that more narcissistic
targets are perceived to have higher self‐esteem even when
controlling their self‐reported self‐esteem. Next, we exam-
4.1.3 | Procedure and materials
ined direct effects of target narcissism and self‐esteem on
In Study 3a, perceivers viewed photographs of targets and liking. Target narcissism related positively to liking. Target
then rated their self‐esteem and narcissism, as well as how self‐esteem, somewhat surprisingly, related negatively to
much they liked them (α = 0.93), as in earlier studies. In liking in Study 3a but was positively related to liking in
Study 3b, perceivers viewed targets’ Tinder profile photo, Study 3b. Our final model predicted liking from target self‐
rated their self‐esteem (i.e., “This person is high in self‐es- esteem and narcissism as well as perceived self‐esteem and
teem”), rated their narcissism (i.e., “This person is narcis- narcissism (Figures 1 and 2).8 Perceived narcissism related
sistic”), and indicated whether they would want to meet negatively to liking, whereas perceived self‐esteem related
this person (i.e., “I would like to meet this person”) on
a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree).
TABLE 6 Studies 3a and 3b: Descriptive statistics and
correlations between primary dependent variables
4.2 | Results Perceptions
Table 6 presents descriptive statistics and correlations for
1 2 3
study variables at the perceiver level for Studies 3a and 3b.
1. Self‐esteem –0.002 0.44**
We conducted a series of cross‐classified analyses to test our
**
predictions. All scores were standardized to facilitate inter- 2. Narcissism 0.29 –0.24**
pretation. We examined direct effects of target narcissism and 3. Liking 0.44** 0.12**
self‐esteem on liking and indirect effects mediated through Study 3a M (SD) 5.57 (0.83) 3.69 (1.27) 5.33 (1.51)
perceptions of self‐esteem and narcissism (see Figure 1 for Study 3b M (SD) 4.55 (1.36) 3.58 (1.32) 3.64 (1.57)
Study 3a; Figure 2 for Study 3b). Note. Zero‐order correlations for Study 3a appear on top of the diagonal, and
First, we examined the relations between target self‐es- Study 3b correlations appear below the diagonal. Standard deviations are in
teem and narcissism and perceived self‐esteem and narcis- parentheses.
**
sism. As expected, in both samples, target narcissism related p < 0.01.

F I G U R E 1 Study 3a: Multilevel analyses investigating perceived self‐esteem and perceived narcissism as mediators between targets’ self‐
reported narcissism and self‐esteem and perceivers’ ratings of how much they like each target. Standardized betas and 95% confidence intervals (CI;
[lower limit, upper limit]) are presented.
GIACOMIN and JORDAN
F I G U R E 2 Study 3b: Multilevel analyses investigating perceived self‐esteem and perceived narcissism as mediators between targets’
self‐reported narcissism and self‐esteem and perceivers’ ratings of how much they would like to meet each target. Standardized betas and 95%
confidence intervals (CI; [lower limit, upper limit]) are presented
positively to liking, even with target self‐esteem and narcis-
sism controlled.
We examined a series of multilevel mediation models
using Monte Carlo simulation with 20,000 resamples. First,
we tested whether perceived narcissism mediates the relation
between target narcissism and liking. The indirect effect (IE)
was negative, Study 3a: IE = –0.012, CI [–0.016, –0.008],
and Study 3b: IE = –0.005, CI [–0.008, –0.003], suggesting
that perceivers like narcissistic targets less because they view
them as more narcissistic. Next, we tested whether perceived
self‐esteem mediates the relation between target narcissism
and liking. The indirect effect was positive, Study 3a: IE =
0.017, CI [0.009, 0.025], and Study 3b: IE = 0.045, CI [0.031,
0.059], suggesting that perceivers like narcissistic targets
more because they perceive them to have higher self‐esteem.
We also examined whether perceived self‐esteem medi-
ates the relation between target self‐esteem and liking. The
indirect effect was significant only in Study 3a, Study3a: IE
= 0.010, CI [0.002, 0.018], and Study 3b: IE = 0.010, CI
[–0.007, 0.025], indicating that perceivers like high self‐es-
teem targets more because they perceive them to have higher
self‐esteem. Finally, we tested whether perceived narcissism
mediates the link between target self‐esteem and liking. The
indirect effect was significant, Study 3a: IE = 0.011, CI
[0.007, 0.014], and Study 3b: IE = 0.004, CI [0.003, 0.007],
indicating that participants like high self‐esteem targets more
because they perceive them to be less narcissistic.
4.3 | Discussion
Studies 3a and 3b replicate and extend our findings, notably
to a psychologically meaningful context (i.e., online dating).
Perceivers relatively accurately perceived targets’ narcis-
sism and self‐esteem (though not as well through online
dating profiles). More narcissistic targets, moreover, were
  
| 837
perceived to have higher self‐esteem, even when their self‐
reported self‐esteem was controlled. In addition, perceivers
liked more narcissistic targets more overall. This total effect
occurred despite a negative effect of perceived narcissism on
liking because it was overshadowed by a positive effect of
perceived self‐esteem on liking. These two mediation paths
provide strong support for our contention that narcissists
are generally well liked at zero acquaintance because peo-
ple focus predominantly on their perceptions that narcissists
have high self‐esteem and neglect their perceptions that they
are narcissistic. Indeed, to the extent that they perceive them
to be more narcissistic, they like them less. Moreover, this
process occurred when heterosexual female perceivers rated
male online dating profile photos.
We also examined the processes that link targets’ self‐es-
teem to liking. In Study 3a, targets’ self‐esteem was posi-
tively associated with perceptions of self‐esteem, which were
in turn positively associated with liking. Targets’ self‐esteem
was negatively associated with perceptions of narcissism,
which were in turn negatively associated with liking. Thus,
higher self‐esteem targets were better liked because they
were perceived to be higher in self‐esteem and less narcis-
sistic. This overall pattern of results suggests that perceptions
of self‐esteem and narcissism are influential in leading high
self‐esteem individuals to be better liked at zero acquain-
tance. Surprisingly, however, perceivers liked higher self‐
esteem targets less overall, even when perceived narcissism
and self‐esteem were taken into account in Study 3a. It is
not clear why this is so. Presumably, observable cues asso-
ciated with self‐esteem, but not perceptions of self‐esteem
or narcissism, made high self‐esteem targets less likable. In
Study 3b, however, target self‐esteem was positively related
to liking overall. Further research is needed to establish how
self‐esteem relates to perceptions of narcissism and liking at
zero acquaintance.
838
|    GIACOMIN and JORDAN
5 | G EN E R A L D IS C U S S ION
Why do people initially like narcissists, even though they
can accurately perceive narcissism? Studies 1 and 2 dem-
onstrate that perceivers overestimate the self‐esteem of
narcissists: They view targets who are high in narcissism
and self‐esteem to have even higher self‐esteem than tar-
gets who are equally high in self‐reported self‐esteem but
less narcissistic. They also like narcissistic targets more
than high self‐esteem targets who are less narcissistic.
Greater liking of narcissistic targets was mediated by per-
ceptions of higher self‐esteem but not narcissism, for both
preselected targets and those representing a broad range
of narcissism and self‐esteem (Studies 1–3). Indeed, het-
erosexual female participants indicated greater interest in
meeting male targets who were more narcissistic, based on
their Tinder profile pictures, and this effect was mediated
by perceptions of self‐esteem (Study 3b). Perceptions of
greater narcissism were actually associated with less lik-
ing of targets, but this effect was suppressed by the posi-
tive effect of perceptions of self‐esteem on liking (Studies
3a and 3b). Together, these studies suggest that narcissists
are initially well liked because perceivers focus on percep-
tions that narcissists have especially high self‐esteem and
neglect perceptions of their narcissism, even for dating
profile pictures. Our studies thus identify a mechanism for
narcissists’ initial popularity: Narcissists are better liked
than less narcissistic individuals because they are per-
ceived to have higher self‐esteem (which is interpersonally
valued; Cameron et al., 2013; Zeigler‐Hill & Myers, 2009,
2011). We also demonstrate that perceivers like narcissis-
tic targets more than targets with equally high self‐esteem
who are less narcissistic.
Our results also suggest that perceivers are not nec-
essarily attracted to narcissism per se. The pattern of
greater liking of narcissists was reversed when perceivers
were explicitly told that narcissistic targets are high in
narcissism (Study 2). In this case, perceivers liked nar-
cissists less than targets who are high in self‐esteem but
low in narcissism. It is possible that perceivers construed
the label of “high” narcissism to indicate greater narcis-
sism than targets actually possessed, but, even so, the
results suggest that narcissism is not necessarily attrac-
tive. It is also possible that participants were reluctant to
admit liking a target explicitly labeled as narcissistic be-
cause doing so would be socially undesirable. Similarly,
when participants reported that some targets were more
narcissistic (though those targets were not explicitly la-
beled so by the researchers), they reported liking them
less (i.e., in Studies 3a and 3b), which might also be due
to reluctance to admit to liking more narcissistic individ-
uals. Nevertheless, the primary finding across all studies
works in opposition to this social desirability concern:
In each study, targets higher in self‐reported narcissism
were liked more than less narcissistic targets, despite the
fact that participants accurately perceived their narcis-
sism overall.
Perceivers also appear to understand what it means to be
narcissistic: They rated more narcissistic targets as more ego-
istic and less communal, in addition to being more narcissis-
tic (Studies 1–2). This suggests that narcissists’ popularity
reflects a relative neglect of perceptions of narcissism. As ob-
served in Studies 3a and 3b, perceptions of narcissism were
negatively related to liking. Perceptions of higher self‐esteem
were, however, associated with greater liking of narcissists,
which suppressed the negative effect of perceptions of nar-
cissism on liking.
5.1 | Why is narcissism associated with
perceptions of self‐esteem?
Our studies demonstrate that perceivers view narcissists
as having higher self‐esteem than less narcissistic targets
and that these perceptions lead people to like narcissists.
But why do perceivers view narcissists as having especially
high self‐esteem? One possibility is that perceivers draw
on perceptions of narcissism to infer higher self‐esteem in
targets. Perceivers may hold lay theories that narcissists
have exceptionally high self‐esteem, and so perceptions
of narcissism may lead them to infer higher self‐esteem
in targets (cf. Uleman et al., 2008). Though self‐esteem is
positively associated with narcissism, perceivers viewed
narcissistic targets as higher in self‐esteem, even when tar-
gets’ self‐reported self‐esteem was controlled. The effect
of target narcissism on perceptions of self‐esteem thus goes
beyond the empirical association between narcissism and
self‐esteem. It also seems unlikely that perceptions of nar-
cissism contribute to perceptions of self‐esteem and thus
liking, because perceptions of narcissism are, overall, nega-
tively related to liking (Studies 3a and 3b). Perceivers did
view narcissistic targets as having higher self‐esteem when
they were explicitly informed of targets’ levels of narcis-
sism (consistent with a lay theories account), but they also
viewed targets low in narcissism as having higher self‐es-
teem (Study 2).
Another possibility is that observable cues associated
with targets’ narcissism convey higher self‐esteem to per-
ceivers. Back and colleagues (2010, Study 4) observed
that narcissists are rated as more popular even when
perceivers view only their clothing and hairstyles. Thus,
even the style of narcissists’ clothes could suggest higher
self‐esteem to perceivers. Some cues associated with nar-
cissism are also associated with higher self‐esteem (e.g.,
attractiveness, neater appearance; Vazire et al., 2008).
Additional cues associated with narcissism—even those
not validly associated with self‐esteem—may enhance
GIACOMIN and JORDAN
perceptions of self‐esteem. It may be the case that cues
associated with narcissism are misconstrued as signs of
higher self‐esteem.
It is even possible that narcissists manipulate signals as-
sociated with self‐esteem in order to take advantage of the
status‐signalling properties of self‐esteem (Zeigler‐Hill et
al., 2013). Narcissists may present themselves in ways that
convey higher self‐esteem because higher self‐esteem is so-
cially valued and suggests higher status. The status‐signal-
ling model of self‐esteem notes the “inherent ambiguity of
many indicators of social value among humans” (Zeigler‐
Hill et al., 2013, p. 210), opening the possibility that peo-
ple may strategically present themselves as having higher
self‐esteem than they actually possess. Consistent with this
possibility, narcissists present themselves online in self‐flat-
tering ways (e.g., Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2008; Buffardi
& Campbell, 2008). Narcissists’ appearance and demeanor
may initially communicate to others that they have high self‐
esteem, higher than is warranted by even their private self‐
feelings. This may serve narcissists’ interpersonal goals.
Such strategic presentation may have contributed especially
to perceptions of their online dating profile pictures in Study
3b.
In some cases, perceivers might also perceive narcissists
more positively in order to meet their own interpersonal
goals. Previous research demonstrates that people’s moti-
vations influence how they perceive others (Gibson, 1979).
People may perceive narcissists primarily in terms of
higher self‐esteem rather than narcissism—and thus more
positively—in order to achieve their own goals (e.g., attain
status by association). Because narcissists tend to be more
popular initially (Back et al., 2010; Oltmanns, Friedman,
Fiedler, & Turkheimer, 2004; Vazire et al., 2008), people
may seek to associate with them. Narcissists do tend to
be more centrally located in social networks and display
more social connections than less narcissistic individu-
als (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008; Clifton, Turkheimer, &
Oltmanns, 2009). Attraction to narcissists may falter only
once perceivers begin to recognize narcissists’ less desir-
able qualities and, perhaps, the superficial nature of their
social connections.
TABLE 7 Supplemental Study: Perceptions of self‐esteem, narcissism, and liking as a function of target type
Target type
High self‐esteem, high
Perceptions n narcissism
Self‐esteem 67 6.08 (0.93)a
Narcissism 73 3.86 (1.44)a
Liking 76 5.74 (1.29)a
Note. Total N = 216; 41 males, two undisclosed; Mage = 18.99, SD = 3.35. n = number of perceivers per condition. Standard deviations are in parentheses. Across rows,
means sharing a common subscript are not significantly different at p < 0.05.
  
| 839
6 | LIM ITATIONS
These studies strongly suggest that people like narcissists
at zero acquaintance because they perceive them to have
especially high self‐esteem, but they are not without limita-
tions. In Studies 1–2, we preselected targets based on their
self‐reported self‐esteem and narcissism, which allowed us
to stringently test differences in perceptions between targets
who are high or low in narcissism but equally high in self‐es-
teem. This approach, however, restricted the range of self‐
esteem and narcissism represented by our targets. To allay
concerns about restriction of range and generalizability, in
Studies 3a and 3b, we tested a broader range of self‐esteem
and narcissism. We also employed a new sample of targets,
explored a psychologically meaningful context (i.e., Tinder
profile pictures), and replicated our key findings. Future re-
search should, however, examine perceptions of self‐esteem
and narcissism in samples that represent more of the popula-
tion than only undergraduates. It is possible that narcissism
conveys self‐esteem to a greater extent among young adults.
We also had insufficient numbers of targets to meaningfully
explore the observable cues perceivers use to judge targets’ per-
sonality. Future research should examine the cues that confound
observers’ impressions of self‐esteem and narcissism at zero ac-
quaintance and identify cues that may be associated with target
narcissism but convey self‐esteem to perceivers. Identifying
such cues could help reveal what aspects of appearance per-
ceivers attend to and what valid information they may overlook.
Lastly, in each study, perceivers were asked to concur-
rently judge targets’ self‐esteem, narcissism, and likability,
which may cause judgments to be more highly correlated
and influential in judgments of liking. This might occur, in
part, if participants feel pressure to report liking less those
individuals they perceive to be more narcissistic, or liking
more those they perceive to be higher in self‐esteem. To ad-
dress these concerns, we conducted a supplementary study in
which perceivers viewed photographs of the 15 targets from
Studies 1 and 2, and rated only their self‐esteem, narcissism,
or liking. Perceivers accurately perceived targets’ self‐esteem
and narcissism (both Fs ≥ 33.26, ps < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.34), con-
sistent with earlier findings (Table 7). Pertinently, they liked
High self‐esteem, low Low self‐esteem, low
narcissism narcissism
5.58 (1.04)b 5.16 (1.08)c
3.16 (1.26)b 3.08 (1.22)b
5.36 (1.33)b 5.08 (1.35)c
840
|    GIACOMIN and JORDAN
narcissistic targets more than targets who were high in self‐
esteem but low in narcissism, F(2, 150) = 28.71, p < 0.001,
𝜂p2 = 0.28. These findings suggest that our central results are
not a consequence of perceivers’ concurrently judging targets’
self‐esteem and narcissism, and reporting their own liking.
7 | IM P LICAT ION S A N D
CO NC LU S IO N S
People appear to like narcissists during initial encounters be-
cause they overestimate their self‐esteem and neglect their
narcissism. Highly positive first impressions of narcissists are
potentially problematic because narcissists tend to become
disliked over time (Campbell, 1999; Paulhus, 1998). This
dynamic may have important implications in a variety of do-
mains, such as politics and leadership. People report greater
willingness to vote for presidential candidates who they
perceive to have higher self‐esteem (Zeigler‐Hill & Myers,
2009). It may be that people perceive narcissists more through
the lens of high self‐esteem than narcissism, even when mak-
ing consequential decisions, like choosing whom to vote for.
Understanding why narcissists make positive first impres-
sions may also suggest ways to temper those impressions. This
may be desirable because people tend to dislike narcissists over
time. Study 2 suggests that making narcissism more salient to
perceivers might reverse the tendency to like them more than
less narcissistic individuals. Focusing people on the possibility
that others may be narcissistic in early dating encounters or
when hiring might lead them to form different preferences to-
ward others. Understanding the dynamics of how impressions
of others relate to those individuals’ narcissism may be import-
ant for ultimately allowing people to form first impressions
that they are more satisfied with over the long term. Similar
dynamics may govern first impressions of many individuals
with inconsistent personal qualities, such as being likable but
untrustworthy, charming but manipulative, or competent but
disagreeable. Some personal qualities may be associated with
clearer cues of likability than others and may suggest higher
self‐esteem while masking less desirable qualities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this ar-
ticle: Preparation of this manuscript was supported by Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
ENDNOTES
1
We focus here on grandiose narcissism rather than vulnerable narcissism
(Campbell & Foster, 2007). We refer to narcissists as shorthand for “in-
dividuals high in narcissism.”
2
Targets completed additional measures relevant to research questions ad-
dressed in Giacomin and Jordan (2016), which examined whether per-
ceptions of targets’ self‐esteem relate to targets’ implicit self‐esteem, and
did not consider how targets’ narcissism affects perceptions of self‐es-
teem or liking.
3
Although it does not qualify the effects of primary interest, the interac-
tion indicates that participants in the photograph‐and‐transcript condition
rated targets as higher in self‐esteem than those in the photograph‐only
condition in the two high self‐esteem target conditions (all Fs ≥ 8.14, ps
≤ 0.005), but not the low self‐esteem target condition, F(1, 126) = 0.95,
p = 0.331, 𝜂p2 = 0.01.
4
The interaction on perceptions of narcissism indicates that participants in
the photograph‐and‐transcript condition rated the high self‐esteem/low
narcissism targets, F(1, 127) = 4.14, p = 0.044, 𝜂p2 = 0.03—but not other
targets (all Fs ≤ 0.92, ps ≥ 0.679)—as higher in narcissism than did
participants in the photograph‐only condition. This interaction, however,
does not qualify the effects of target type, nor are the simple effects sig-
nificant with the modified Bonferroni correction.
5
There was also a Target Type × Self‐Esteem Information interaction,
F(2, 374) = 4.33, p = 0.014, 𝜂p2 = 0.02 (Table 5). Although none of
the simple effects were significant using the modified Bonferroni
correction, perceivers rated high self‐esteem/high narcissism targets
as marginally more egoistic when told about their self‐esteem rela-
tive to when they were not, F(1, 190) = 3.75, p = 0.054, 𝜂p2 = 0.02.
Ratings of high self‐esteem/low narcissism and low self‐esteem/
low narcissism targets were not affected by self‐esteem information
(all Fs ≤ 2.67, ps ≥ 0.104). In addition, there was an interaction
­between self‐esteem information and narcissism information that
did not qualify any of the findings, F(1, 187) = 4.79, p = 0.030,
𝜂p2 = 0.03. When perceivers were not told about targets’ self‐es-
teem, they perceived targets to be more egoistic when told about
their narcissism relative to when they were not, F(1, 93) = 10.83,
p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.40. However, when perceivers were told about tar-
gets’ self‐esteem, narcissism information did not affect perceptions
of egotism, F(1, 95) = 0.11, p = 0.741, 𝜂p2 = 0.00).
6
Targets completed additional measures relevant to research questions not
addressed here (see Giacomin & Jordan, 2016).
7
We limited Study 3b to heterosexual female perceivers and male targets to
avoid potential gender differences in perceptions of personality in online
dating contexts.
8
In Study 3a, targets also completed the Big Five Aspects Scale (DeYoung,
Quilty, & Peterson, 2007). The results of Study 3a are identical when
target extraversion is controlled.
ORCID
Miranda Giacomin http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5310-3765
R E F E R E NC E S
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2008). How extraverted
is honey.bunny77@ hotmail.de? Inferring personality from e‐mail
GIACOMIN and JORDAN
addresses. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1116–1122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.02.001
Back, M. J., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists
so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism‐popularity link
at zero‐acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98, 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016338
Bosson, J. K., Lakey, C. E., Campbell, W. K., Zeigler‐Hill, V., Jordan,
C. H., & Kernis, M. H. (2008). Untangling the links between nar-
cissism and self‐esteem: A theoretical and empirical review. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1415–1439. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00089.x
Brown, R. P., & Zeigler‐Hill, V. (2004). Narcissism and the non‐equiv-
alence of self‐esteem measures: A matter of dominance? Journal
of Research in Personality, 38, 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrp.2003.11.002
Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., & Sedikides, C. (2016). Separating
narcissism from self‐esteem. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 25, 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415619737
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of exper-
iments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social net-
working web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34,
1303–1314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208320061
Cameron, J. J., MacGregor, J. C. D., & Kwang, T. (2013). Self‐esteem
as an interpersonal signal. In V. Zeigler‐Hill (Ed.), Current issues
in self‐esteem research (pp. 145–162). New York, NY: Psychology
Press.
Cameron, J. J., Stinson, D. A., Hoplock, L., Hole, C., & Schellenberg,
J. (2016). The robust self‐esteem proxy: Impressions of self‐esteem
inform judgments of personality and social value. Self and Identity,
1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2016.1175373
Campbell, K. W. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1254–1270. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1254
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2007). The narcissistic self:
Background, an extended agency model, and ongoing controversies.
In C. Sedikides & S. Spencer (Eds.), Frontiers in social psychology:
The self (pp. 115–138). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Campbell, W. K., Rudich, 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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286007
Clifton, A., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2009). Personality disor-
der in social networks: Network position as a marker of interpersonal
dysfunction. Social Networks, 31, 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
socnet.2008.08.003
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between
facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power
3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, be-
havioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39,
175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Funder, D. C (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A re-
alistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.652
Funder, D. C (2012). Accurate personality judgment. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 177–182. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0963721412445309
  
| 841
Giacomin, M., & Jordan, C. H. (2016). How implicit self‐esteem affects
perceptions of self‐esteem at zero and non‐zero acquaintance. Self
& Identity, 15, 615–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2016.1
183516
Giacomin, M., & Rule, N. O. (2018). Eyebrows cue grandiose narcis-
sism. Journal of Personality. Advance Online Publication. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12396
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Hirschmüller, S., Schmukle, S. C., Krause, S., Back, M. D., & Egloff,
B. (2018). Accuracy of self‐esteem judgments at zero acquain-
tance. Journal of Personality, 86, 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jopy.12316
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test proce-
dure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4615733
Holtzman, N. S. (2011). Facing a psychopath: Detecting the Dark
Triad from emotionally‐neutral faces, using prototypes from the
Personality Faceaurus. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 648–
654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.09.002
Holtzman, N. S., & Strube, M. J. (2013). People with dark per-
sonalities tend to create a physically attractive veneer. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 461–467. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1948550612461284
Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Estimating
and testing mediation and moderation in within‐subject de-
signs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115–134. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.2.115
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abun-
dantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self and other
perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and con-
textual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762–776.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762
Küfner, A. C., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2013). The two pathways to
being an (un‐)popular narcissist. Journal of Personality, 81, 184–
195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00795.x
Leckelt, M., Küfner, A. C., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2015). Behavioral
processes underlying the decline of narcissists’ popularity over
time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 856–871.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000057
Naumann, L. P., Vazire, S., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2009).
Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1661–1671. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167209346309
Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2013). Applications and extensions of the
lens model to understand interpersonal judgments at zero acquain-
tance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 374–379.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413486148
Oltmanns, T. F., Friedman, J. N., Fiedler, E. R., & Turkheimer, E.
(2004). Perceptions of people with personality disorders based on
thin slices of behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 216–
229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00066-7
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptive-
ness of trait self‐enhancement: A mixed blessing. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197–1208. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1197
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal‐components analysis of the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its con-
struct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
890–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890
842
|    GIACOMIN and JORDAN

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self‐image. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Uleman, J. S., Adil Saribay, S., & Gonzalez, C. M. (2008). Spontaneous
inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual
Review of Psychology, 59, 329–360. https://doi.org/10.1146/an-
nurev.psych.59.103006.093707
Vazire, S., Naumann, L. P., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2008).
Portrait of a narcissist: Manifestations of narcissism in physical
appearance. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1439–1447.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.007
Westfall, J., Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (2014). Statistical power and
optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants re-
spond to samples of stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 143, 2020–2045. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000014
Wurst, S. N., Gerlach, T. M., Dufner, M., Rauthmann, J. F., Grosz, M. P.,
Küfner, A. C., & Back, M. D. (2017). Narcissism and romantic rela-
tionships: The differential impact of narcissistic admiration and ri-
valry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 280–306.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000113
Zeigler‐Hill, V., & Besser, A. (2014). Self‐esteem and evaluations of tar-
gets with ostensibly different levels of self‐worth. Self and Identity,
13, 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2013.770194
Zeigler‐Hill, V., Besser, A., Myers, E. M., Southard, A. C., & Malkin,
M. L. (2013). The status‐signaling property of self‐esteem: The role
of self‐reported self‐esteem and perceived self‐esteem in person-
ality judgments. Journal of Personality, 81, 209–220. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00790.x
Zeigler‐Hill, V., & Myers, E. M. (2009). Is high self‐esteem a path to the
White House? The implicit theory of self‐esteem and the willing-
ness to vote for presidential candidates. Personality and Individual
Differences, 46, 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.018
Zeigler‐Hill, V., & Myers, E. M. (2011). An implicit theory of self‐
esteem: The consequences of perceived self‐esteem for romantic
desirability. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 147–180. https://doi.
org/10.1177/147470491100900202
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found online in
the Supporting Information section at the end of the article.
Appendix S1
Appendix S2
Table S1
How to cite this article: Giacomin M, Jordan CH.
Misperceiving grandiose narcissism as self‐esteem:
Why narcissists are well liked at zero acquaintance.
Journal of Personality. 2019;87:827–842. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jopy.12436
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the
accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.