Narcissism

A Politico-Psychological Analysis

1 Study Characteristics

1.1 Items: Narcissism

Please indicate your level of agreement to the statements below:
Narcissism1: I find it easy to read, influence and even manipulate people
Narcissism2: Generally speaking, I am more capable than other people

Possible responses range from Strongly Agree (1) to Strongly Disagree (9).

Source:
ADAPTED FROM
Ames, D. R., Rose, P., and Anderson, C. P. (2013). The NPI-16 Subclinical narcissism. Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science. Retrieved from www.midss.ie

1.2 Samples

N=1500

To conduct a exploratory and a confirmatory large surveys during the general election, we hired a professional survey firm (SSI, a US-based market research company that recruits participants from a panel of 7,139,027 American citizens; more information can be found at www.surveysampling.com (now https://www.dynata.com/) to recruit a nationally representative sample of 1,500 Americans (50.7% women) who completed study materials during the general election from August 16-September 9, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). The age distribution was as follows: 18-24 (12.9%), 25-34 (17.6%), 35-44 (17.5%), 45-54 (19.5%), 55-65 (15.6%) and older than 65 (16.9%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (82.5%), Black/African American (7.7%), Latino (5.9%) and “Other” (4.0%). Concerning religion, 67.6% identified as Christian, 17.1% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 15.3% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to education 35.1% indicated “high school only or lower,” 31.4 % indicated “some college,” and 33.6% indicated having received a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. 2424 participants were directed to the survey,1885 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22%).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies. Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 385 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 1500 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 67 minutes on average (MD: 51min).

N=2119

Also through SSI we also recruited 2,119 American adults (21.5% women), who completed study materials from August 20-September 13, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). Age was distributed as follows: 18-24 (9.1%), 25-34 (13.8%), 35-44 (11.4%), 45-54 (2.7%), 55-65(3.6%), 65 and older (59.3%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (85.9%), Black/African American (5.1%), Latino (4.1%), and “Other” (5.0%). In terms of religion, 70.7% identified as Christian, 15.7% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 13.7% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to educational status, 16.2% chose “high school or lower,” 40.4% reported “some college” and 43.4% had attained a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. The median income category was $50,000-$74,999. 3425 participants were directed to the survey, 2,262 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22 %).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies (Meade & Craig, 2012). Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 543 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 2,119 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 92 minutes on average (MD: 57min).

2 Descriptives

2.1 Means, SD, Range, & SE

Table 1: Descriptives
Descriptives for Narcissism Items
vars n mean sd median min max range se
Narcissism1 1 1500 5.83 2.22 5 1 9 8 0.06
Narcissism2 2 1500 4.50 1.88 5 1 9 8 0.05
Mean 3 1500 5.16 1.61 5 1 9 8 0.04

2.2 Proportions

Figure 1: Proportion of each response categories for Narcissism Items

2.3 Distributions

Figure 2: Distribution of reponses for Narcissism Items

2.4 Correlations

Figure 3: Bivariate Spearmans’ correlations for Narcissism
Figure 4: Bivariate Spearmans’ correlations for Narcissism
Figure 5: Correlation Matrix of Narcissism items, Spearman’s rank correlations

3 Demographics

3.1 Social Class

Figure 6: Narcissismas grouped by SES


Figure 7: Raincloud Plots showing Narcissism grouped by Social Class


Note on the Raincloud Plots

  • Statistical summary (top): Welch’s t-test (or ANOVA) results, effect size, confidence intervals, p-values, and sample sizes are shown above each plot.
  • Bayesian analysis (bottom): Log Bayes factor and credible intervals are reported below each plot.


Table 2: Narcissism as grouped by SES
Narcissism as grouped by SES
SES N Mean SD
Poor 38 0.00 1.13
Lower Middle Class 298 0.04 1.10
Middle Middle Class 679 0.13 0.95
Upper Middle Class 395 -0.15 0.96
Rich 90 -0.42 0.91


3.2 Gender

Figure 8: Narcissismas grouped by Gender


Figure 9: Raincloud Plots showing Narcissism grouped by Gender


Table 3: Narcissism as grouped by Gender
Narcissism as grouped by Gender
Gender N Mean SD
Male 740 -0.18 0.98
Female 760 0.17 0.99

3.3 Age

Figure 10: Narcissism as grouped by Age


Figure 11: Raincloud Plots showing Narcissism grouped by Age


Table 4: Narcissism as grouped by Age
Narcissism as grouped by Age
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 193 -0.31 1.00
25-34 years 264 0.04 0.92
35-44 years 263 -0.09 1.08
45-54 years 292 0.12 1.09
55-64 years 234 0.20 0.89
65+ 254 -0.03 0.93

3.4 Education

Table 5: Narcissism as grouped by Education


Figure 12: Raincloud Plots showing Narcissism grouped by Education


Table 6: Narcissism as grouped by Education
Education N Mean SD
Less than High School 51 0.05 1.09
High School 475 0.06 1.05
Some College 471 0.11 0.99
Bachelor 310 -0.10 0.91
Graduate 193 -0.25 0.96


3.5 Income Levels

Figure 13: Narcissism as grouped by Income Levels


Figure 14: Raincloud Plots showing Narcissism grouped by Income Levels


Table 7: Narcissism as grouped by Income Levels
Narcissism as grouped by Income Levels
Income Levels N Mean SD
$150,000 + 95 -0.28 0.95
$100,000-$149,999 160 -0.28 1.02
Less than $15,000 178 -0.06 1.05
$75,000-$99,999 192 -0.03 0.94
$25,000-$34,999 176 0.04 1.02
$50,000-$74,999 292 0.08 1.01
$35,000-$49,999 227 0.09 0.94
$15,000-$24,999 180 0.21 0.99

3.6 Ethnicity

Figure 15: Narcissism as grouped by Ethnicity

Note on the Okabe-Ito color palette The Okabe-Ito color palette (seen above) is a set of colorblind-friendly categorical colors available in R. We are using this palette for graphs with non-ordered variables (e.g., groups, categories) for accessibility.

Figure 16: Raincloud Plots showing Narcissism grouped by Ethnicity


Table 8: Narcissism as grouped by Ethnicity
Narcissism as grouped by Ethnicity
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Caucasian/European origin 1237 0.01 1.02
Black/African American 115 0.06 0.94
Latino 88 -0.30 0.77
Asian/Pacific Islander 29 -0.03 0.91
Native American 13 0.28 0.94
Other 18 0.07 1.01

3.7 Occupation

Figure 17: Narcissism as grouped by Occupation


Figure 18: Raincloud Plots showing Narcissism grouped by Occupation


Table 9: Narcissism as grouped by Occupation
Narcissism as grouped by Occupation
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 768 -0.09 0.98
Retired 268 0.11 0.90
Unemployed 146 0.08 1.04
Parent 104 0.13 1.08
Disabled 98 0.26 1.21
Student 85 -0.23 0.91
Full-time caregiver 31 0.24 0.92

3.8 Area

Figure 19: Narcissism as grouped by Area


Figure 20: Raincloud Plots showing Narcissism grouped by Area


Table 10: Narcissism as grouped by Area
Narcissism as grouped by Area
Area N Mean SD
Urban 955 -0.01 0.98
Rural 545 0.02 1.03


3.9 Religious Affiliation

Figure 21: Narcissism as grouped by Religious Affiliation


Figure 22: Raincloud Plots showing Narcissism grouped by Religious Affiliation


Table 11: Narcissism as grouped by Religion
Narcissism as grouped by Religious Affiliation
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Christian 1014 0.01 0.99
Jewish 52 0.01 1.03
Muslim 9 -0.27 1.27
Atheist/Agnostic 230 -0.10 1.05
No religion 195 0.06 0.99



4 Political Behavior

4.1 Political Orientation

Figure 23: Correlation Matrix - Political Orientation



Figure 24: Political Orientation



Table 12: Models of Political Orientation (SPRI) & Narcissism
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.31 5.18 – 5.43 <0.001 4.93 4.79 – 5.07 <0.001 5.48 5.35 – 5.61 <0.001 5.24 5.12 – 5.36 <0.001
Narcissism -0.04 -0.16 – 0.08 0.527 0.01 -0.13 – 0.15 0.875 -0.21 -0.34 – -0.08 0.002 -0.08 -0.20 – 0.04 0.207
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.000 / -0.000 0.000 / -0.001 0.006 / 0.006 0.001 / 0.000



Table 13: Models of Ideo_SP_JJ and SRPI_CM, and Narcissism Age + Inc + Religiosity + Edu
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.87 2.32 – 3.43 <0.001 2.30 1.70 – 2.90 <0.001 3.18 2.56 – 3.80 <0.001 2.78 2.25 – 3.32 <0.001
Narcissism -0.06 -0.13 – 0.01 0.078 -0.05 -0.12 – 0.03 0.212 -0.15 -0.23 – -0.07 <0.001 -0.09 -0.15 – -0.02 0.011
Age 0.24 0.17 – 0.31 <0.001 0.24 0.17 – 0.32 <0.001 0.27 0.19 – 0.34 <0.001 0.25 0.18 – 0.32 <0.001
Income 0.09 0.03 – 0.15 0.004 0.00 -0.06 – 0.07 0.906 0.13 0.06 – 0.20 <0.001 0.08 0.02 – 0.13 0.013
Religiosity 0.38 0.34 – 0.42 <0.001 0.50 0.46 – 0.54 <0.001 0.30 0.26 – 0.35 <0.001 0.39 0.36 – 0.43 <0.001
Education -0.15 -0.27 – -0.04 0.010 -0.19 -0.32 – -0.07 0.003 -0.00 -0.13 – 0.12 0.941 -0.12 -0.23 – -0.00 0.043
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.245 / 0.242 0.301 / 0.299 0.175 / 0.172 0.268 / 0.265

4.2 Religiosity



Figure 25: Religiosity



4.3 Religiosity & Political Orientation

Figure 26: Religiosity - Correlation Matrix



4.4 Candidate Preferences



Figure 27: Candidate Preferences



Table 14: Candidate Preferences (centered)
Candidate Preferences and Narcissism [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 -0.06 1.05
Hillary Clinton 371 0.06 0.87
Bernie Sanders 362 0.09 1.04
Ted Cruz 122 0.16 1.07
Jeb Bush 83 -0.16 0.77
Gary Johnson 68 -0.33 1.07
Rand Paul 44 -0.32 1.06



Table 15: Candidate Preferences (raw means)
Candidate Preferences and Narcissism [raw means]
Candidate Preferences N Mean SD Range
Donald Trump 444 -0.06 1.05 1-9
Hillary Clinton 371 0.06 0.87 1-9
Bernie Sanders 362 0.09 1.04 1-9
Ted Cruz 122 0.16 1.07 1-9
Jeb Bush 83 -0.16 0.77 1-9
Gary Johnson 68 -0.33 1.07 1-9
Rand Paul 44 -0.32 1.06 1-9



4.5 Party Preferences


Figure 28: Party Preferences



Table 16: Party Preferences (centered)
Party Preferences and Narcissism [centered]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Constitution Party 14 -0.43 0.96
Libertarian Party 100 -0.28 1.04
Tea Party 68 -0.18 1.03
Green Party 40 -0.09 1.03
Republican Party 508 -0.01 1.01
Don't know 90 0.00 1.04
Democratic Party 560 0.06 0.96
None 120 0.19 1.00



Table 17: Party Preferences (raw means)
Party Preferences and Narcissism [raw means]
Party Preferences N Mean SD Range
Constitution Party 14 -0.43 0.96 1-9
Libertarian Party 100 -0.28 1.04 1-9
Tea Party 68 -0.18 1.03 1-9
Green Party 40 -0.09 1.03 1-9
Republican Party 508 -0.01 1.01 1-9
Don't know 90 0.00 1.04 1-9
Democratic Party 560 0.06 0.96 1-9
None 120 0.19 1.00 1-9



4.6 Voting Preferences

Table 18: Voting Preferences
  2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters 2012 [Romney vs. Obama] 2008 [McCain vs. Obama]
Predictors Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 0.69 0.46 – 1.03 0.067 0.71 0.48 – 1.05 0.086 0.82 0.56 – 1.20 0.320 0.83 0.56 – 1.21 0.332
Narcissism 1.08 1.00 – 1.16 0.043 1.07 0.99 – 1.15 0.070 1.07 0.99 – 1.14 0.076 1.07 1.00 – 1.15 0.062
Observations 1103 1148 1236 1206
R2 Tjur 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.003



Figure 29: Logistic Regression, Narcissism & Voting Preferences

4.7 Party Identity



Figure 30: Party Identity



Figure 31: Party Identity and Voting



Table 19: Party Identity & Voting
Donald Trump Hilary Clinton
Strong Republican 282 7
Republican 166 24
Leaning Republican 58 7
Independent 17 16
Leaning Democrat 10 65
Democrat 27 129
Strong Democrat 4 323

4.8 Voting & Party Identity

Figure 32: Predicted, Voting & Party Identity



Table 20: Supporters
  2016 [Clinton vs. Trump] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters
Predictors Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 8.22 3.76 – 18.77 <0.001 8.02 3.83 – 17.44 <0.001
Party Identity (dichotomous) 0.01 0.00 – 0.01 <0.001
Party Identity (dichotomous) 1.11 0.96 – 1.28 0.161 1.08 0.94 – 1.24 0.278
Narcissism 0.01 0.00 – 0.01 <0.001
Observations 1103 1148
R2 Tjur 0.747 0.720



4.9 Likeability

4.10 Trump’s Likebility


Figure 33: Trump’s Likeability



4.11 Clinton’s Likebility


Figure 34: Clinton’s Likeability



4.12 Johnson’s Likeability


Figure 35: Johnson’s Likeability


5 Politico-Psychological correlates of Narcissism



5.1 Ideologies and Partisanship


Figure 36: Correlates of Narcissism



5.2 Populism, Nationalism, Nativism, and Patriotism


Figure 37: Correlates - Populism



5.3 Political Psychology


Figure 38: Correlates - Political Psychology



5.4 Social Justice Concerns, Empathy, and Prejudice


Figure 39: Correlates - Social Concerns



5.5 Values


Figure 40: Correlates - Values



5.6 Pot-Pourri


Figure 41: Correlates - Constructs



5.7 Positive and Negative correlates of Narcissism


Figure 42: Correlates - Positive & significant associations



Figure 43: Correlates - Negative & significant associations

5.8 Section Summary


Table 21: Table of models 1
  Narcissism Narcissism Narcissism Narcissism Narcissism
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.95 5.73 – 6.18 <0.001 5.05 4.75 – 5.35 <0.001 5.38 5.05 – 5.70 <0.001 6.16 5.78 – 6.54 <0.001 5.80 5.47 – 6.14 <0.001
Social Dominance Orientation -0.21 -0.27 – -0.16 <0.001
Right-Wing Authoritarianism 0.02 -0.03 – 0.08 0.439
System Justification -0.04 -0.10 – 0.02 0.177
Economic System Justification -0.21 -0.28 – -0.13 <0.001
Gender-specific System Justification -0.12 -0.18 – -0.06 <0.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.036 / 0.035 0.000 / -0.000 0.001 / 0.001 0.018 / 0.017 0.010 / 0.009


Table 22: Table of models 2
  Narcissism Narcissism Narcissism Narcissism Narcissism
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.68 5.28 – 6.08 <0.001 5.70 4.41 – 7.00 <0.001 5.38 5.05 – 5.70 <0.001 6.16 5.78 – 6.54 <0.001 5.80 5.47 – 6.14 <0.001
SDO7_Dominance -0.04 -0.18 – 0.09 0.536
SDO7_AntiEgal 0.01 -0.10 – 0.12 0.910
SDO7_Dominance:SDO7_AntiEgal -0.03 -0.06 – 0.00 0.094
RWA_Agression 0.02 -0.28 – 0.32 0.914
RWA_Conventionalism -0.10 -0.44 – 0.25 0.586
RWA_Submission -0.11 -0.49 – 0.28 0.586
RWA_Agression:RWA_Conventionalism -0.00 -0.06 – 0.06 0.979
RWA_Agression:RWA_Submission -0.02 -0.10 – 0.05 0.508
RWA_Conventionalism:RWA_Submission 0.03 -0.05 – 0.10 0.495
RWA_Agression:RWA_Conventionalism:RWA_Submission 0.00 -0.01 – 0.01 0.705
SJ_Gen -0.04 -0.10 – 0.02 0.177
SJ_Eco -0.21 -0.28 – -0.13 <0.001
SJ_Gender -0.12 -0.18 – -0.06 <0.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.038 / 0.037 0.013 / 0.009 0.001 / 0.001 0.018 / 0.017 0.010 / 0.009


Figure 44: Interaction with facets of SDO


Table 23: Linear Regression
Observations 1500
Dependent variable facet
Type OLS linear regression
F(1,1498) 55.42
R² 0.04
Adj. R² 0.04
Est. S.E. t val. p
(Intercept) 5.95 0.11 52.33 0.00
SDO -0.21 0.03 -7.44 0.00
Standard errors: OLS