Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI)

Abstract

The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) stands as the preeminent, most extensively utilized self-report psychological instrument designed to assess narcissistic personality traits within non-clinical and subclinical populations. Originally formulated by Robert N. Raskin and Calvin S. Hall in 1979 and later psychometrically refined into its definitive 40-item forced-choice iteration by Raskin and Howard Terry in 1988, the NPI operationalizes the clinical conceptualization of narcissism introduced in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) into a continuous, multidimensional personality framework. The instrument comprises 40 dyadic items wherein respondents select between a narcissistic and a non-narcissistic self-referential statement, yielding a cumulative composite score ranging from 0 to 40 alongside profiles across seven distinct first-order facets: Authority, Self-Sufficiency, Superiority, Exhibitionism, Vanity, Entitlement, and Exploitativeness.

Psychometric evaluations spanning four decades have affirmed the instrument’s robust internal consistency for its total score (Cronbach’s alpha typically ranging between α = .80 and α = .86) and satisfactory test-retest reliability across multiple longitudinal intervals. However, structural equation modeling and exploratory factor analyses have triggered vibrant debate regarding its lower-order latent architecture, prompting prominent alternative structural solutions including Corry et al.’s two-factor paradigm and Ackerman et al.’s widely adopted three-factor model (Leadership/Authority, Grandiose Exhibitionism, and Entitlement/Exploitativeness). The NPI demonstrates substantial convergent validity with constructs of agentic extraversion, high global self-esteem, self-enhancement biases, and social dominance, alongside meaningful discriminant validity against neuroticism and clinical depression. This article provides an exhaustive examination of the NPI’s theoretical foundations, structural mechanics, psychometric parameters, scoring taxonomy, and clinical-empirical applications across contemporary psychological science.

Keywords

Narcissistic Personality Inventory, NPI, Narcissism, Grandiose Narcissism, Personality Assessment, Psychometrics, Self-Enhancement, Trait Measurement, Factor Structure, Social Dominance

Authors

The Narcissistic Personality Inventory was initially developed by Robert N. Raskin and Calvin S. Hall at the University of California, Santa Cruz (1979, 1981), and subsequently revised and standardized in collaboration with Howard Terry at the University of California, Berkeley (1988).

• Robert N. Raskin, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley; pioneering researcher in social and personality psychology focusing on egocentric cognitive structures, self-monitoring, and the operationalization of narcissistic behavior.
• Calvin S. Hall, Ph.D. (1909–1985) — Renowned American psychologist and dream theorist; emeritus professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz; celebrated for his foundational scholarship on cognitive theories of personality and the psychometric mapping of personal constructs.
• Howard Terry, Ph.D. — Quantitative psychologist and methodological consultant affiliated with the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research (IPAR) at the University of California, Berkeley; principal architect of the principal components factor analytic decomposition of the 40-item NPI.

Purpose

The primary objective guiding the creation of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory was to construct a psychometrically sound, objective measurement tool capable of evaluating individual differences in narcissistic traits within normal, non-clinical populations. Prior to the late 1970s, narcissism was predominantly conceptualized through classical psychoanalytic and psychiatric diagnostic lenses (e.g., Sigmund Freud, Heinz Kohut, Otto Kernberg), which viewed the construct almost exclusively as a severe, categorical personality pathology or a defensive, fragile ego configuration. The inclusion of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) as a formal Axis II diagnosis in the DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980) catalyzed the need for empirical instruments that could capture these behavioral criteria in continuous, dimensional research paradigms.

Raskin and Hall (1979) recognized that subclinical variants of narcissism exist along a continuous spectrum throughout the general population, manifesting not solely as severe psychiatric dysfunction, but frequently as an adaptive, agentic personality style characterized by assertiveness, social charm, high self-regard, and an appetite for leadership. Consequently, the NPI was designed to fulfill multiple theoretical and empirical purposes:

• Dimensionalizing Subclinical Narcissism: Providing a sensitive continuous scale that avoids the ceiling effects and diagnostic truncation inherent to clinical psychiatric interviews, thereby allowing personality and social psychologists to investigate the distribution, correlates, and behavioral manifestations of narcissistic tendencies across healthy cohorts.
• Empirical Operationalization of DSM-III Diagnostic Criteria: Translating the diagnostic hallmarks of pathological narcissism—grandiosity, preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, exhibitionism, exploitativeness, and entitlement—into quantified psychometric items that measure both functional and dysfunctional personality dynamics.
• Investigating Interpersonal and Group Dynamics: Offering a standardized metric to examine how individual differences in self-aggrandizement influence leader emergence, workplace aggression, romantic relationship commitment, response to negative feedback, and antisocial behavior.
• Distinguishing Grandiose from Vulnerable Modalities: Establishing a baseline for the “grandiose” or agentic variant of narcissism, enabling contemporary researchers to differentiate the overtly self-confident, extraverted narcissist from the hypersensitive, vulnerable, or covert narcissist commonly assessed via alternative measures such as the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS).

Psychological Construct

The core psychological construct measured by the NPI is grandiose narcissism, an organized constellation of cognitive, affective, motivational, and interpersonal traits revolving around an inflated, unrealistically positive self-concept, a relentless pursuit of social validation, and an underlying conviction of personal exceptionalism. Individuals scoring high on the NPI systematically engage in cognitive self-enhancement, overestimate their physical attractiveness, intellectual capabilities, and social power, and deploy strategic social maneuvers to maintain their dominant status. Rather than representing an undifferentiated monolith, Raskin and Terry (1988) identified seven distinct, intercorrelated theoretical facets that constitute the NPI’s multidimensional architecture:

1. Authority (Items: 1, 8, 10, 11, 12, 32, 33, 36)

The Authority facet reflects an individual’s self-perceived capacity for leadership, dominance, assertiveness, and psychological control over others. Individuals scoring high on this dimension view themselves as natural leaders (e.g., Item 36: “I am a born leader”), enjoy exercising institutional power, and feel comfortable directing groups. This dimension represents one of the most socially adaptive components of grandiose narcissism, correlating robustly with extraversion, social self-efficacy, risk tolerance, and occupational achievement.

2. Self-Sufficiency (Items: 17, 21, 22, 31, 34, 39)

Self-Sufficiency captures an assertive belief in one’s own total competence, autonomy, and independence from collective guidance or support. High scorers perceive themselves as singularly capable of navigating life’s challenges without external reliance (e.g., Item 22: “I rarely depend on anyone else to get things done”). While fostering resilience and initiative, extreme elevations on this facet can manifest as counter-dependency, resistance to constructive feedback, and an inability to seek social support during psychological crisis.

3. Superiority (Items: 4, 9, 26, 37, 40)

The Superiority facet encapsulates an unwavering conviction that one is fundamentally better, more gifted, and more extraordinary than the average population (e.g., Item 40: “I am an extraordinary person”). It reflects an aristocratic cognitive frame wherein the individual separates themselves from common social strata, seeking association exclusively with high-status individuals and prestigious institutions.

4. Exhibitionism (Items: 2, 3, 7, 20, 28, 30, 38)

Exhibitionism measures the active craving to be the focal point of interpersonal attention, public admiration, and dramatic notice (e.g., Item 7: “I like to be the center of attention”; Item 20: “I will usually show off if I get the chance”). High exhibitionism drives flamboyant self-presentation, expressive communication styles, theatrical social behavior, and sensationalism, serving as a primary behavioral engine to elicit continuous interpersonal applause.

5. Vanity (Items: 15, 19, 29)

Vanity represents an intense, excessive preoccupation with one’s physical appearance, bodily aesthetics, and somatic attractiveness (e.g., Item 19: “I like to look at my body”; Item 29: “I like to look at myself in the mirror”). Although consisting of only three items, this facet consistently isolates the body-centric, erotized dimension of self-absorption, predicting cosmetic investment, fitness obsession, and somatic self-monitoring.

6. Entitlement (Items: 5, 14, 18, 24, 25, 27)

Entitlement reflects a pervasive, unyielding expectation of special treatment, deference, and unearned privileges from the social environment (e.g., Item 25: “I will never be satisfied until I get all that I deserve”). Unlike the relatively adaptive facets of Authority and Self-Sufficiency, Entitlement is fundamentally maladaptive. It correlates strongly with interpersonal hostility, chronic resentment, explosive rage upon expectation violation, and toxic workplace dynamics.

7. Exploitativeness (Items: 6, 13, 16, 23, 35)

Exploitativeness assesses an individual’s willingness to strategically manipulate, deceive, and instrumentally utilize social relationships for personal gratification or upward mobility (e.g., Item 13: “I find it easy to manipulate people”; Item 35: “I can make anyone believe anything I want them to”). Coupled with Entitlement, this facet constitutes the “toxic core” of the construct, demonstrating strong alignment with the Dark Triad traits of Machiavellianism and subclinical psychopathy.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical conceptualization underlying the Narcissistic Personality Inventory represents a synthesis of classical psychoanalytic theory, psychodynamic ego psychology, and contemporary cognitive-social personality models.

The Psychoanalytic and Object Relations Foundation

The genesis of narcissism as an academic psychological construct traces to Sigmund Freud‘s (1914) seminal treatise, On Narcissism: An Introduction, which differentiated primary narcissism (an initial developmental state where the infant’s libido is directed toward the self) from secondary narcissism (the defensive withdrawal of libidinal energy from external object relationships back toward the ego). Decades later, psychoanalytic theoreticians bifurcated on the nature and pathogenesis of pathological narcissism:

• Heinz Kohut’s Self Psychology: Heinz Kohut (1971, 1977) postulated that narcissism reflects a developmental arrest resulting from chronic parental empathic failure. In Kohut’s framework, grandiosity and exhibitionism represent normal childhood needs for parental “mirroring.” If parents fail to validate the child’s grandiose self, the child remains frozen at this archaic stage, perpetually craving external admiration to prevent self-fragmentation.
• Otto Kernberg’s Structural Model: In contrast, Otto Kernberg (1975) viewed pathological narcissism not as arrested development, but as the emergence of a severely distorted, defensive psychic structure: the “grandiose self.” Formed to defend against deep-seated oral rage, envy, and abandonment fears, this grandiose self merges real self-representations, ideal self-images, and ideal object representations, driving overt contempt, entitlement, and exploitation of others.

The Cognitive-Social and Self-Regulatory Perspectives

While the NPI drew its initial content universe directly from the behavioral criteria formulated by DSM-III committee members steeped in Kernberg’s and Kohut’s vocabularies, modern personality psychology reframed these behaviors into a dynamic, cognitive-affective self-regulatory system. Notably, the Dynamic Self-Regulatory Processing Model of Narcissism articulated by Morf and Rhodewalt (2001) posits that the narcissistic self is an inherently unstable cognitive construction. Narcissists harbor paradoxical psychological profiles: an explicit, grandiose belief in their absolute supremacy coexisting with an insatiable, chronic vulnerability that demands incessant social validation.

Under this theoretical umbrella, narcissistic individuals deploy cognitive and behavioral strategies designed exclusively for self-enhancement rather than self-protection. When social reality confirms their grandiose claims, they experience transient hubristic pride and social euphoria; however, when social feedback contradicts their self-appraisal (narcissistic injury), their fragile equilibrium collapses, precipitating acute externalization of blame, derogatory appraisals of critics, and retaliatory aggression (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998).

Validity

The construct validity of the NPI has been extensively evaluated across thousands of published studies, establishing clear parameters regarding what the instrument predicts, what it correlates with, and where its conceptual boundaries lie.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity studies consistently reveal robust positive associations between total NPI scores and established indicators of agentic personality, psychological assertiveness, and cognitive self-enhancement:

• The Five-Factor Model (FFM): Meta-analyses (e.g., O’Boyle et al., 2015) demonstrate that the NPI correlates strongly and positively with Extraversion (specifically the assertiveness, excitement-seeking, and social dominance facets; r ≈ .35 to .45) and negatively with Agreeableness (particularly straightforwardness, altruism, and modesty; r ≈ -.25 to -.40). Its association with Conscientiousness is weakly positive or null, while its relationship with Openness to Experience is moderately positive (r ≈ .15 to .25).
• Self-Esteem: Total NPI scores demonstrate moderate-to-strong positive correlations with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (typically r = .40 to .55). However, research parsing implicit versus explicit self-esteem indicates that while high NPI scorers exhibit exceptionally elevated explicit self-worth, their implicit self-esteem (measured via Implicit Association Tests) is frequently fragile, brittle, or disparate from their conscious pronouncements (Bosson et al., 2008).
• Dark Triad Alignment: Within Paulhus and Williams’s (2002) Dark Triad taxonomy, the NPI exhibits moderate convergent associations with Machiavellianism (r ≈ .25 to .35) and subclinical psychopathy (r ≈ .30 to .50), unified primarily by the shared variance of the NPI’s Entitlement and Exploitativeness facets.

Discriminant Validity and the Grandiose vs. Vulnerable Dichotomy

The critical discriminant boundary of the NPI lies in its isolation of grandiose narcissism to the exclusion of vulnerable (or covert) narcissism. Systematic research by Miller, Campbell, and colleagues (2011) has highlighted that the total NPI score demonstrates virtually zero or even slightly negative correlations with Neuroticism, clinical depression, social anxiety, and generalized negative affectivity. In contrast, measures explicitly engineered to assess vulnerable narcissism—such as the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS) or the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI)—correlate heavily with emotional instability, shame-proneness, and internalized distress.

Consequently, psychometric scholars emphasize that the NPI does not capture the totality of narcissistic pathology seen in inpatient clinical settings, but rather indexes an emotionally resilient, extraverted, and interpersonally arrogant phenotype.

Predictive and Behavioral Validity

The NPI possesses exceptional predictive validity in lab-based experimental and field paradigms:

• Ego Threat and Aggression: In seminal experiments by Bushman and Baumeister (1998), individuals scoring high on the NPI exhibited severe, unprovoked physical aggression (administering intense blast noises) toward evaluators who insulted their intellectual output, confirming the theoretical link between narcissistic entitlement and aggressive externalization upon ego threat.
• Overclaiming and Cognitive Self-Enhancement: High NPI respondents systematically overclaim knowledge regarding non-existent historical events, fabricated literary titles, and spurious mathematical concepts, illustrating pervasive reality-distorting self-enhancement biases (Paulhus et al., 2003).
• Leadership Emergence: Across group dynamics research, high NPI scorers reliably emerge as leaders in unstructured groups due to their initial conversational charm, high expressive energy, and assertive vocal presence, despite longitudinal evaluations showing that their leadership effectiveness deteriorates over time as exploitative behaviors surface.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny across diverse demographic, cultural, and linguistic samples over several decades.

Internal Consistency

For the overall 40-item composite score, internal consistency estimates have proven consistently robust across non-clinical adult and collegiate populations. In their foundational validation study involving 1,018 university students, Raskin and Terry (1988) documented an overall Guttman split-half reliability coefficient of .80 and a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .83. Subsequent large-scale investigations, including cross-temporal meta-analyses (e.g., Twenge et al., 2008) and taxometric examinations across tens of thousands of participants (Foster & Campbell, 2007), have reported total scale Cronbach’s alphas uniformly clustering between α = .82 and α = .86.

However, the internal consistencies of the seven original first-order subscales derived by Raskin and Terry are notably heterogeneous, heavily influenced by brief subscale lengths and the mathematical constraints of dichotomous, forced-choice item construction:

• Authority (8 items): α = .73 to .78 (Satisfactory reliability for research use)
• Self-Sufficiency (6 items): α = .63 to .66 (Marginal reliability)
• Superiority (5 items): α = .54 to .58 (Low internal consistency)
• Exhibitionism (7 items): α = .61 to .69 (Moderate reliability)
• Vanity (3 items): α = .60 to .67 (Moderate reliability given only 3 items)
• Entitlement (6 items): α = .47 to .52 (Unacceptably low internal consistency across multiple independent replications)
• Exploitativeness (5 items): α = .52 to .58 (Marginal to low reliability)

Because several first-order subscales demonstrate sub-threshold reliability coefficients (α < .70), psychometricians strongly caution against utilizing individual subscales (particularly Entitlement and Superiority) in isolation without aggregating them or transitioning to contemporary structural models.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability estimates indicate that the NPI measures a stable, trait-like personality configuration rather than fluctuating mood states. Raskin and Hall (1981) reported an alternate-form reliability coefficient of .72 over an eight-week interval. Delroy Paulhus and colleagues demonstrated test-retest correlation coefficients exceeding r = .81 over a four-week period and maintaining r = .70 across a full academic year, establishing that individual standing on the NPI remains remarkably durable throughout adult development.

Factor Analysis

The latent dimensionality of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory represents one of the most vigorously debated topics in quantitative personality assessment. The original factor analytical procedures conducted by Raskin and Terry (1988) utilized Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation on the tetrachoric correlation matrix derived from 1,018 respondents. This analysis extracted seven first-order components with eigenvalues exceeding 1.0, accounting for 31.0% of the total variance, accompanied by a dominant general factor accounting for 18.2% of the common variance, which the authors argued justified calculating a single composite score.

Replication Failures and Structural Criticisms

Subsequent psychometricians utilizing modern Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have frequently failed to replicate the original seven-factor model. Standard goodness-of-fit indices for Raskin and Terry’s 7-factor solution regularly demonstrate poor fit across collegiate and community datasets (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] < .85, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] > .06). These structural deficiencies stem from multiple psychometric artifacts:

• Forced-Choice Dyadic Format: Dichotomous forced-choice items introduce artificial ipsativity, skew distribution shapes, and suppress inter-item covariances, distorting linear factor extraction methods.
• Complex Cross-Loadings: Numerous items exhibit significant secondary loadings on factors other than their primary target facet (e.g., Item 6 loading concurrently on Exploitativeness and Authority).
• Item Complexity: Certain item pairings introduce confounding constructs such as risk-taking (Item 3) or general social confidence rather than pure narcissistic grandiosity.

Prominent Alternative Structural Solutions

To rectify these structural instabilities, alternative factor configurations have gained empirical prominence:

• Corry et al. (2008) Two-Factor Model: Utilizing both exploratory and confirmatory techniques across independent samples, Corry and colleagues demonstrated that the NPI can be effectively parsed into two broad, functionally opposing dimensions: Leadership/Authority (reflecting assertive, socialized, and adaptive traits) and Exhibitionism/Exploitativeness (reflecting maladaptive, interpersonally abrasive, and antagonistic traits).
• Ackerman et al. (2011) Three-Factor Solution: Currently the most empirically supported structural framework, Ackerman and colleagues conducted comprehensive exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses on large non-clinical cohorts, isolating a stable 3-factor structure consisting of:
1. Leadership/Authority (LA): 11 items capturing social self-efficacy, commanding presence, and adaptive self-confidence.
2. Grandiose Exhibitionism (GE): 10 items indexing body vanity, theatrical attention-seeking, and overt exhibitionism.
3. Entitlement/Exploitativeness (EE): 4 items explicitly tapping interpersonal manipulativeness, unearned privilege, and predatory social orientation. Notably, this EE dimension drives nearly all the negative psychopathological correlates (e.g., neuroticism, Machiavellianism, aggressive retaliation) observed with the NPI.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-40) is structured as an objective, self-administered questionnaire. Its specific structural properties and administrative rules are summarized below:

• Instrument Type: Standardized objective self-report personality inventory.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized/online psychometric delivery platform.
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
• Target Population: Non-clinical adults, college students, and adolescents aged 16 and older possessing at least an eighth-grade reading comprehension level.
• Item Count: Exactly 40 dyadic item pairs.
• Response Scale: Forced-choice dyad format. For each numbered item, the respondent is presented with two contrasting self-referential statements (Statement A vs. Statement B) and must select the single statement that most accurately reflects their personal feelings or behavioral dispositions.
• Scoring Mechanics: Each item pair contains exactly one theoretical “narcissistic” response and one “non-narcissistic” response. Endorsing the narcissistic option yields 1 point; endorsing the non-narcissistic alternative yields 0 points.
• Cumulative Score Range: The total score represents the simple sum of all endorsed narcissistic options, ranging from 0 (indicating complete absence of self-reported narcissistic traits) to 40 (indicating maximal endorsement of grandiose narcissistic tendencies).
• Subscale Item Composition (Raskin & Terry, 1988):
  • Authority (8 items): Items 1, 8, 10, 11, 12, 32, 33, 36
  • Self-Sufficiency (6 items): Items 17, 21, 22, 31, 34, 39
  • Superiority (5 items): Items 4, 9, 26, 37, 40
  • Exhibitionism (7 items): Items 2, 3, 7, 20, 28, 30, 38
  • Vanity (3 items): Items 15, 19, 29
  • Entitlement (6 items): Items 5, 14, 18, 24, 25, 27
  • Exploitativeness (5 items): Items 6, 13, 16, 23, 35
• Normative Reference Values: In general American collegiate samples, normative total mean scores typically range between M = 15.0 and M = 16.5 (with standard deviations around SD = 6.5 to 7.0). Biological males consistently score significantly higher than biological females across nearly all published cohorts (typically d = .25 to .35 standard deviation units), particularly on the Authority and Exploitativeness subscales.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The foundational versions of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory were introduced by Robert N. Raskin and Calvin S. Hall in their 1979 publication (Psychological Reports) and 1981 follow-up (Journal of Personality Assessment). The standardized 40-item instrument was formally published by Robert N. Raskin and Howard Terry in 1988 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA).

Under contemporary psychometric conventions and academic fair-use guidelines, the NPI is considered an open-access research instrument. It is broadly available free of monetary charge for non-commercial scientific, academic, educational, and clinical research investigations. The scale items and scoring protocol have been published comprehensively within peer-reviewed academic literature and university repositories. Researchers planning to adapt, digitize, or translate the inventory for commercial diagnostic software, corporate executive consulting, or profit-bearing organizational interventions must consult the relevant intellectual property holders and copyright guidelines established by the American Psychological Association.

References

• Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory really measure? Assessment, 18(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110378806
• American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
• Bosson, J. K., Lakey, C. E., Campbell, W. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Jordan, C. H., & Kernis, M. H. (2008). Untangling the links among narcissistic tendencies, self-esteem, and aggressive behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(11), 1419–1432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208322101
• Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219
• Corry, N., Merritt, R. D., Mrug, S., & Pamp, B. (2008). The factor structure of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(6), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802388590
• Foster, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2007). Are there such things as “narcissists” in social psychology? A taxometric analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1321–1332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.003
• Freud, S. (1914). On narcissism: An introduction. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 67–102). London: Hogarth Press.
• Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson.
• Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International Universities Press.
• Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press.
• Miller, J. D., Maples, J., Buffardi, L., Cai, H., Gentile, B., & Campbell, W. K. (2011). Is the Narcissistic Personality Inventory still relevant? A test of independent grandiosity and entitlement scales in the assessment of narcissism. Assessment, 18(3), 390–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110384879
• Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_1
• O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025679
• Paulhus, D. L., Harms, P. D., Bruce, M. N., & Lysy, D. C. (2003). The over-claiming technique: Measuring self-enhancement independent of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 890–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.890
• Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
• Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45(2), 590. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1979.45.2.590
• Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1981). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Alternate form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45(2), 159–162. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4502_10
• Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890
• Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 875–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00507.x

Items of the Scale