Research with full-time employed individuals reveals that narcissists’ unethical behavior is situational. When opportunities for personal gain are limited and situations require deliberation, the association between grandiose narcissism and unethical behavior disappears. The paper is personality and individual differences.
Grandiose narcissism is a personality trait characterized by an exaggerated sense of self-importance, a strong desire for admiration, and a belief that one is better than others. People with high grandiose narcissism tend to believe that they are special and deserve special treatment. They seek positions of recognition and recognition and positions of influence.
They may show little concern for the needs or rights of others, as they prioritize their own success and image. This self-centered orientation makes unethical behavior more likely when it benefits one’s goals or reputation. For example, grandiose narcissists may exaggerate their accomplishments, take credit for others’ accomplishments, and manipulate information to maintain a positive image. They may also justify unethical behavior by believing that rules should not apply to people who are as important as they think they are.
Research shows that grandiose narcissists are more likely to engage in cheating, exploitation of others, and deceptive behavior. These behaviors are often driven by a desire to win, gain praise, and avoid threats to the ego. As a result, grandiose narcissism is frequently studied as a personality factor that can increase the risk of unethical decision-making in social and organizational situations.
Study authors Caitlin C. Belfiore and Annika Hillebrandt wanted to investigate under what circumstances narcissists are more or less likely to engage in unethical behavior. They hypothesized that narcissists are more likely to engage in unethical behavior in situations where opportunities for personal gain are emphasized and quick, impulsive decisions are possible. In contrast, the link between narcissism and unethical behavior will be weaker in situations where opportunities for personal gain are limited or deliberation is required.
Participants in this study were 350 full-time employees residing in Canada or the United States who were recruited through Prolific to complete a two-part study. All completed Part 1, but only 176 completed Part 2. Ultimately, the study authors used data from 164 participants (12 were excluded from the analysis because they failed the attention check). Of the final participants, 51% were female. Their average age was 39 years. On average, they had been with their current organization for seven years, and 55% were managers.
In the first part of the study, participants completed assessments of grandiose narcissism (Narcissistic Personality Inventory) and other dark personality traits (Short Dark Triad Scale and Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale). In the second half of the study, participants were divided into three groups. One group was a control group and completed a task measuring unethical behavior (the Wilterms anagram task) following standard instructions.
In this task, participants were given two minutes to decipher a list of nine scrambled words and report their scores. The instructions emphasized that the words had to be unscrambled in the order in which they were presented and that participants had to proceed to the next word only after unscrambling the previous word. Participants were told that they had to decode as many words as possible and that they would receive £0.10 for each word decoded.
In the second group, the study authors wanted to create a situation that reduced opportunities for personal gain. Participants were told that they would receive a flat £0.30 bonus for completing the task, regardless of the number of words they reported. In the third group, the study authors gave participants time to reflect.
Participants were forced to wait until the end of a mandatory 1-minute reflection period before reporting their scores. During this time, they were asked to take a moment to think about how many words they had unscrambled and how they would report their score.
At the end of the task, participants were asked to indicate the number of words they were able to unscramble. They were asked to self-report their score (i.e., the number of words they unscrambled), but were not asked to provide any evidence of this or actually write the words (to prove they had unscrambled them). However, unbeknownst to the study participants, the third scrambled word was unsolvable.
For this reason, it was not possible to obtain more than 3 points. Reporting such a score means that the participant was lying about the score. The study authors used this information about whether participants reported impossible scores as a measure of unethical behavior.
Results showed that 42% of participants reported a score of 3 or higher. In other words, this proportion of participants misreported their scores, indicating unethical behavior. Participants in the reduced personal gain condition tended to report less concern for personal gain compared to participants in the other two conditions. Participants in the deliberative condition were more likely to report being reflective than participants in the other two groups. This showed the study authors that the experimental manipulation worked as intended.
As expected, participants with higher levels of narcissism in the control group were more likely to act unethically (i.e., misreport their scores). In contrast, narcissism was not associated with unethical behavior in the reduced personal benefits and deliberation groups. This means that narcissists were no more likely to act unethically than non-narcissists when they had time to think about what to report or in situations where unethical behavior would not increase personal gain.
“In theory, this study identifies situational boundary conditions that reveal when narcissistic traits are less likely to translate into unethical behavior. In practice, these findings provide a basis for designing targeted organizational interventions that reduce the chances of narcissistic selfish and unethical behavior,” the study authors conclude.
This study contributes to the scientific understanding of narcissism. However, it should be noted that the personal benefits used in the study are of negligible value. The outcome might not have been the same if the value gained was greater, or if the lie involved real risks.
This paper, “Ego, Drive, Opportunity: Moderating the Relationship Between Narcissism and Selfish Unethical Behavior,” was authored by Caitlin C. Belfiore and Annika Hillebrandt.
