supervised research paper (1)

Running head: NARCISSISM’S IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE UNDER PRESSURE 1

Narcissism’s Impact on Performance Under Pressure

Christian Tovar-Vargas

Trinity University

Author Note

Christian Tovar-Vargas, Department of Psychology, Trinity University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christian Tovar-Vargas,

Department of Psychology, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX, 78212.

Email: [email protected]

NARCISSISM’S IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE UNDER PRESSURE 2

Abstract

The current study attempts to quantify the effects of narcissism on performance patterns under

pressure. Participants were categorized as a low or high narcissist by their scores on the

Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Participants then played a

slider style game under the absence and presence of performance pressure. Given that narcissists

are more approach oriented (Foster & Trimm, 2008) and more likely to take risks (Foster,

Shenesey, & Goff, 2009) it was hypothesized that narcissists would overshoot more than low

narcissists. It was found that narcissists did not significantly overshoot more of their shots in

comparison to low narcissists. Future research is needed to find the exact method of how

narcissism facilitates performance under pressure.


Narcissism’s Impact on Performance Under Pressure

People are frequently placed in situations where they need to perform under pressure,

whether it’s through taking exams or giving a presentation under an audience. Although it seems

that some individuals are better able to perform under pressure than others. There is research that

attribute differences in personality to being better able to perform under pressure (Guekes,

Mesagno, Hanrahan, & Kellman, 2012). This study examines the possibility that narcissism

facilitates performance under pressure.

Empirical research on narcissism commonly uses the Narcissistic Personality Inventory

(NPI) (Raskin & Hall, 1979) to assess an individual’s level of narcissism (Wallace &

Baumeister, 2002). The terms high narcissists and narcissists are interchangeably used to

describe individuals that score relatively high on the NPI (Roberts, Woodman, Hardy, Davis &

Wallace, 2013). The term low narcissist is used to refer to individuals who score relatively low

on this self-report measure (Wallace & Baumeister, 2002). Research done on normal populations

using the NPI has revealed that narcissists have grandiose self-views and feelings of entitlement

(Roberts, et al., 2013). Narcissists also believe that they are more superior than other people and

have high levels of confidence (Campbell, Goodie, & Foster, 2004). Narcissism can also

categorized as having a consistent approach orientation since they are motivated to perform well

when there is an opportunity for self-enhancement, reward or some type of desirable outcome

(Foster & Trimm, 2008). Narcissists also have a low avoidance orientation since they are less

motivated to avoid undesired outcomes (Foster & Trimm, 2008). When in the pursuit of their

goals, narcissists have been found to be impulsive (Vazier & Funder, as cited in Foster & Trimm,

2008) and take more risks than other people (Foster, Shenessey, & Goff, 2009).


When narcissists are motivated to perform well, it seems likely that they feel heightened

performance pressure. Performance pressure is the degree to which individuals care about the

result of their performance and believe that their performance is critical in attaining a desired

goal (Wallace, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2005). High amounts of performance pressure can make a

person overcautious in the decisions they make during a performance, which can affect their

performance and lead to a negative performance outcome (Wallace et al., 2005). Although this

overcautiousness is more evident when a person is more avoidance oriented (Wallace et al.,

2005). Since narcissists are more approach oriented and less avoidance oriented, it seems likely

that they will not be overcautious in their performance and are more likely to perform better

under pressure.

Despite their high feelings of confidence and high approach orientation, narcissists have

not been found to perform any better than low narcissists (Roberts, Woodman, Hardy, Davis, &

Wallace, 2013). Gabriel (as cited in Wallace & Baumeister, 2002) found no relationship between

narcissism and performance on intelligence tests in a college sample, despite narcissists

believing that they performed very well. One notable exception to these non-significant findings

came from a set a studies conducted by Wallace and Baumeister (2002). Wallace and Baumeister

(2002) found that narcissists performed better under pressure when narcissists were given an

opportunity for self-enhancement or when an event was perceived as an opportunity for glory.

Although overall, there has not been a lot research done on the relationship between narcissism

and performance under pressure (Roberts, Woodman, Hardy, Davis, & Wallace, 2013).

Past research from this lab has looked at narcissism and performance patterns under

pressure by using a target shooting task and by measuring target shooting accuracy. Wallace,

Carey, & Hitti (2011) found that narcissists had a tendency to overshoot under pressure and


performed better overall on a slider style game in comparison to low narcissists. This result was

in line with research linking narcissists with high risk taking tendencies under pressure (Lakey,

Rose, Campbell, & Goodie, 2008; Foster, Shenesey, & Goff, 2009). In a follow-up study done by

Wallace, Ottoson & Byrne (2013), it was found that narcissists undershoot more under pressure

on a broomball task. It seems likely that the different tasks used had different difficulty levels,

which could have led to the contradictory results found in these studies.

Current Study

This present study is an extension of past research that has looked at narcissist’s

performance patterns under pressure through the use of a target shooting task. This present study

is distinct from other studies in this lab in that there are survey questions that will provide insight

into participant’s strategy when playing the slider game. This study is also distinct from other

studies in this lab in that there is a penalty given for overshooting past the target zones in the

slider game. This creates a risk-reward paradigm where participants must make a decision to

either take a risk to try to get the most points possible, or be conservative and not take the

punishment of overshooting.

Narcissists shooting tendencies were explored in the absence and presence of

performance pressure. In the non-pressure condition, participants will perform a round of the

slider game without the presence of the experimenter. In the performance pressure condition,

participants will be given an opportunity to assert their superiority over others. This will be done

through indication that their performance scores from both rounds were going to be compared to

see if the performance pressure applied had caused them to fail. The experimenter would also be

presented during this condition evaluating the participants score. Since narcissists are more


approach oriented (Foster and Trimm, 2008) and are overly confident (Lakey, Rose, Campbell &

Goodie, 2008) they would report to aiming towards higher targets, especially under performance

pressure. This increased risk taking was hypothesized to lead to an increased proportion of

overshooting by narcissists and a better overall performance in the slider game.

Method

Participants

Seventy-nine undergraduate students (46 Female), ages 18-21, were recruited from an

introductory psychology participant pool at Trinity University. Handedness consisted of 69 right-

handed, 8 left-handed and 2 ambidextrous participants. Ethnicities consisted of 11 Asian or

Pacific Islander, 2 Black not of Hispanic origin, 18 Hispanic, 43 White not of Hispanic origin

and 5 other. Participants received course credit for their participation in this experiment.

Design and Materials

The current study used 2 (Condition: Non-pressure vs. Pressure) x 2 (Narcissism: Low

vs. High) within-subjects design. A tabletop slider game was used to measure participants

shooting tendencies. The slider game table was split into eleven even target zones ranging from 0

to 10 and -5 and which were labeled on the playing tabletop and on the sides of the table. A

computer screen was used a survey that included the 40 item Narcissistic Personality Inventory

(NPI), pre-task questions and post-task questions.

Measures

Pre-task questions. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement to the

statement “I feel performance pressure”. Agreement ratings were on a 1-5 scale (5 being strongly


agree). This served as a manipulation check to see if performance pressure was successfully

manipulated. Participants were also asked to indicate a percentage ratio to the statement “I

expect to perform better than __% of past participants” to indicate their confidence before each

round of the slider game. Answers to this question were in ten percent ratios starting from 0-10%

and ending at 91-100%. In order to look at risk tendencies, participants were asked the question

“Which target zone do you plan to aim for” before each round of the slider game. Answers

ranged from 0 to 10 (with 10 being the highest target zone).

Post-task confidence. After each round of the slider game, participants were asked to

indicate a percentage ratio to the statement “I think I performed better than __% of participants”.

This question is meant to measure a participant’s confidence after each round of the slider game.

Answers to this question were in ten percent ratios starting from 0-10% and ending at 91-100%.

Slider game performance analysis. Participant’s proportion of shots that were overshot

and average performance score for each round was scored. Overshooting a shot was when

participant’s poker chip landed on the -5 target zone and participants were given a score -5 for

that shot. The proportion of overshots was calculated by dividing the total number of overshots

from the total amount of shots for each round of the slider game.

Procedure

Non-pressure Round. Upon arrival to the location of the study, all participants were

given a consent form to read and sign. Upon completion of the consent form, participants were

taken into an individual room where they were situated at a lab desk with a computer screen

where the first part of the survey was administered. The participant was told not to nervous since

their responses to the questions would only be associated with a participant ID. The experimenter


was never present during the answering of any the survey questions. Participants were instructed

to ring the bell after the completion of that part of the survey. Once the participant rang the bell,

the experimenter went back into experiment room. The experimenter then gave the participant

instructions of how to play the slider game. They were told that they would be sliding poker

chips down the table to towards the target zones. Participants were told that scores ranged from 0

to 10 and that a score of -5 was given for overshooting. Participants were informed that they

would have five practice shots that would be taken with the green chips and ten shots with the

red chips that would be scored. The experimenter then ran through a sequence of playing the

slider game to ensure that the participant understood how to play the slider game. The participant

was then informed that a camera would be placed on a ledge that would be turned on to record

the scores of each shot taken. Participants were told that they could start shooting after the

experimenter left the room and to ring the bell once they were done. Once the participant

understood the game rules, they completed the first set of pre-task questions. Once finished, the

experimenter was indicated to come back in with the ringing of the bell. The experimenter then

gave the participant a small bin with the poker chips and another bin that served as a discard bin.

In order to save time and prevent data loss from coding through video footage, the experimenter

coded the shots for this round while they were being taken in the next room over. This room had

a one-way mirror that was hidden by a peg board and the participants had no knowledge that

their shots were being scored while they were being taken in this condition. After all the shots

were taken and the bell was rung, the experimenter reentered the room and told the participant to

fill out a set of post-task questions and to ring the bell once they were done.

Pressure Round. Once finished, the experimenter informed the participant that the

purpose of the study was to look at whether people choke under pressure and that the


experimenter was going to apply performance pressure. Participants were also informed that

their performance scores from both rounds would be compared to see whether the pressure the

experimenter applied had caused them to fail. The participant was told that there would be an

additional camera turned directly in front of them to record any signs of choking during the

performance of this round of the slider game. Participants were also informed that the

experimenter would remain in the room evaluating the performance of the participant and would

indicate when to take each shot. Participants were told that their goal this round was to get as

many points as possible without overshooting. Participants were also informed that they had only

five shots to show that they had mastered the task and to take their time and to try not to choke.

Before the pressure round of the slider game was administered, the second set of pre-task

questions was administered on the computer screen while the experimenter waited outside. After

the completion of these questions, the pressure round of the slider game was administered. After

the pressure round of the slider game was completed, the participant was prompted to answer the

second set of post-task questions. After the completion of that set of questions, the participant

was debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Narcissism scores ranged from 4 to 33 (M = 15.36, SD = 7.11). A two-way median split

was run for narcissism (low and high narcissism). Low narcissism consisted of 41 participants

with scores ranging from 1 to 14. High narcissism consisted of 38 total participants with scores

ranging from 15 to 33. The median split measure was used in data analysis since it provided the

most accurate measure of variability in narcissism.


Pre-task Questions

Manipulation Check. A 2 (Condition: Non-pressure vs. Pressure) x 2 (Narcissism: Low

vs. High) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on agreement ratings to the statement “I

feel performance pressure”. Ratings to this question were on a 1-5 scale (5 being strongly agree).

This ANOVA only revealed a significant main effect of condition, F(1, 77) = 34.570, p < .001,

ηp2 = .310. Participants overall felt more performance pressure in the pressure round (M = 3.18

SD = 1.07) in comparison to the non-pressure condition (M = 2.44 SD = 1.083; see Figure 1).

There was no main effect for level of narcissism or an interaction between pressure condition

and narcissism. The experimental manipulation of performance pressure managed to raise

performance pressure, but only to an average neutral rating for both low and high narcissists.

Pre-task confidence. A 2 (condition: Non-pressure vs. Pressure) x 2 (Narcissism: Low

NPI score vs. High NPI score) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on participants

percentage ratings on the statement “I expect to perform better than __% of past participants”.

This ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of condition, F(1, 77) = 56.848, p < .000, ηp2

= .425. The percentage ratings in the non-pressure condition were higher (M = 56.5 SD = 19.0)

than in the pressure condition (M = 45.6, SD = 19.98; see Figure 2). There was also a significant

main effect of narcissism, F(1, 77) = 14.449, p < .001, ηp2 = .098. Narcissists gave higher ratings

across both experimental conditions (M= 56.97) than low narcissists (M= 45.49; see Figure 2).

The interaction between condition and narcissism was not significant. Thus, narcissists gave a

higher confidence rating than low narcissists before each condition and confidence ratings

overall were lower before the pressure condition of the slider game.


Participants aiming strategy. A 2 (condition: Non-pressure vs Pressure) x 2

(Narcissism: Low vs High) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on the response ratings

to the statement “Which target zone do you plan to aim for?” Answers to this question ranged

from 0 to 10. This ANOVA revealed only a significant main effect of condition, F(1, 77) =

25.927, p< .001, ηp2 = .252. Low and high narcissists in the non-pressure condition planned to

aim higher (M= 7.94 SD= 1.35) in comparison to low and high narcissists in the pressure

condition (M = 7.34 SD = 1.42; see Figure 3). There was no was no significant main effect of

narcissism, or an interaction between narcissism and condition. There was no difference in

aiming strategy by narcissists and low narcissists across both experimental conditions. Both low

and high narcissists reported lower aiming strategies in the pressure condition.

Slider game performance patterns

Participants overshooting tendencies. A 2 (Condition: Non-pressure vs. Pressure) x 2

(Narcissism: Low vs. High) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on the participants

proportion of shots overshoot. This ANOVA didn’t not reveal any significant main effects of

condition or narcissism or an interaction between narcissism and condition Narcissists did

overshot more of their throughout both of the conditions but the difference in each condition was

very small (see Figure 4).

Average performance on task. A 2 (condition: Non-pressure vs. Pressure) x 2

(Narcissism: Low vs. High) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on overall performance

scores. This ANOVA revealed no significant main effects of condition or narcissism or an

interaction between condition and narcissism. Contrary to what was predicted, narcissists


performed slightly worse than low narcissists in both of the experimental conditions (see Figure

5).

Post-task confidence

A 2 (Condition: Non-pressure vs. Pressure) x 2 (NPI score: Low vs. High) repeated-

measures ANOVA was conducted on participant’s percentage ratings to the statement “I think I

performed better than __% of participants”. This ANOVA only revealed a significant interaction

between condition and narcissism F(1, 76) = 5.065, p = .027, ηp2 = .062 (see Figure 6). There

were no significant main effects of narcissism or condition. This interaction was deconstructed

using simple main effects test. This simple main effect test only revealed a main effect of

narcissism on confidence ratings at the non-pressure condition. Narcissists gave high confidence

ratings (M = 45.0, SD = 18.7) in comparison to low narcissists (M = 37.0, SD = 16.5; see Figure

6) in the non-pressure condition. There was no significant main effect of narcissism on

confidence ratings in the pressure condition. Narcissists gave higher percentage ratings after the

non-pressure condition of the slider game. After the pressure condition of the slider game, low

and high narcissists gave near equal confidence ratings.

Discussion

No strong evidence was found that narcissists overshoot a larger proportion of their shots

in comparison to low narcissists overall and had a higher overall performance score than low

narcissists. Narcissists displayed only small differences overshooting in both conditions and were

found to have a slightly worse performance than low narcissists in each of the conditions.

Interestingly, it was found performance pressure was only raised to an average neutral rating in

the pressure condition for both low and high narcissists. Narcissists also reported higher pre-task


confidence than low narcissists in both conditions. Narcissists were found to have higher

confidence ratings than low narcissists after the non-pressure condition and but gave equal

ratings as low narcissists after the pressure condition. High and low narcissists were also not

different in their target zone aiming in each condition and both gave lower ratings in the pressure

condition in comparison to the non-pressure condition. The results reported in the current study

are only a subsection of all of the data that was collected. More data analysis could inform some

of the current results found. However, there are some possible limitations that could explain the

results in the current study.

One possible limitation could have been that the slider game was too difficult for

narcissists. This difficulty could have been perceived as a high challenge for narcissists

(Wallace, Ottoson & Byrne, 2013). Narcissists would have then sought to achieve the least

humiliating outcome since there was no opportunity to assert their superiority, which could have

led to more undershooting than overshooting (Wallace et al, 2013). Whether narcissists

undershot more or not cannot be concluded until further data analysis is conducted.

It is also possible that the slider game was not perceived as an opportunity for self-

enhancement by narcissists since was a novel motor task. Narcissists are able to recognize when

a task offers self-enhancement (Wallace & Baumeister, 2002). When it’s perceived that a task

does not have offer this opportunity, a narcissist’s motivation to perform a task is reduced

(Wallace and Baumeister, 2002). This reduction in motivation could have reduced the risk

tendencies of narcissists since they saw no benefit in taking a risk (Foster, Shenesey, & Goff,

2009). This reduced motivation can be connected with the performance pressure felt in the study.

In the present study, the manipulation of performance pressure only managed to raise perceived

performance pressure to an average neutral rating. This suggests that performance pressure on


average wasn’t felt and offers the possible limitation that participants didn’t care much about the

outcome in the slider game.

Improving performance pressure could have been done providing the potential for a

prized outcome in slider game, since narcissists are motivated to perform when there is a prized

outcome (Wallace, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2005). Wallace and Baumeister (2002) found that

narcissists performed better under pressure when they offered participants a monetary reward for

performing well in a dart throwing task. Wallace and Baumeister (2002) reported that this

increased the opportunity for self-enhancement, which is something that narcissists desire to be

motivated to perform well. Changing the task to be based on something that people base their

self-worth or self-esteem out of (Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, as cited in Nicholls &

Stukas, 2011) could have also increased performance pressure. For narcissists, it’s been found

that they base their self-esteem out of situations that require external validation, such as the

ability to compete successfully against others (Zeigler-Hill, Clark, & Pickard, as cited in Nicholls

& Stukas, 2011). If the task used in the current study was introduced as a difficult challenge that

people on average could not achieve, narcissists would have perceived this task as an opportunity

to assert their superiority over others and seen the opportunity for self-enhancement (Wallace &

Baumeister, 2002).

Another option would have been to include a socially evaluative situation where

narcissists were given a difficult challenge and were made to feel that they were going to

perform well. Socially evaluative situations are important to narcissists (Elliot & Thrash, as cited

in Guekes, Mesagno, Hanrahan, & Kellman, 2011) and increase the extent that achieving

performance success is glorifying(Wallace and Baumeister, 2002). Narcissists are found to excel

under these settings since they seek out these scenarios more and have more experience


performing in these scenarios (Guekes et al, 2011). Guekes et al., (2011) found that narcissists

performed better under performance pressure under a socially evaluative audience because they

anticipated positive evaluations and admiration from the audience. These situations can induce

higher performance pressure and can increase the degree to which narcissist cares about the

outcome of a performance (Wallace, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2005). This increased motivation

raises the likelihood that narcissists would take risks since they see the benefit in taking a risk

(Foster, Shenesey, & Goff, 2009). This increased risk taking could have then led to narcissists

aiming for higher targets and possibly receiving a higher score on the slider game.

People are frequently placed in situations where they need to perform under pressure,

whether giving a presentation under an audience or interviewing for a job. Researchers have

attributed differences in personality with having the ability to perform under pressure (Guekes,

Mesagno, Hanrahan, & Kellman, 2013). Narcissism has been thought to facilitate performance

under pressure due to a variety of characteristics that have been in normal populations (Wallace

and Baumeister, 2002). These include having a constant approach orientation instead of an

avoidance orientation (Foster & Trimm, 2008) and having high amount of self-confidence

(Campbell, Goodie, & Foster, 2004). When narcissists are given an opportunity for self-

enhancement (Wallace and Baumeister, 2002) or perform under a socially evaluative audience

(Guekes et al., 2013) they are found to perform better than low narcissists). More research is

needed to replicate these findings to allow for a better understanding of the relationship between

narcissism and performance under pressure.


References

Campbell, W. K., Goodie, A. S., & Foster, J. D., (2004). Narcissism, confidence, and risk

attitude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 297-311. doi: 10.1002/bdm.475

Foster, J. D. & Trimm, R.F. (2008). On being eager and uninhibited: narcissism and approach-

avoidance behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (7), 1004-1017. doi:

10.1177/0146167208316688

Foster, J. D., Shenesey, J. W., & Goff, J. S. (2009). Why do narcissists take more risks? Testing

the roles of perceived risks and benefits of risky behaviors. Personality and

Individual Differences, 47, 885-889. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.008

Guekes, K., Mesagno, C., Hanrahan, S. J., & Kellman, M. (2011). Testing an interactionist

perspective on the relationship between personality traits and performance under public

pressure. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13 (3), 243-250. doi:

10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.12.004

Lakey, C. D., Rose, P., Campbell, W. K., & Goodie, A. S., (2008). Probing the link between

narcissism and gambling: The mediating role of judgment and decision-making biases.

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 113-137. doi: 10.1002/bdm.582

Nicholls, E., & Stukas, A. A. (2011). Narcissism and the self-evaluation maintenance model:

Effects of social comparison threats on relationship closeness. The Journal of Social

Psychology, 151 (2), 201-212. doi: 10.1080/00224540903510852

Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports,

45, 590.


Wallace H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). The performance of narcissists rises and falls with

perceived opportunity for glory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (3),

819-834. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.5.819

Wallace, H. M., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). Audience support and choking under

pressure: A home disadvantage? Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(4), 429-438. doi:

10.1080/02640410400021666

Wallace, H., Ottoson, P., & Byrne, K. (2013, January). Narcissism and target-shooting

performance patterns under pressure. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the

Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA.

Wallace, H., Carey, R., & Hitti, E. (2011, May). Social anxiety predicts and narcissism prevents

coming up short (literally) under pressure. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the

Association for Psychological Science, Washington DC.


Non pressure condi-tion

Pressure condition 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Low NPI ScoreHigh NPI Score

Ave

rage

Rati

ng

Figure 1. Average ratings of perceived performance pressure before each round of slider game

for low narcissists and high narcissists by experimental condition. Standard errors are

represented in the figure by the errors bars attached to each column.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

Figure 2: Average percentage ratings of confidence of low narcissists and high narcissists before

each round slider game by experimental condition. Standard errors are represented in the figure

by the errors bars attached to each column.


Non Pressure Condition

Pressure Condition

6.87

7.27.47.67.8

88.28.4

Low NPI Scores High NPI Scores

Mea

n Ta

rget

Zon

e

Figure 3: Average ratings of target zone low narcissists and high narcissists planned to aim for

by experimental condition. Standard errors are represented in the figure by the error bars

attached to each column.


Non Pressure Condi-tion

Pressure Condition0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2


Prop

ortio

n of

Sho

ts o

vers

hot o

f tot

al

Figure 4. Average proportion of shots overshot by low and high narcissists in each experimental

condition of the slider game. Standard errors are represented in the figure by the errors bars

attached to each column.


33.13.23.33.43.53.63.7


Ave

rage

Sco

re

(out

of 1

0)

Figure 5. Average performance scores for low narcissists and high narcissists in each

experimental condition. Standard errors are represented in the figure by the errors bars attached

to each column.


Non Pressure Condition

Pressu

re Condition 0

10

20

30

40

50

Low NPI Scores High NPI Scores

Perc

enta

ge R

ating

Figure 6. Average confidence percentage ratings of low narcissists and high narcissists after each

round of the slider game by experimental condition. Standard errors are represented in the figure

by the errors bars attached to each column.

supervised research paper (1)

Documents

low narcissists

pressure people

pressure guekes

terms high narcissists

narcissisms impact

performance patterns

risks foster

effects of narcissism