people.uncw.edupeople.uncw.edu/hakanr/Fakingreportsession1.docx · Web viewThe two word...

Narcissism and Ego Threat 1

A Experimental Study Relating Narcissism andon the Effects of Ego Threat to on Knowledge

Faking

Hakan et al., 2017

University of North Carolina Wilmington


Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate if individuals with higher narcissistic

tendencies would have increased instances of faking and deception after an ego threat. The

present study was a continuation of research conducted by Rhodes et al. (2017). The purpose of

that study was to investigate if people with higher narcissistic tendencies would have increased

instances of faking and be more deceptive. Three types of assessments used in the study by

Rhodes et al. (yes/no word recognition assessment, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI),

and a word defining assessment) were also incorporated or inspired assessments within the

present study. For this study, 30 individuals (four males, 26 females) from three advanced

psychology courses at the University of North Carolina Wilmington were recruited. The study

was compiled of six assessments. A self-report question regarding the participant’s opinion of

how well of a psychology student they are, two yes/no word recognition assessments comprised

of 21 difficult words that varied for each assessment, a psychology knowledge test that,

depending on condition (low ego threat and high ego threat), was an easy or difficult test, the

Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), the Big Five Personality Inventory - 10 (BFI-10), and a

word defining assessment where the 42 words were defined by participants. The findings of the

research suggested that narcissistic tendencies are not significantly related to increased instances

of faking knowledge. There was a significant relationship found between faking and the ego

threat condition in which participants were assigned. High ego threat resulted increased faking

instances and low ego threat (or ego boost) resulted in decreased faking instances.ok


Introduction

Deception is a behavior that every human and even some non-human species have

engaged in throughout their lifetime. Deception can be towards others or towards one’s self.

Deception is defined, according to Masip, Garrido, & Herrero (2004), as the deliberate act,

whether successful or not, to conceal, fabricate, and/or manipulate factual and/or emotional

information. This can be done by verbal and/or nonverbal means in order to cause another to

accept something as true or valid. The communicator of the deception knows that the

information is false (Masip, Garrido, & Herrero 2004). People can deceive for a range of

reasons, including to minimize conflict, to avoid emotional harm, or to protect one’s self from

negative social judgements. It can also be used to hide one’s transgressions, to harm another

person, to avoid punishment, among other negative consequences.

Narcissism was another main component that helped to form the present study’s

hypothesis. Individuals with narcissistic tendencies are described by Wright, Berry, Catmur, &

Bird (2015) as competitive, power and glory seeking, and they also display a grandiose sense of

self. A narcissist’s grandiose sense of self is maintained through self-deception when the

individual faces negative and realistic feedback (Wright, Berry, Catmur, & Bird 2015). In

particular, according to Bushman & Baumeister (1998), inflated, grandiose, or unjustified

favorable views of the self can make one more prone to being aggressive. The increased

aggression, attributed by the inflated self-view, can lead an individual to become less tolerant of

insults or negative evaluations. The social behavior of a narcissistic individual can be geared

toward maximizing self-esteem and validating self-image, which can be done by gaining the

approval and/or admiration of others (Bushman & Baumeister 1998).


An individual’s ability to engage in self-deception can have a powerful effect on how one

views themselves and how they may respond in situations. The ability to successfully self-

deceive has been argued by Wright, Berry, Catmur, & Bird to increase one’s ability to further

deceive others. As mentioned in the second sentence of this introduction no no, humans,

narcissistic or not, have the ability to self-deceive. Wright, Berry, Catmur, & Bird also argued

that the reason why humans have evolved the ability to self-deceive is because of how it aids in

the deception of others. If the individual who is deceiving is unaware that they are lying and

deceiving, it is less likely that they will exhibit any deceptive cues. However, it has not been

studied empirically whether narcissists have a greater deceptive ability than non-narcissists

(Wright, Berry, Catmur, & Bird 2015).

The present study was constructed for the purpose of facing individuals with negative

feedback that would induce ego threat. Holmes (1971) claimed that when ego threat was

induced, compensation behaviors would occur. The compensation behaviors are an individual’s

strategy for overcoming real or imagined inferiorities or threats to self-esteem. It is usually

assumed, according to Holmes, that when an individual is experiencing ego threat, he or she will

attempt to compensate through the exaggeration of efforts in the area in which he was threatened

or in some related area. In doing so, the individual would thereby overcome the threat (Holmes

1971).

Studying deception can be a difficult topic to study. People are not very good at

determining whether an individual is lying or not refs, while at the same time, they are also good

at being deceptive. Individuals are effective at deceiving others and even themselves. How can

an individual or researcher studying deception know that the truth is being told when the truth is

Author, 06/21/17,

It would be more proper to say “theorized” or “stated,” because claimed has a bit of a negative connotation.


not known? This correlational study on knowledge deception aims to examine the potential

relationship between ego threat, faked knowledge and narcissistic tendencies.

The reason for conducting the current study was to see if ego threat would increase an

individual’s likeliness to fake knowledge. Increased rates of faking knowledge after an ego

threat, or humbling experience, could be considered as a type of defensive mechanism or

compensation. Individuals with higher narcissistic tendencies were thought predicted to engage

in defensive behavior more intensely when knowledge and intelligence could be put into

question. The prediction was that defensive behavior included higher instances of faking

knowledge, particularly when in an high ego threat condition. The present study examines this

relationship through two word recognition assessments, an easy or hard knowledge assessment

(depending on the participant’s condition), self-report assessments such as the Narcissistic

Personality Inventory (NPI) and the Big Five Personality Inventory - 10 (BFI-10), and an

assessment that involves defining that words from the two word recognition assessments. The

two word recognition assessments were designed to test an individual’s word knowledge, then

test to see if they truly knew the words or were faking knowledge through the use of a word

defining assessment. This study does so by later asking for the individuals to define the words.

The NPI score was theorized in the study to detect narcissistic tendencies. Using the six

assessments, it was hypothesized that ego threat would create ego defensive reactions and

increase instances in which faking knowledge would occur redundant. A secondary hypothesis

predicted that higher narcissistic tendencies may be related to an increased likelihood to fake.

Will a humbling experience, such as receiving a lower grade on a knowledge test that pertains to

your area of study, change the number of faking instances? Ok

Hakan, 06/21/17,


Method

Participants

The present study recruited 30 students from three different upper level psychology

courses at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW). The participants included 26

females and four males with ages ranging from 19 to 41 years (Mean age = 23.89 years, SD =

5.14 years). The study was introduced to the participants as a self-knowledge study that was

pertaining to ongoing class research. Participants provided nicknames to maintain their

anonymity. They were also told that the study would take approximately 20 minutes to complete.

All of the participants voluntarily took part in this study and received extra credit in their

psychology courses.

Ok

Materials


Knowledge task materials and personality assessments were utilized in this study. The

first material that was distributed consisted of a single self-report question: “Please indicate how

you feel about your performance as a psychology major by circling the best statement below:”.

Possible responses ranged from an A student in psychology to failing. The participants received

two yes/no word recognition assessments (recognition test 1 and recognition test 2) at different

times within the study. Both assessments involved 21 difficult words each, with the words

varying between recognition test 1 and recognition test 2. Examples of the words on recognition

test 1 included plagiarize and obfuscate. Examples of the words on recognition test 2 included

paradigm and finagle. Two versions of a psychology knowledge test were administered, an easy

test or a hard test, depending on the condition in which participants were assigned. The

assessments had 10 questions and the

answers were in a multiple-choice format.

An example of a question in the easy test

included the question “What is the placebo

effect?”. An example of a question in the

hard test included the question “Which of

the following is a type of glial cell that is

responsible for producing the myelin

sheaths that cover axons?”. The 40 item

Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI)

was one of the personality assessments that

were utilized. The NPI was developed by

Raskin and Hall (1979) for the

Table I. The table below shows the brief version of the Big Five Personality Inventory (BFI-10). This version of the BFI-10 was adapted from Rammstedt and Oliver (2007). This assessment uses 10 statements to score extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience.


measurement of narcissism as a personality trait in social psychological research. For each of the

40 items, there were two statements and participants were guided to choose the statement that

best matched them. An example of a statement pair that would available to choose from would

be, “I have a natural talent for influencing people.” or “I am not good at influencing people.” The

second personality assessment, as seen in Table 1I, was a brief version of the Big Five

Personality Inventory - 10 (BFI-10). This version of the BFI-10 was adapted from Rammstedt

and Oliver (2007) and used 10 statements to score extraversion, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. The assessment asked participants

to read statements and rate them on a scale from one to five depending on how much it described

their personality (1 = Disagree strongly, 2 = Disagree a little, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 =

Agree a little, 5 = Agree strongly). An example of a statement on the BFI-10: “I see myself as

someone who gets nervous easily.” During the time procedure in which participants were

completing the two personality assessments, research assistants graded the easy/hard psychology

test and recorded their scores on a PowerPoint slide. Nicknames created by the participants and

their test grades were listed on the PowerPoint along with percentages indicating how their

individual scores compared with high school students, university freshmen, university seniors,

and graduate students. The final material used was a word defining assessment. The participants

were asked to define or give one to two synonyms for the 42 words that were included in the two

yes/no word recognition assessment.

Procedure

The study started by recruiting 30 students from three different upper level psychology

courses at UNCW. Fourteen confederates and three research assistants were assisting in the

Author, 06/21/17,

Not needed if you include the whole scale in your table.


study. Confederates were instructed to wait outside of the classroom in which the study was

being conducted and to act as a participant waiting; they acted as participants from another class

throughout the study. Confederates were called individually into the classroom by the research

assistants and were given assigned seats in the front of the room. They were seated at the front of

the room to encourage ego threat; when most confederate’s hands are raised, that may cause one

to feel like they should know information if everyone else seems to premature. After the

confederates had been seated, the actual participants were called individually and directed to

their seats in the rows behind the confederates. A lead researcher introduced the study as a self-

knowledge study pertaining to ongoing class research. Participants were told of their right to

leave the study at any time and that the study posed no more risk to them than everyday life

activities. Participants were told to create a nickname for themselves to maintain their anonymity

and to write it on the top of each material received. The confederates, prior to starting the study,

were told to give a nickname as well but to draw a star in the top corner of their paper to indicate

their confederate position to the student researchers. The first material administered consisted of

a single self-report question: “Please indicate how you feel about your performance as a

psychology major by circling the best statement below:”. Participants could have fixed responses

that ranged from an A student in psychology to failing. After the self-report question was

answered, participants were told to flip their papers over and to do so for each other paper

received.

The second material administered was a yes/no word recognition assessment (recognition

test 1) that contained 21 difficult words. Participants in both the low ego threat condition and the

high ego threat condition were given the same word recognition assessment, but the test was

introduced differently depending on the condition. In the low ego threat condition, participants


were told that most college students knew about 50% of the words. In the high ego threat group,

participants were told that most high school students knew the words. Participants were asked to

raise their hand and record “yes” or “no” after hearing each of the 21 words called out by the

lead researcher. Their hands were to be raised and they were to record their answers depending

on if they knew the difficult word or had used it previously in a sentence. After each word was

read aloud the research assistants would count the number of hands raised and record how many

participants were indicating that they knew each word. Confederates received this assessment

with pre-determined answers typed in small font beside each item number and were to raise their

hand only if there was a ‘y’ beside the item. Multiple forms of the pre-determined answers were

distributed so that not all confederate’s hands were raised or down at the same time. The amount

of times that the confederate’s hands were raised varied by condition. Confederates in the low

ego threat condition raised their hand about 25% of the time and confederates in the high ego

threat condition raised their hands about 75% of the time. Ok

The next material administered also varied by condition. Participants in the low ego

threat condition received a psychology knowledge assessment that was considered by researchers

to be easy. Participants in the high ego threat condition received a psychology knowledge

assessment that was considered by researchers to be difficult and contained some questions with

all answers being incorrect. On several questions, only incorrect answers were displayed making

it impossible to be correct on those items. This encouraged increased ego threat in individuals

within the high ego threat condition. Ten minutes were allotted to the participants for completion

of this assessment. After the psychology knowledge assessments were completed, research

assistants collected all of assessments for grading. As they were grading, the NPI and the BFI-10

were administered to participants. The NPI was the first personality assessment to be


administered. The participants were told to answer the forty-item assessment and select the

statement, out of two, which matched them best. Participants were given five to seven minutes to

complete this assessment. Good

The second personality assessment was the BFI-10 which was used in the study to score

extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. The

assessment consisted of 10 statements and asked participants to read each one then rate them on

a scale from one to five depending on how much it described their personality. By the time that

both of the personality assessments were completed, the three research assistants had completed

their grading of the easy/hard knowledge assessment.

Researchers recorded the participant’s and confederate’s scores on a PowerPoint slide.

The score percentages were organized by nicknames (to keep identities anonymous) in

descending order. In the low ego threat condition, participant’s scores and nicknames were

placed above the confederate’s scores and nicknames; confederates were given sham scores that

were a lower percentage. Score percentages of participants in this condition were always higher

than the confederate’s regardless of how well the participant actually scored on the easy

knowledge assessment. Participants in the low ego threat condition were given scores that were

70% or higher while the confederate’s scores in the same condition were given scores that fell

around or below 70%. This was done to boost ego. In the high ego threat condition, participant’s

scores and nicknames were placed below the confederate’s scores and nicknames; confederates

were given sham scores that were a higher percentage. Score percentages of participants in this

condition were always lower than the confederate’s regardless of how well the participant

actually scored on the hard knowledge assessment. Participants in the high ego threat condition

were given scores that were 60% or lower while the confederate’s scores in the same condition


were given scores that were higher than 70%. This was done to threaten ego. On the PowerPoint,

for both conditions, a second slide was added to show how each participant’s score could be

compared to other students of varying education levels (assuming that they would receive the

same test). The percentile standards included high school students (0-50%), freshmen

psychology students (50-60%), sophomore psychology students (60-70%), junior psychology

students (70-80%), senior psychology students (80-90%), and graduate level psychology students

(90-100%). The comparison scores on the second slide were farce and also used to establish ego

threat.

A second yes/no word recognition assessment (recognition test 2) was administered after

the score percentages were displayed. The leading researcher instructed participants to mark their

percentage score on top of the recognition test 2 and circle it. These instructions were included in

the study to ensure that each participant truly read their score and recognized what they had

received. Recognition test 2 contained 21 different difficult words that were different from those

in recognition test 1. Participants in both the low ego threat condition and the high ego threat

condition were given the same word recognition assessment, and the tests were introduced in the

same way, depending on condition, as recognition test 1. Participants were asked to raise their

hand again and record “yes” or “no” depending on if they knew the word or had used it

previously in a sentence. After each word was read aloud the research assistants would count the

number of hands raised and record how many participants were indicating that they knew each

word. Confederates, in both conditions, did not receive assessments with pre-determined answers

for recognition test 2. The amount of times that the confederate’s hands were raised continued to

vary by condition. As instructed before the study began, confederates in the low ego threat


condition raised their hand about 25% of the time and confederates in the high ego threat

condition raised their hands about 75% of the time. Good

The final material administered was a word defining assessment. The participants were

asked to define or give one to two synonyms for the 42 words that were included in recognition

test 1 and recognition test 2. “No need to guess“ Participants were allotted 10 minutes to

complete this portion of the study. After the word defining assessment was completed, the lead

researcher debriefed the participants and asked them open-ended questions in regards to what

they may have thought the study was about or if they had additional comments. Participants were

thanked for their participation and were then provided with an email that they could contact if

they wanted further information. Good method section.

Results

In total, 30 participants were analyzed with three of the participants being excluded from

the study. They were excluded for having prior knowledge that may have guided them to

understand what the study was about. For the yes/no word recognition assessments, participants

were scored on a one or two point scale. Two points were assigned if the participant had

responded with “yes”, indicating that they knew the word but then gave an obviously fake word

definition on the word defining assessment. One point was assigned if the participant had

responded with “yes”, indicating that they knew the word but then left the word definition

section blank on the word defining assessment. No points were assigned if the participant had

said “no”, indicating that they did not know the word, then gave a correct or incorrect definition.

If the participant had indicated that they did not know the word and did not define it on the word

Author, 06/21/17,

I would suggest noting this in the participants section, too.


defining assessment, then no points were given. Fake 1 indicates the fake scores for the first

yes/no word recognition assessment and Fake 2 indicates the second yes/no word recognition

assessment. Ok

The NPI and BFI-10 were used to measure personality traits by asking how well a

statement described each individual. The NPI assessment had pre-determined statements from

each pair of statements that were considered to be narcissistic in nature. Participants were

assigned one point when they selected a response out of the statement pair that was typical of an

individual with narcissistic tendencies. The average NPI score for both conditions was 14.38 (SD

= 6.36). The correlation between narcissistic tendencies and mean fake change scores was (r =

0.532 (df = 1, 45) p < .05.

The BFI-10 assessment was scored and reverse-scored by two questions for each Big

Five Inventory trait. Reverse-scoring was done by finding the reversed number to the

participant’s response. For example, if a participant selected 1 (Disagree strongly) then you

would reverse-score the item by recording 5 (Agree strongly). Extraversion reverse-scored

statement one and scored statement five. Agreeableness scored statement two and reverse-scored

statement seven. Conscientiousness reverse-scored statement three and scored statement eight.

Neuroticism reverse-scored statement four and scored statement nine. Openness to experience

reverse-scored statement five and scored statement 10. Both scores for each personality trait

were added together to form a score that would reflect each personality trait and its strength. For

example, if the scores for extraversion were being added with statement one having a reversed-

score of two and statement five having a score of four, then the individual’s score for overall

extraversion would be six.


Recognition test 1 and

recognition test 2 represented

the first and second yes/no

word knowledge assessments

(See Figure 1). For the low ego

threat group the average faking

score on recognition test 1 was

6.67 (SD = 4.36). The average

faking score for the low ego

threat group on recognition test

2 was 5.08 (SD = 3.78). For the

high ego threat group, the

average faking score on

recognition test 1 was 8.20 (SD = 3.69). The average faking score for the high ego threat group

on recognition test 2 was 11.13 (SD = 4.41). A mixed-design ANOVA was used to assess the

effect of condition on the fake change scores (fake scores from Fake 1 - Fake 2). The results

indicated a significant effect (F = 7.19 (df = 1, 25) p = 0.0128. Ego threat condition direction n?

was significantly effecting faking scores. No significant change was found from Fake 1 to Fake 2

when looking at both conditions simultaneously. However, there was a significant interaction

such that fake score significantly increased at fake 2 in the high ego threat condition, but

decreased at Fake 2 in the low ego threat condition (F = 10.56 (df = 1, 25) p = 0.003. Good


When a simple regression test was run an

to compare fake 1 change scores (for

both high and low threat) and NPI

scores, a significant positive linear

relationship was found between the two

variables (See Figure 2). For this

regression, r = .661 and is significant at p

= 0.0006 (F = 16.27). It was hypothesized

that participants who scored higher on the

NPI, showing higher instances of

narcissism, would also have higher fake

scores on the word knowledge tasks

despite condition assigned. No significant relationship was found between NPI

scores and increased instances of faking. This means, for the present study, that NPI scores had

little to no effect on how much an individual may fake knowledge. Incorrect

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to test if ego threat would create ego defensive reactions

and increase instances in which faking knowledge would occur. Data collected from the study

supports the hypothesis. Individuals who were placed into a high ego threat condition faked word

knowledge significantly more after an ego threat was delivered by the difficult knowledge test. A

secondary hypothesis predicted that higher narcissistic tendencies, or higher scores on the NPI,

may be related to an increased likelihood to fake. It was believed that narcissistic individuals, or


those with higher narcissistic tendencies, would claim to know more of the difficult words even

if they did not know how to define them. This was expected to be seen despite ego threat

condition if an individual’s narcissism scores were high. In this study, there was no significant

relationship between narcissistic tendencies and higher instances of faking scores?. There was

however, a significant relationship between faking score changes and the condition in which

participants were assigned.meaning?

When looking for existing literature on the relationship between deception and

narcissism, there was a similar study conducted by Holmes in 1971. The study tested and

supported the hypothesis that reduction in recall performance following an ego threat was a

function of response competition rather than knowledge 'repression.' The study, like the present

one, brought in undergraduate students and exposed them to an incidental learning task ours was

not an ILT. consisting of 40 words. They were tested three times throughout the study for recall

on the words. Just before the second time of testing, the words were associated with either an ego

threat, new nonthreatening stimuli, or nothing. Holmes found no differences in performances on

the first or third recall tests but on the second test, the threat and response competition groups

performed significantly below the control group. Analyses of the specific words forgotten within

the threat and competition groups indicate that there were no differences in recall as a function of

whether or not threat had been associated with a specific word. All of their found results

suggested that decreased knowledge performance in the threat group was due to response

competition, thoughts elicited by threat, rather than repression of knowledge (Holmes 1971).

Like the present study, Holmes found that ego threat can significantly affect retain or display

knowledge to others. Ok


The present study was limited by the idea that some of the participants, not all, could

have learned words incorrectly. This could mean that not all of the faking responses that were

scored could be counted as deception. Falsely learned knowledge is something that could be

taken into consideration in a different or continuing study why wouldn't you go threat have an

effect on Mislearning?. Another limitation to the study was a lack of diversity. A majority of

participants recruited into the study were Caucasian females, so gender differences in increased

faking and ego threat could not be tested efficiently. Further studies on this issue could examine

a larger population with more males and ethnicities.

The results from the present study suggest that the relationship between ego threat and

faking knowledge is significant. Other results have found that narcissistic tendencies were not

related to an increased chance of faking knowledge. This suggests that, by nature, humans are

more prone to compensate and fake behavior/knowledge when their reputation, self-esteem, and

ego are questioned. Individuals with low NPI scores, indicating lower narcissistic tendencies,

were just as likely to fake knowledge as those who scored higher on the NPI. This shows that

individuals, highly narcissistic or not, will engage in compensatory behaviors when their ego and

reputation is threatened. If there is no threat, or maybe even an ego boost as was done with the

present study’s low ego threat condition, the need to fake knowledge is reduced.

Continued research on this issue may find it beneficial to increase the studies’ population

size, as mentioned above. Seating confederates towards the front of the room to increase

conforming and ego threat is something that could be focused on more in further studies.

Assessments may be added to see how pressure to conform may increase the effect of ego threat.

The research in the present study and continued research on the topic may contribute to increased

knowledge on the subject of narcissistic tendencies and deceptive behaviors. This research may


provide insight of how an individual may be motivated to fake knowledge and information

depending on what that information means to them.

Great job Amber

Grade-92%


References

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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219

Holmes, D. S. (1971). Compensation for ego threat: Two experiments. Journal Of Personality

And Social Psychology, 18(2), 234-237. doi:10.1037/h0030850

Masip, J., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2004). Defining deception. Anales De Psicología, 20(1),

147-171.

Rammstedt, B., John, O. P. (2007) Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10 item short

version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in

Personality, 41, 203-212

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, 890–902.

Rhodes, A. (2017). A Correlational Study on Narcissism and How it Relates to Deception.

Unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina Wilmington.

Wright, G. T., Berry, C. J., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2015). Good liars are neither ‘Dark’ nor self-

deceptive. Plos ONE, 10(6)

people.uncw.edupeople.uncw.edu/hakanr/Fakingreportsession1.docx · Web viewThe two word...

Documents

Transcript of people.uncw.edupeople.uncw.edu/hakanr/Fakingreportsession1.docx · Web viewThe two word...