A study involving full-time employed individuals revealed that the unethical behavior of narcissists depends on the context. When opportunities for personal gain are restrained and in situations that demand deliberation, the association between grandiose narcissism and unethical behavior disappeared. The paper was published in Personality and Individual Differences.
Grandiose narcissism is a personality trait characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, a strong need for admiration, and a belief in one’s superiority over others. Individuals high in grandiose narcissism tend to view themselves as exceptional and deserving of special treatment. They seek positions of status and influence where they can receive recognition and validation.
Because they prioritize their own success and image, they may show little concern for the needs or rights of others. This self-centered orientation can make unethical behavior more likely when such behavior benefits their goals or reputation. For example, grandiose narcissists may exaggerate achievements, take credit for others’ work, or manipulate information to maintain a positive image. They may also justify unethical actions by believing that rules should not apply to someone as important as they perceive themselves to be.
Research has shown that grandiose narcissism is associated with a higher likelihood of cheating, exploiting others, and engaging in deceptive practices. These behaviors are often driven by a desire to win, gain admiration, or avoid threats to their 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 contexts.
Study authors Caitlin C. Belfiore and Annika Hillebrandt wanted to investigate which conditions make narcissists more or less likely to behave in an unethical way. They hypothesized that narcissists would be more likely to act unethically in situations that highlight opportunities for personal gain and that permit quick, impulsive decisions. In contrast, situations that limit the opportunities for personal gain or those that demand deliberation would weaken the link between narcissism and unethical behavior.
Participants in the study were 350 full-time employees residing in Canada or the U.S., recruited via Prolific to complete a two-part study. All of them completed the first part, but only 176 completed the second part. In the end, the study authors used data from 164 participants (twelve were excluded from the analysis for failing attention checks). Of these final participants, 51% were women. Their average age was 39 years. On average, they had worked for 7 years in their current organization, and 55% were managers.
In the first part of the study, participants completed an assessment of grandiose narcissism (the Narcissistic Personality Inventory) and other dark personality traits (the Short Dark Triad Scale and the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale). In the second part of the study, participants were divided into three groups. One group was the control group and it completed a task measuring unethical behavior (Wiltermuth’s anagram task) with standard instructions.
In this task, they were told that they had 2 minutes to unscramble a list of 9 scrambled words and report their scores. The instructions emphasized that the words should be unscrambled in the order in which they were presented and that participants should proceed to the next word only after unscrambling the previous word. Participants were told that they should unscramble as many words as possible and that they would receive 0.10 GBP per unscrambled word.
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 GBP bonus for completing the task regardless of the number of words they reported. In the third group, the study authors gave participants time for deliberation.
Before reporting their score, participants were forced to wait out a mandatory 1-minute deliberation period. During this time, they were told to take some time to reflect on how many words they had unscrambled and how they were going to report their score.
At the end of the task, participants were asked to indicate how many words they were able to unscramble. They were asked to self-report their score (i.e., how many words they unscrambled), but were not asked to provide any proof of this or to actually write the words (in order to prove that they unscrambled them). However, unbeknownst to the study participants, the third scrambled word was unsolvable.
Because of this, it was impossible to obtain a score of three or more. Reporting such a score meant that the participant was lying about the score. The study authors used this information about whether a participant reported a score that was not possible as a measure of the participants’ unethical behavior.
Results showed that 42% of participants reported scores of three or more. In other words, this percentage of participants falsely reported their scores, indicating unethical behavior. Participants in the reduced personal gain condition tended to report lower preoccupation with personal gain compared to participants in the other two conditions. Those in the deliberation condition tended to report deliberating more than participants in the other two groups. This told 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 behave unethically (i.e., to falsely report their scores). In contrast, in the reduced personal gain and the deliberation groups, narcissism was not associated with unethical behavior. This means that narcissists were not more likely to behave unethically than less narcissistic individuals in situations where they had time to think about what to report and situations where unethical behavior did not increase personal gains.
“Theoretically, this research identifies situational boundary conditions that clarify when narcissistic traits are less likely to translate into unethical conduct. Practically, these findings provide a foundation for designing targeted organizational interventions that reduce opportunities for narcissistic self-interested unethical behavior,” the study authors concluded.
The study contributes to the scientific understanding of narcissism. However, it should be noted that the personal gains used in the study were of trivial value. If the values to be gained were more substantial or if lying carried a real risk, the results might not have been the same.
The paper, “Ego, impulse, and opportunity: Mitigating the relationship between narcissism and self-interested unethical behavior,” was authored by Caitlin C. Belfiore and Annika Hillebrandt.
