Differences in buying behavior of self-lovers according to the form of self-love.
The behavioral patterns of people showing self-love, which is defined as having "too much pride in your own worth or goodness" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2014), vary. Narcissism is described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, version 5 (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) as a normal-level pathological personality disorder, wherein narcissists show chronically high self-esteem, overestimate themselves as a reaction to recover externally reduced self-esteem, and rate themselves highly despite a lack of supporting evidence. People with high self-efficacy, who, unlike narcissists, obtain their confidence from their own ability to handle previous experiences (Bandura, 1977), also acquire self-love. These individuals may seem at a glance to display a narcissistic personality, but we hypothesized that self-love based on efficacy will show different behavioral patterns from those associated with narcissism. Thus, we examined how consumers with strong self-love show different behaviors according to their form of self-love in buying situations.
Overt and Covert Narcissism vs. Self-Efficacy
Narcissism was first mentioned in the psychology literature by Ellis (1898), with reference to "the young man in Greek mythology, Narcissus, who fell in love with his own reflection in a pool and ultimately perished as a result of his self-preoccupation" (cited in Lee & Seidle, 2012, p. 1485). Oxford Dictionaries (2014) define the concept as excessive interest in, or admiration of, oneself and one's physical appearance. Raskin and Hall (1981) verified that narcissists tend to use first-person singular pronouns more than first-person plural pronouns. Further, narcissists tend to have a self-centered and self-relevant perception of the world (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Previous researchers (e.g., Davis, Claridge, & Brewer, 1996; Hickman, Watson, & Morris, 1996) have divided narcissism into adaptive and maladaptive types, and noted that these can coexist. Narcissists are also often classified into overt and covert types, depending on the expressive aspect that emerges in a phenomenological way (Kohut, 1977). Overt narcissism is generally seen as a diagnostic criterion in the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), and is mainly characterized by grandiose self-representation and an arrogant attitude. Overt narcissists hope to be recognized as the best in any situation and believe that they are special although they do not have grounds to support their supposed achievements or talents (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). In contrast, covert narcissism is characterized by sensitivity and vulnerability to others' criticism or reactions. Covert narcissism is far from the common perception of conceited narcissists. However, both are considered types of narcissism because of their hypersensitive behavioral patterns, and the inner psychological structure or dynamic system of both originates from the narcissistic tendency.
Self-efficacy is derived from Bandura's (1977) social learning theory and is defined as one's ability to organize and perform certain behaviors in special situations that are ambiguous and unpredictable. Bandura argued that the following four elements influence the formation of self-efficacy: performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. People with high self-efficacy perceive that they can undertake tasks and feel fewer emotions that may hinder their performance than people with low self-efficacy do; thus, they make a great deal of effort in difficult situations, which ultimately influences the outcome (Bandura, 1977). Alkharusi, Aldhafri, Alnabhani, and Alkalbani (2013) also confirmed that task value increases when the evaluation of the task is individualized and accurate, thus improving the person's self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is acquired based on a person's task performance in the past, and we have inferred that more accurately performing a task will lead to higher self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy is associated with narcissism; people with high self-efficacy have been found to control their emotions more easily than narcissists can because they possess a positive attitude and a high level of confidence (Lee, 2001). In the process of a person gaining self-efficacy and perceiving self-relevance through self-assessment based on his/her ability, the following key attributes of self-love are revealed: caring about oneself, taking responsibility for oneself, respecting oneself, and knowing oneself (Fromm, 1956). Therefore, self-efficacy can be seen as a factor in narcissistic self-love in terms of excessive self-immersion and self-admiration in the process of self-evaluation.
However, with reference to previous research on behavioral patterns of narcissism and self-efficacy, it can be predicted that self-love based on self-efficacy, which is formed through different channels, can be distinguished from narcissistic personality, and results in different behavioral patterns. Specifically, narcissists make quick, and possibly risky, decisions based on irrational beliefs instead of thoroughly considering relevant attributes, as they tend to be overconfident and overestimate themselves (Campbell, Goodie, & Foster, 2004). Moreover, they highly value how they are seen by others. In contrast, people with high self-love try to take a rational approach in making decisions because they prefer to undertake only those tasks that allow them to display their strengths and abilities in front of others (Alkharusi et al., 2013).
Behavioral Patterns of Narcissism and Self-Efficacy
Narcissism and high self-efficacy also show remarkable differences in behavioral patterns. First, narcissists tend to care a great deal about their image and how they appear to others, and are highly attracted by visual factors. Narcissists tend to enjoy "displaying or showing off to others" (Vazire, Naumann, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2008, p. 440). Second, narcissists show irrational beliefs and behaviors, or tend not to perform information processing that requires complex cognitive abilities (Campbell et al., 2004; Lee & Seidle, 2012; Robins & Beer, 2001). Campbell et al. conducted a study to identify narcissists making errors in playing games, because of an irrational overconfidence in their decisionmaking abilities. In these games, narcissists consistently adopted a risk-taking strategy with overconfidence regardless of the probability of success. Narcissists also tended to purchase scarce products (i.e., those perceived as unique or exclusive) as a way of differentiating themselves from others, and did not engage in deliberate information processing regarding whether the product fulfilled their practical needs (Lee & Seidle, 2012).
People with high self-efficacy think highly of themselves and have relatively precise judgments based on their abilities; thus, they prefer tasks that can reveal their abilities and try to take a rational approach to decision making (Alkharusi et al., 2013; Bandura, 1993; McMillan & Workman, 1998). People obtain higher self-efficacy if their evaluation of a task is accurate (Alkharusi et al., 2013). Although people with high self-efficacy are unwilling to undertake a task that they believe may exceed their ability, they are willing to undertake a task that they can handle well (Bandura, 1993). Further, they develop strong self-efficacy if they judge that the task is important and useful (McMillan & Workman, 1998).
Overt and covert narcissists are two consumer groups characterized by self-love, which is a common feature of modern consumers (Wink, 1991), and people with high self-efficacy undertake different self-evaluation cognitive processes (Alkharusi et al., 2013). Thus, we expected that the behavior aspect seen in specific situations would differ between these two groups. Therefore, we focused in this study on the self-love feature of narcissism and self-efficacy, and predicted that the behavior aspect in the specific environment of the purchase situation would also manifest differently through direct comparison between both types of self-lover (i.e., those characterized by narcissism and those characterized by self-efficacy).
According to a recent questionnaire targeting 2,068 English consumers (Rigby, 2015), 87% shopped online and 78.3% shopped in physical stores. That is, the online purchase rate has increased, so we believed that examining the difference between purchasing in private or public would increase understanding of the purchase environment in regard to self-love. Likewise, among overt and covert narcissists, the difference between whether or not they are self-conscious is dependent on whether they are in a public or a private purchase situation, which we expected to induce a difference in behavior. Moreover, as self-esteem may influence self-efficacy, the tendency to like the tasks that can reveal one's ability may be maximized in a public, compared to a private, situation, as it will lead one to win more recognition from others. Therefore, in this study, self-lovers were divided into three groups, comprising covert narcissists, overt narcissists, and people with high self-efficacy, and we established the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Narcissists will tend to prefer information that reveals visual effects as opposed to information focused on attributes, and will be more likely to make purchases through that channel.
Hypothesis 1a: Overt narcissists will tend to prefer information that reveals visual effects as opposed to information focused on attributes in a public setting.
Hypothesis 1b: Covert narcissists will tend to prefer information that reveals visual effects as opposed to information focused on attributes in private.
Hypothesis 2a: People with high self-efficacy will tend to prefer information focused on attributes as opposed to information that reveals visual effects, and will be more likely to make purchases through that channel.
Hypothesis 2b: People with high self-efficacy will tend to prefer information focused on attributes in public as opposed to information focused on attributes in a private setting.
We predicted that the behavioral patterns of narcissists and people with high self-efficacy would differ in buying situations. Narcissists make quick decisions, instead of thoroughly considering product attributes, because they tend to be overconfident and take risks as a result of groundlessly overestimating themselves. Therefore, they are likely to prefer visual information as opposed to information that is focused on attributes when making a purchase decision. In particular, even though both types of narcissists are significantly influenced by visual information, they may display different behavioral patterns depending on whether the situation is public or private because covert narcissists, who are defensive and have low self-esteem, fear being judged by others (Hendin & Cheek, 1997).
In contrast, people with high self-efficacy prefer tasks that allow them to display their abilities in front of others and try to take a rational approach in making decisions (Alkharusi et al., 2013; Bandura, 1977). Thus, they will be more likely to prefer information that is focused on attributes as opposed to visual information in a variety of buying situations, especially in a public setting.
Differences in Buying Behavior According to Product Display Method
Consumers' reactions toward the same product may vary according to the display method used (Simonson, 1999). Reutskaja and Hogarth (2009) found that if products on display are big and the alternatives vary only in shape, they tend to look monotonous and require higher cognitive costs for processing within the same visual environment. Therefore, displaying by brand rather than by product facilitates distinction of different brand concepts and product designs.
Furthermore, Huang and Yang (2011) showed that an individual's cognitive style helps to explain the effects of display of information on websites. This implies that preferences for the organizational format of information may differ based on an individual's personality.
If similar alternatives are presented simultaneously, the product display method determines cognitive load (i.e., the amount of visual mental effort required to compare alternatives) when consumers comparatively evaluate the alternatives (Reutskaja & Hogarth, 2009). Because of such cognitive costs, consumers find it difficult to choose between different products. Therefore, when products are displayed based on attributes, consumers need specialized knowledge and insight; they must compare the products based on attribute information rather than on visual elements, and, thus, are likely to experience high cognitive load (Filin, 1998). In contrast, when products are displayed by brand, consumers are expected to choose easily and experience low cognitive costs because the product classification includes more visual factors (Ha, 2009).
Narcissists are likely to make judgments based on brand information, which makes it easy to compare alternatives with relatively little cognitive effort, as opposed to decision making based on products and attributes, which requires greater cognitive effort (Keith, 2004). Therefore, we believed that brand would be a significant point of consideration when making buying decisions because it represents the narcissist's social position and value to others. In contrast, people with high self-efficacy tend to evaluate their abilities accurately, having gone through the process of judging their skills in the past (Alkharusi et al., 2013). Therefore, when making decisions in choice sets, they are likely to evaluate the alternatives and make buying decisions based on those product attributes that can reveal their expertise. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 3: Narcissists will tend to prefer brand displays and will be more likely to purchase items displayed using this method.
Hypothesis 4: People with high, vs. low, self-efficacy will tend to prefer product displays and be more likely to purchase items displayed using this method.
Participants and procedure. A group experiment was conducted using an online questionnaire written in Korean, via a research firm called Embrain. Participants were 133 students (62 men, 71 women, Mage = 23.59 [+ or -] 2.31 years) at universities offering four-year college courses. Students participating in the experiment were compensated with US$4.50.
We measured preference and purchase intention to determine which information composition (visual vs. attribute) induced more of a reaction in narcissistic and self-efficacious people with strong self-love. Considering that most of the participants were university students, we provided scenarios of buying situations that were familiar to the student population, that is, a) purchasing books, b) purchasing a package tourism product, and c) finding a good restaurant. We also utilized the situation of preparing presentation materials using PowerPoint for individual presentations given in class.
Independent variables. Overt narcissism scale. We developed an assessment tool based on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1981), which is used to measure general (overt) narcissism. To review the internal validity of this tool and extract items for measurement, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed with 62 participants using an online research program, Mturk. Among the initial statistics, eight factors had an eigenvalue of 1 or higher. In order to gather only the main common factors, six that had an eigenvalue of 1.2 or higher were selected, considering the cumulative distribution percentage, and the eigenvalue from the initial statistics and varimax rotation was applied to them. To increase the assessment scale's validity from these six factors, items that had the highest factor loadings were selected and used in the assessment tool (see Appendix). The internal consistency (Cronbach's a) for the entire scale, as measured by the participants' responses, was .714 in this study.
Covert narcissism scale. We measured covert narcissism by using the 18 narcissistic personality disorder items from the Narcissistic Personality Disorder Scale (NPDS; Hwang, 1995). Responses are rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), and higher scores indicate that the respondent is more likely to be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. Cronbach's [alpha] was .88 in this study.
Self-efficacy. To assess self-efficacy, we used the Self-Efficacy Scale (SES; Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001), which is based on Bandura's (1993) self-efficacy theory. We reorganized the test into five items to assess participants' task performance, with each item rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; Cronbach's [alpha] = .936).
Dependent variables. The preference for visual and attribute information types and subsequent purchase intention were used as dependent variables and rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly prefer Option A, 7 = strongly prefer Option B). A 7-point Likert scale (1 = definitely Option A, 7 = definitely Option B) was used to rate which option the respondent would ultimately choose.
Data analysis. We conducted a path analysis via structural equation modeling to determine which factors had significant explanatory power among narcissistic self-lovers and self-lovers with high self-efficacy regarding preference for information type--visual or attribute--during decision making. In addition, to determine whether or not there was a difference in buying behavior between narcissists and nonnarcissists when narcissism was measured as a continuous variable, we performed a mean split and divided the participants into two subgroups (narcissists and nonnarcissists) and then conducted an analysis of variance.
Buying behavior in relation to information type according to the form of self-love. The chi-square (%2) goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of the model regarding the three independent variables for the eight types of preferences was [chi square](28) = 7.611, p < .001, and GFI = .792. The model GFI regarding the same for the eight types of purchase intention was [chi square](28) = 7.074, p < .001, and GFI = .802, indicating a satisfactory goodness of fit. The regression analysis results shown in Table 1 reveal that overt narcissism had a significantly positive influence on tourism products and presentation materials regarding the preference for visual information composition ([p.sub.travel] = 04/[p.sub.PowerPoint] = .06). On the other hand, covert narcissism had a significantly negative influence on information composition of bookstores regarding the preference for attribute information composition ([p.sub.bookstore] = 01), while self-efficacy had a significantly positive influence on restaurants and presentation materials ([p.sub.restaurant] = .06/[p.sub.PowerPoint] = .03). Moreover, overt narcissism had a marginally significant negative influence on the option of organizing presentation materials based on contents ([p.sub.PowerPoint=] .10)
The regression analysis results shown in Table 1 reveal that overt narcissism had a significantly positive influence on tourism products and presentation materials regarding purchase intention in relation to visual information composition ([p.sub.travel] = .03/[p.sub.PowerPoint] = .06) but a marginally significant negative influence on tourism products organized by attribute ([p.sub.travel] = .10). On the other hand, covert narcissism had a significantly negative influence on information composition of bookstores regarding purchase intention in relation to attribute information composition ([p.sub.bookstore] = 07), whereas self-efficacy had a significantly positive influence on restaurants and presentation materials ([p.sub.restaurant] = .06/[p.sub.PowerPoint] = .05). Moreover, self-efficacy had a significantly negative influence on presentation materials ([p.sub.ppt] = .05). After examining preferences for each type of information composition, it was found that overt narcissism had a significantly negative influence on tourism products ([p.sub.travel] = .06).
Analysis of variance for information type by group according to the form of self-love. Analysis of overt narcissism and nonnarcissism groups revealed significant differences in terms of preference for attribute information ([p.sub.travel] = .06), such that nonnarcissists preferred attribute information more than overt narcissists did. The difference between covert narcissism and nonnarcissism groups was significant in terms of preference for attribute information in relation to bookstores and tourism products ([p.sub.bookstore] = 01/[p.sub.travel] = .06), which indicates that nonnarcissists preferred attribute information more than covert narcissists did.
Through Study 1, we confirmed that narcissism has a stronger influence than self-efficacy does on visual information composition, whereas self-efficacy has a stronger influence than narcissism does on attribute information in diverse buying environments. In regard to tourism products and presentation materials, overtly narcissistic people tend to have a strong purchase intention toward these products and materials and also a strong preference for, and probability of choosing information formats, whereas they show a low probability of purchasing tourism products organized by attribute.
We found it interesting that covert narcissists preferred visual information composition for bookstore and tourism products. Because these are private situations where they do not have to reveal themselves to others, covert narcissists chose books from bestseller displays and photographic tourism materials. We infer that this is because covert narcissists feel more comfortable in private buying situations because their low self-esteem means they are afraid of being judged by others.
In contrast, people with high self-efficacy preferred a content-oriented composition in choosing a restaurant and making PowerPoint presentation materials, and chose to make purchases through the product attribute information channel. This response was found only in the context of restaurants and presentation materials, because these are both public buying situations.
To extend these findings, in Study 2, our aim was to verify whether or not the buying behaviors of these groups varied according to the display method, while the product line remained the same.
Pretest. We selected the products to be used in the main experiment by asking 11 university students to choose one product line from among a series of fashion goods, laptops, digital cameras, and fast food, for which both brand and attribute have been found to be important in making buying decisions (Simonson, 1999). Of the respondents, 77% chose digital cameras; therefore, we used this product as the stimulant, and identified the main target customers of digital cameras to be in their 20s and 30s, in selecting the research participants.
Participants and procedure. A group experiment was conducted using an online questionnaire, by research firm, Embrain. Participants were 83 workers and 15 university students (N = 98; 49 men, 49 women, [M.sub.age] = 37.98 [+ or -] 10.83 years). Students participating in the experiment were compensated with US$4.50. Workers were not compensated financially.
We measured narcissism and self-efficacy as well as preference, purchase intention, and choice to determine which display method--by brand or by product attributes--induced more of a reaction in people with strong self-love. We provided the scenario of a gift-buying situation in which the recipient's brand preference is uncertain so that the participants did not already have a strong preference for one particular brand. Then, we presented five brands, two each from low-priced and high-priced types and one of average price, in the brands displays of digital cameras. In the display by attribute, we presented five amounts of pixels, two each from low-priced and high-priced types and one of average price. We then had participants rate their preference for, purchase intention toward, and overall product choice according to each display method.
Measures. For the independent variable, we used the NPI and the SES, as described in Study 1. Unlike Study 1, covert narcissism was excluded because the scenarios in Study 2 were public, and thus appropriate for examining overt narcissists. For the dependent variable, we used the preference for visual vs. attribute information, purchase intention, and final product choice, as described in Study 1.
Data analysis. We conducted a path analysis via structural equation modeling to determine which factors had significant explanatory power among narcissistic self-lovers and self-lovers with high self-efficacy regarding preference for display method, purchase intention, and choice when the same product is displayed by brand and by product attribute. In addition, since we believe that the buying behavior of choosing alternatives when digital cameras are displayed by pixel will lead to a considerable level of cognitive cost (Filin, 1998), we focused on determining whether or not there is a difference in such high involvement behavior between people with high and low self-efficacy. Therefore, we performed a mean split of the self-efficacy variable and then conducted an intergroup analysis of variance.
Buying behavior in relation to display method according to the form of self-love. The goodness of fit of the model was relatively satisfactory, [chi square](6) = 28, p = .01, GFI = .695. As shown in Table 2, narcissism did not influence preference for product displays, whereas self-efficacy showed a significant positive correlation with preference for product displays ([p.sub.spec] = .04). Self-efficacy did not influence purchase intention in regard to brand displays, but narcissism showed a positive correlation with purchase intention in regard to brand displays (see Table 2; [p.sub.spec] = .04). Narcissism did not influence purchase intention for product displays, whereas self-efficacy showed a marginally significantly positive correlation with purchase intention for product displays ([p.sub.spec] = .10)
Regarding which display method the consumers chose the product from, narcissists showed a negative correlation with product displays (NPI [p.sub.choice] = .02), whereas self-efficacious individuals showed a positive correlation (see Table 2; Efficacy [p.sub.choice] = .42).
Analysis of variance for display method by group according to the form of self-love. The analysis of variance results show that people with high self-efficacy preferred the product attribute display method more than people with low self-efficacy did (high efficacy [M.sub.preference] = 5.47/low efficacy [M.sub.preference] = 4.89, p = .01) and chose to purchase through this display method (high efficacy [M.sub.intention] = 5.37/low efficacy [M.sub.intention] = 4.84, p = .02).
Through Study 2, we confirmed that narcissists preferred brand displays, whereas self-efficacious individuals preferred product displays when choosing between the two display methods. Moreover, we verified that narcissism (vs. self-efficacy) had a stronger influence on buying behavior according to brand displays, although the difference was not significant. In contrast, self-efficacy (vs. narcissism) had a stronger influence on both preference and purchase intention regarding buying behavior according to display type.
In sum, narcissists showed a high probability of purchase and tendency to choose brand displays that represented them and entailed low cognitive costs, whereas people with high self-efficacy preferred product displays with which they could show off their specialized knowledge and were more likely to purchase and ultimately choose the product through this channel.
In this study, our aim was to examine how consumers with strong self-love show different behaviors in buying situations according to the way in which they love themselves. First, narcissists preferred a visual buying environment that entailed low cognitive costs. This option was much easier for them to choose over a cognitive buying environment that required high involvement in comparing all the attributes of alternative comparisons, because of their tendency toward emotional and irrational behaviors. Second, because overt narcissists tend to enjoy other people's attention and to show themselves off, they enjoyed buying in a public situation, whereas covert narcissists preferred to buy in the popular or private situation because they are reluctant to be appraised by others. Third, self-lovers with high self-efficacy tended to prefer a high-involvement buying environment through which they could display and show off their abilities. The differences between the two groups of self-lovers regarding product display method shows that display, in terms of marketing, transcends the mere concept of exhibiting products. Last, narcissists showed a high probability of purchase and tendency to choose brand displays that represented them and entailed low cognitive costs, whereas people with high self-efficacy preferred product displays in which they could show off their specialized knowledge and were more likely to choose and ultimately purchase the product through this channel.
From a theoretical point of view, we have contributed to both the psychology and consumer behavior literature. Whereas self-efficacy was mainly handled only in terms of the pathological phenomenon and performance ability in previous psychology studies, we focused on the self-love feature in which people with high self-efficacy highly evaluate their abilities and show a strong immersion in the self-related cognitive behavior process and self-evaluation, which can be seen as a type of self-love, like narcissism. Fromm (1956) revealed that people with higher self-efficacy have a form of self-love, as well as narcissists and we have furthered this research direction by finding that there were behavior differences in specific situations between narcissists and people with high self-efficacy. Therefore, we have expanded on the concept of self-love by examining situational, rather than chronic, factors that represent participants' innate personality. Further, we directly compared self-loving consumers with high self-efficacy to overt and covert narcissists, and revealed differences in purchase behavior among these groups.
Our results also have significant practical implications. Specifically, visual-focused, rather than information-focused, user interfaces or advertisements will be more persuasive for establishing online marketing strategies in modern society because people who participate in these digital activities are becoming increasingly narcissistic. Liu and Rau (2014) recently found that the online exchange of knowledge and information with out-group individuals increases self-efficacy. Therefore, social networking site (SNS) activities can also be divided into two types, that is, sharing daily lives on Facebook and exchanging information on wikis, with the information-focused user interfaces or advertisements being more effective for those exchanging information on wikis. Moreover, online shops can modify their direct emails or webpage layouts in order to capitalize on the narcissistic tendencies of online consumers by determining the frequency of SNS activities and specific occupations of their customers when implementing customer relationship marketing strategies based on consumer database information.
There are two main limitations in this study. First, because all the research participants were Korean, the results may be biased with regard to cultural background. Particularly, because the majority of Koreans engage in SNS activities, the participants may be skewed toward being more narcissistic. Second, considering that increased use of social media leads to self-loving behavior (BBC News, 2013), these behaviors, which have become prominent in contemporary culture, may be generated not only by genetic but also by environmental elements. Therefore, the narcissism and self-efficacy scales that we used in this study are limited in terms of explaining recent increases in self-love behavior.
To extend our findings, future researchers could compare cultural (Eastern vs. Western) or regional (large city vs. small town) or national differences based on SNS activity levels to examine whether or not active participation in SNS actually leads to the cultivation of a narcissistic personality. In addition, by investigating national differences in buying behaviors between narcissists and early adopters who have formed self-love through self-efficacy, the external validity of the assessment tool will be increased, and light will be shed on the connection between online activities and narcissistic personality disorder.
Appendix Measurement Tools Scale name Item Questions NPDS 1. I have a particular talent that is not often (Covert found in others. narcissism) 2. My emotions sometimes change dramatically, such as liking someone a lot at some times and really hating them at others. 3. I think little of the opinions of people around me and tend to ignore them and do whatever I want. 4. If someone takes a dim view of me, I get furious or feel humiliated or insulted. 5. I frequently feel insulted in my relationships with other people and subsequently get angry with or insult them in return. 6. I feel extremely offended by other people I interact with. 7. My pride was hurt because I was treated in the same way as others. 8. It is necessary to deceive and take advantage of others for my own benefit. 9. I always want to be acknowledged and supported by others. 10. My problems are special and qualitatively different from other people's, so I get angry or insult them when they don't acknowledge this. 11. If I put my mind to it, I can do a better job than other people think I can. 12. Sometimes, I have been unhappy because other people did not show interest in my words or behaviors. 13. I imagine achieving a great amount of one (or many) of the following: success, power, beauty, love, and fame. 14. I cannot suppress my anger if someone hurts my pride. 15. I want others to focus on me and greatly appreciate me. 16. When I'm emotionally excited, I cannot even think about other people's thoughts or opinions. 17. I deserve to be acknowledged by others for the important tasks I perform. 18. I cannot understand people who think differently from me about certain things. NPI 1. I will be a success. (Overt 2. I like to look at myself in the mirror. narcissism) 3. I can read people like a book. 4. I am assertive. 5. I wish somebody would someday write my biography. 6. Modesty doesn't become me. (1 = extremely disagree, 7 = extremely agree) New General 1. I will be able to achieve most of the goals Self-Efficacy that I have set for myself. Scale 2. When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them. 3. In general, I think that I can achieve outcomes that are important to me. 4. I believe I can succeed at most any endeavor to which I set my mind. 5. I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges. 6. I am confident that I can effectively perform many different tasks. 7. Compared to other people, I can do most tasks very well. 8. Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well.
JAE WON HWANG and SEO YOUNG KIM
Seoul National University
Jae Won Hwang and Seo Young Kim, Department of Consumer Behavior and Marketing, Seoul National University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Jae Won Hwang, Department of Consumer Behavior and Marketing, College of Business, Seoul National University, SK building 58-317, 1 Gwanak-ro 1, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 151-754, Republic of Korea. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Alkharusi, H. A., Aldhafri, S., Alnabhani, H., & Alkalbani, M. (2013). The impact of students' perceptions of assessment tasks on self-efficacy and perception of task value: A path analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 41, 1681-1692. http://doi.org/3hq
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: Author.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. http://doi.org/cgp
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148. http://doi.org/fkhng6
BBC News. (2013, November 19). Selfie named by Oxford Dictionaries as word of 2013. Retrieved from http://bbc.in/1Q5BPYi
Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1303-1314. http://doi.org/bwr4p9
Campbell, W. K., Goodie, A. S., & Foster, J. D. (2004). Narcissism, confidence, and risk attitude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 297-311. http://doi.org/cmssz7
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62-83. http://doi.org/dnv3xx
Davis, C., Claridge, G., & Brewer, H. (1996). The two faces of narcissism: Personality dynamics of body esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 153-166. http://doi.org/cdpmmr
Economist, The. (2014, March 22). Know thy selfie. Retrieved from http://econ.st/1etteiT
Filin, V. A. (1998). Video ecology: Good and bad for the eye. Moscow: TASS Advertising.
Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. New York: Harper & Row.
Ha, H.-H. (2009). The effects of product assortment and display formats on purchase decision [In Korean]. Korea Journal of Business Administration, 22, 1427-1446.
Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reexamination of Murray's narcissism scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588-599. http://doi.org/ fs7cf7
Hickman, S. E., Watson, P. J., & Morris, R. J. (1996). Optimism, pessimism, and the complexity of narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 521-525. http://doi.org/b3bwgm
Huang, J.-H., & Yang, T.-K. (2011). The impacts of homepage screen density on website evaluations: The moderating role of personality type. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 39, 381-390. http://doi.org/cdntmf
Hwang, S. T. (1995). Development of diagnostic criteria for personality disorder [In Korean]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press.
Lee, S. Y., & Seidle, R. (2012). Narcissists as consumers: The effects of perceived scarcity on processing of product information. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 40, 1485-1500. http://doi.org/scg
Lee, W. H. (2001). The relationship of narcissism, perfectionism, hostility, and self-efficacy [In Korean]. Unpublished master's thesis, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea.
Liu, J., & Rau, P.-L. P. (2014). Impact of self-construal on choice of enterprise social media for knowledge sharing. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 42, 1077-1089. http://doi.org/3hv
McMillan, J. H., & Workman, D. J. (1998). Classroom assessment and grading practices: A review of the literature. Richmond, VA: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium.
Narcissism [Def.] (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1SjZhVv
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, 159-162. http://doi.org/ch4b6b
Reutskaja, E., & Hogarth, R. M. (2009). Satisfaction in choice as a function of the number of alternatives: When "goods satiate." Psychology and Marketing, 26, 197-203. http://doi.org/ fk8bcc
Rigby, C. (2015, February 24). Online shopping more popular than store visits. http://bit.ly/1wl2j4o
Robins, R. W. & Beer, J. S. (2001). Positive illusions about the self: Short-term benefits and long term costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 340-352. http://doi.org/ d46mv7
Self-love [Def.] (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Dictionary online. Retrieved from http://bit.lu/SjZhVv
Simonson, I. (1999). The effect of product assortment on buyer preferences. Journal of Retailing, 73, 347-370. http://doi.org/bs3gxg
Vazire, S., Naumann, L. P., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Portrait of a narcissist: Manifestations of narcissism in physical appearance. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1439-1447. http://doi.org/fncn2f
Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 590-597. http://doi.org/fp5b2c
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816-1836. http:// doi.org/cmr349
Table 1. Regression Analysis Results (Study 1) Bookstore [beta] SE p Preference for Overt narcissism .169 .147 .250 visual information Covert narcissism -.058 .130 .654 Self-efficacy .081 .118 .495 Preference for Overt narcissism -.134 .125 .283 attribute information Covert narcissism -.284 .111 .010 Self-efficacy .109 .101 .282 Purchase intention Overt narcissism .154 .171 .366 of visual information Covert narcissism -.036 .151 .810 Self-efficacy .016 .138 .908 Purchase intention of Overt narcissism -.157 .118 .181 attribute information Covert narcissism -.189 .104 .071 Self-efficacy .117 .095 .220 Choice of information Overt narcissism -.129 .21 .26 Covert narcissism .018 .186 .842 Self-efficacy -.063 .17 .576 Tourism product [beta] SE p Preference for Overt narcissism .277 .137 .044 visual information Covert narcissism -.047 .122 .698 Self-efficacy -.158 .111 .156 Preference for Overt narcissism -.130 .120 .279 attribute information Covert narcissism .009 .107 .933 Self-efficacy .139 .097 .152 Purchase intention Overt narcissism .312 .147 .034 of visual information Covert narcissism -.084 .130 .519 Self-efficacy -.161 .119 .176 Purchase intention of Overt narcissism -.228 .139 .100 attribute information Covert narcissism -.058 .123 .634 Self-efficacy .115 .112 .306 Choice of information Overt narcissism -.215 .185 .061 Covert narcissism .018 .164 .840 Self-efficacy .122 .15 .283 Restaurant [beta] SE p Preference for Overt narcissism .104 .159 .513 visual information Covert narcissism .002 .141 .990 Self-efficacy .119 .129 .354 Preference for Overt narcissism -.065 .124 .599 attribute information Covert narcissism -.125 .110 .256 Self-efficacy .189 .100 .060 Purchase intention Overt narcissism -.016 .156 .919 of visual information Covert narcissism .038 .138 .781 Self-efficacy .127 .126 .313 Purchase intention of Overt narcissism -.12 .129 .320 attribute information Covert narcissism -.117 .114 .305 Self-efficacy .197 .104 .059 Choice of information Overt narcissism .003 .188 .992 Covert narcissism -.038 .166 .677 Self-efficacy .013 .152 .913 Presentation material [beta] SE p Preference for Overt narcissism .358 .193 .063 visual information Covert narcissism -.060 .171 .726 Self-efficacy -.178 .156 .253 Preference for Overt narcissism -.306 .187 .101 attribute information Covert narcissism -.088 .165 .594 Self-efficacy .322 .151 .033 Purchase intention Overt narcissism .365 .195 .061 of visual information Covert narcissism -.010 .173 .953 Self-efficacy -.314 .157 .046 Purchase intention of Overt narcissism -.204 .188 .278 attribute information Covert narcissism .006 .167 .971 Self-efficacy .295 .152 .052 Choice of information Overt narcissism -.028 .241 .810 Covert narcissism .069 .213 .810 Self-efficacy -.022 .117 .547 Table 2. Correlation Results (Study 2) Brand Estimate SE p Preference for Overt narcissism .098 .135 .470 display method Self-efficacy .149 .137 .270 Purchase intention Overt narcissism .315 .159 .047 of display method Self-efficacy -.024 .161 .880 Product attributes Estimate SE p Preference for Overt narcissism -.019 .112 .86 display method Self-efficacy .234 .114 .04 Purchase intention Overt narcissism -.141 .126 .26 of display method Self-efficacy .209 .128 .10 Brand vs. Product attributes Estimate SE P Choice of Overt narcissism -.406 .338 .017 display method Self-efficacy .306 .307 .042
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Hwang, Jae Won; Kim, Seo Young|
|Publication:||Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2015|
|Previous Article:||Happy to support: emotion as a mediator in brand building through philanthropic corporate sponsorship.|
|Next Article:||When is a good citizen valued more? Organizational citizenship behavior and performance evaluation.|