The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance

Tjark Rode; Tobias L. Kordsmeyer; Julia Stern

doi:10.1525/collabra.37150

Rode, Tjark; Kordsmeyer, Tobias L.; Stern, Julia

2022-07-27 00:00:00

Rode, T., Kordsmeyer, T. L., & Stern, J. (2022). The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.37150 Personality Psychology The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance 1 1 2 Tjark Rode , Tobias L. Kordsmeyer , Julia Stern 1 2 Department of Psychology, University of Göttingen, Goettingen, Germany, Department of Psychology, University of Göttingen, Goettingen, Germany; University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany Keywords: zero acquaintance, personality judgment, lens model, attractiveness, body morphology, narcissistic admiration and rivalry https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.37150 Collabra: Psychology Vol. 8, Issue 1, 2022 Narcissistic people are exceedingly successful in conveying positive first impressions to their social surrounding, yet, they appear to be the driving force behind unfavorable long-term social and romantic relationships. Hence, a quick identification of narcissistic people may be of adaptive value for their social partners. Narcissism perception research, however, is lacking evidence on human body morphology. In this study, N = 110 raters evaluated natural 3D body scans of unacquainted N = 307 target participants (152 men and 155 women) regarding narcissistic admiration and rivalry. Based on the Brunswikian lens model, multiple regression models revealed that bodily attractiveness (β = .54, 95% CI = [0.41; 0.66]), BMI (β = .32, 95% CI = [0.13; 0.51]), shoulder-to-hip ratio (β = .33, 95% CI = [0.20; 0.47]) and physical strength (β = .23, 95% CI = [0.07; 0.39]) were utilized in judging narcissistic admiration and rivalry. Shoulder-hip ratio showed small relationships with self-reported narcissistic admiration (β = .21, 95% CI = [0.03; 0.38]) and rivalry (β = .23, 95% CI = [0.07; 0.39]) that were not robust across all analyses. Correlations between self-reported and judged narcissism showed a significant positive association for narcissistic admiration (r = .17, 95% CI = [0.06; 0.28]). Results indicate a perceptual bias when judging narcissism, as perceivers used body cues to draw inferences about target’s levels of narcissism that were not significantly related to self-reported narcissistic admiration and rivalry (and can thus be seen as invalid). However, perceivers were able to somewhat accurately judge target’s levels of narcissistic admiration and rivalry, based on body morphology alone. Thus, people’s bodies might disclose social information at zero acquaintance, but different stimuli material with more information on the targets may lead to more accurate judgments. mann et al., 2009; Vazire et al., 2008; Yeagley et al., 2007). Introduction Hence, the perception of personality traits is related to vi- Humans as a highly social species, are constantly ex- sual attributes, which are further utilized for the evaluation posed to social interactions in which personality judgments of individuals’ personalities. These targets are classically may have consequences for further behavioral outcomes evaluated by perceivers in person perception research (Harris & Garris, 2008). So-called first impressions shape (Hirschmüller et al., 2018; Lönnqvist et al., 2020). Provided whom individuals intend to cooperate with (e.g. in jobs), that no previous interaction occurred between perceiver aim to avoid in social conflicts, and seek to approach in and target, judgments are performed on a zero acquaintance interpersonal contact (Haselton & Funder, 2006). For ex- level (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Nestler & Back, 2013). ample, entering a romantic relationship is influenced by An increasing body of research suggests that personality the desired personality profile of a potential partner (East- judgments at zero acquaintance become more accurate the wick et al., 2011). In social interactive settings, some schol- more visible information about the target is available to ars found a substantial consensus in personality judgments perceivers (Back et al., 2010; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; (Hall et al., 2008). In fact, personality judgments may not Naumann et al., 2009). For instance, Borkenau and Liebler solely rely on immediate interactions (Albright et al., 1988; (1992) conducted a study in which perceivers evaluated tar- Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Carney et al., 2007; Hall et al., gets’ Big Five personality traits based on stimulus material, 2008), but may also be drawn from pure physical appear- which ranged from a videotaped weather forecast read out ance (Albright et al., 1988; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Nau- by the targets to a photograph. Their results indicate that a Corresponding author: jstern@uni-bremen.de The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance the degree of accuracy is negatively associated with the But is it even possible to detect narcissism based on gradual removal of perceptible information (“thin-slicing”, physical appearance only? There is a long history of psy- e.g. for extraversion the self-other agreement based on chologists trying to link psychological traits to morpho- video with sound was r = .55, whereas it was r = .33 for pho- logical characteristics. While some early approaches (e.g. tograph only). Apart from that, personality traits such as phrenology) received strong criticism and are long con- extraversion and conscientiousness tend to have the high- demned as being pseudo-science (e.g. Gould, 1981), other est consensus among perceivers (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; early theories, although being criticized and not empirically Hall et al., 2008; Kenny et al., 1992; Naumann et al., 2009; supported, inspired later work. One of these early theories Norman & Goldberg, 1966). Thus, these traits can be judged stems from Sheldon (1940), who assumed that human bod- more accurately using static cues than other personality ies can be classified in three distinct categories that are traits (e.g. neuroticism had a self-other agreement of r = .06 linked to different personality traits. For example, so called for photographs) (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Naumann et “mesomorphs” – humans who have a muscular body with al., 2009). low fat – were assumed to be more competitive, assertive In recent years, one specific personality trait gained and aggressive. In fact, previous findings indicate that nar- much attention in person perception research due to its am- cissism is indeed anchored in controllable and adjustable biguous interpersonal effects (Miller et al., 2017): Grandiose domains of physical appearance: Holtzman and Strube narcissism is defined by “a grandiose, yet vulnerable self- (2013) reported that narcissistic people are more effective concept” (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001, p. 178), which is in adorning themselves, compared to individuals lower in achieved and maintained by dominant, self-assured, and narcissism. Hence, narcissistic people appear to possess the expressive behaviors, such as charmingness (Back et al., ability to improve their physical appearance by means of 2013). This assertive strategy is broadly perceived as ap- adjustable indicators of attractiveness, such as clothing or pealing and competent by the narcissistic people’s social hairstyle (Back et al., 2010; Vazire et al., 2008; Weber et al., environment (Back et al., 2010, 2013; Dufner et al., 2013; 2021). However, as these indicators are highly prone to ma- Paulhus, 1998; Wurst et al., 2017). Nevertheless, as soon nipulation and self-enhancement to elicit certain impres- as narcissistic people experience contrary social outcomes, sions in others, the question of valid and static physical such as rejection or criticism, their vulnerable self-concept cues remains unclear. is revealed. Consequently, narcissistic targets aim to protect Previous research reports that perceivers are, indeed, their grandiose self by hostile, arrogant, and superior be- able to accurately judge narcissism based on photographs haviors, such as aggressiveness (Back et al., 2013). This an- (d = .36 in N = 81 targets; Holtzman, 2011), possibly due tagonistic strategy is largely perceived as competitive and to facial cues of attractiveness (Giacomin & Rule, 2019). disagreeable by others (Back et al., 2013; Paulhus, 1998; Besides being potentially manifested in faces, there is ev- Wurst et al., 2017). These two distinct narcissistic pathways idence that actual narcissism might also be manifested in are integrated in a two-dimensional process model of nar- the unadorned bodily appearance, as facial and bodily at- cissism: the narcissistic admiration and rivalry concept tractiveness seem to be correlated at least with targets’ ac- (NARC, Back et al., 2013). The dimension of narcissistic ad- tual narcissistic admiration (Weber et al., 2021). Moreover, miration corresponds to an individual’s assertive strategy perceivers seem to evaluate narcissistic targets as being and desired social outcomes, including social status, suc- slightly more attractive overall (r = .07 for narcissistic ad- cess, and evoking social interest. Narcissistic rivalry, on the miration with N = 1388 targets rated by interview partners contrary, is linked to an individual’s antagonistic strategy or r = .10 with N = 391 based on photographs; Weber et and negative social outcomes such as unpopularity and re- al., 2021). The authors interpreted their results as providing lationship transgressions. Overall, narcissistic admiration some evidence that narcissism may not only be perceptible and rivalry were found to be moderately intercorrelated (rs based on targets’ adornment but also their “natural beauty” = .30 – .60, Back et al., 2013; Leckelt et al., 2017; Rogoza et (although effects were smaller, non-significant and some- al., 2016). times even in the opposite direction for narcissistic rivalry, In social interactions, narcissistic people are oriented r = .01 with N = 1388 targets rated by interview partners towards manipulating and exploiting their social environ- or r = -.08 with N = 391 based on photographs). But is the ment for personal gain in order to maintain their grandiose body and its attractiveness also utilized in judging narcis- self (R. P. Brown et al., 2009; Campbell, 1999; Morf & sism? The present study aims to examine the role of the hu- Rhodewalt, 2001). This interpersonal characteristic re- man body in narcissism perception by considering specific mains, however, broadly unrecognized by their interaction attractiveness-related body cues. partners at first glance. Instead, narcissistic targets are per- Empirical evidence demonstrated that BMI and the ceived as more popular and attracting at first sight (Back waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) were highly correlated with bodily et al., 2010; Dufner et al., 2013; Holtzman & Strube, 2010; attractiveness in women judged by unacquainted observers Wurst et al., 2017). Dynamic and acoustic cues, such as (r = -.45 for WHR and r = -.80 for BMI in N = 33 females; Gril- humorous verbal expressions as well as self-assured body lot et al., 2014). The commonly known “hourglass” shape of movements, may mediate this impression (Back et al., 2010; the female body is primarily captured by the WHR, mani- Campbell, 1999; Paulhus, 1998), but yet underlie the super- fested in wide hips and a narrow waist (Andrews et al., 2017; ordinate mechanism of exploiting and manipulating others. Singh, 1993). Moreover, another characteristic of this fa- A rapid identification of narcissism may be in the interest vored body shape is the bust-under-bust ratio (BUR), a mor- of others in order to overcome biased first impressions and, phological cue for bust size (M. L. Fisher & Voracek, 2006; thus, prevent unfavorable social relationships. Singh & Young, 1995). Women with a medium to large bust Collabra: Psychology 2 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance size are interculturally perceived as most attractive, com- be associated more strongly with male self-presentation pared to women with a small-sized bust (Dixson et al., 2015; (Sorokowski et al., 2015). Narcissistic rivalry will be inves- Havlíček et al., 2017; Zelazniewicz & Pawlowski, 2011). tigated in an exploratory manner, because narcissistic ri- In male bodies the most favored body shape is the “V- valry is moderately intercorrelated with narcissistic admi- shape” torso, reflecting broad shoulders relative to narrow ration (rs = .30 – .60; Back et al., 2013; Leckelt et al., 2017; hips (Cloud & Perilloux, 2015; Dixson et al., 2010). In par- Rogoza et al., 2016), but yet most evident in long-term ac- ticular, men with a higher shoulder-to-hip ratio (SHR), a quaintance (Wurst et al., 2017) and apparently unrelated to measure of the circumference of the shoulder relative to physical attractiveness (Dufner et al., 2013; Weber et al., the hips, are perceived as most attractive and more socially 2021; Wurst et al., 2017). and physically dominant (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2005). Fur- Methods thermore, there is evidence that physical strength is a key component in male body attractiveness (Franzoi & Herzog, Data and analysis script are publicly available at the 1987; Sell et al., 2017). In zero acquaintance, physical Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/gynx9). All partic- strength can be primarily perceived through body girths, ipants signed a written consent before participating in the e.g. the upper arm girth (e.g. Kordsmeyer et al., 2019), study. which reflects the circumference of the biceps, which seems to be mainly used by women in determining opposite-sex Participants attractiveness (Franzoi & Herzog, 1987). A total of N = 110 (n = 88 females) raters (aged 18-56 A lens model approach years, M = 23.0, SD = 5.3), took part in the present study. One-hundred-and-five participants indicated their occupa- To understand narcissism judgments based on the hu- tion as students (83 specified their subject as psychology), man body morphology at zero acquaintance, the present four participants as employed and one as unemployed. Par- study applies Brunswik’s (1956) lens model. This approach ticipants received candy and course credit for participation is a methodological conception which elucidates how indi- in the current study. viduals evaluate unobservable features of human beings by focusing their judgments on observable cues the target dis- Stimuli closes. In particular, the perceptible body cues may function as a lens through which perceivers judge targets’ narcis- Overall N = 307 target body stimuli (aged 18-35 years, sism. Hence, the lens model allows to determine the extent M = 24.3, SD = 3.2, M = 23.3, SD = 3.4) male male female female to which these body cues are relied on the narcissism judg- served as basis for narcissism judgments. Female (n = 155) ment (cue utilization), and to which extent they correspond and male (n = 152) target body stimuli were surveyed sep- to targets’ actual narcissism (cue validity). Furthermore, the arately in two previous, independent studies (Jünger et al., lens model can provide insights on the self-other agreement 2018; Kordsmeyer & Penke, 2019). Target participants between targets and perceivers (accuracy), as this measure were almost exclusively of European origin and predomi- increases with the perceivers’ utilization of observable cues, nantly students. In the present study, we subdivided the which in fact correspond to targets’ actual narcissism. body stimuli into eight rating sets (to avoid rater fatigue), each consisting of n = 76-78 single entities, based on the Hypotheses following procedure: raters either rated female or male 3D body scans as well as either narcissistic admiration or nar- In line with the empirical evidence that narcissism ap- cissistic rivalry. These four rating sets were then halved (for pears to be positively related to physical attractiveness an overview see Table 1). (Holtzman & Strube, 2010; Weber et al., 2021; Wurst et al., 2017) and primarily attributable to appeal in early stages Procedure and study design of acquaintance (Dufner et al., 2013; Wurst et al., 2017), we hypothesize that bodily attractiveness, BUR, physical Raters were randomly assigned to one out of the eight strength, SHR and upper arm girth are positively, whereas rating sets. The study was conducted using the open source BMI and WHR are inversely related to self-reported and framework Alfred (Treffenstädt & Wiemann, 2018), which is judged narcissistic admiration (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, based on the programming language Python (version 2.7.11, we predict that these effects are larger in men compared Python Software Foundation, 2016). First, demographic to women (Hypothesis 2), since narcissism was found to data were collected. Then, depending on the assigned rating 1 Please note that the target stimuli in this study were used for the purpose of a secondary data analysis. They were originally collected as a sideline in studies focusing on different research questions, mainly on hormonal correlates of individual differences in mating contexts. Female stimuli were collected in a study on ovulatory cycle shifts in women’s mate preferences, male stimuli were collected in a study on testosterone reactivity in a competitive mating context. These body stimuli have never been previously rated on narcissism (these ratings were only collected for the current study). Here, we list all studies in which subsamples of the body stimuli were previously used for in- vestigating research questions fully independent of the current study. Female bodies: Stern et al., 2021. Male bodies: Jünger et al., 2018; Kordsmeyer et al., 2018; Kordsmeyer, Freund, et al., 2019; Kordsmeyer, Stern, et al., 2019; Stern et al., 2021; von Borell et al., 2019. Collabra: Psychology 3 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance Table 1. Rating conditions reflecting the eight different rating sets with the corresponding sex of the body stimuli, rating dimension as well as the amounts of body stimuli and raters Rating Stimuli Rating Sex of n n raters set number set number dimension body stimuli body stimuli 1 1 admiration female n = 78 n = 14 2 2 admiration female n = 77 n = 13 3 1 rivalry female n = 78 n = 14 4 2 rivalry female n = 77 n = 13 5 3 admiration male n = 76 n = 14 6 4 admiration male n = 76 n = 15 7 3 rivalry male n = 76 n = 14 8 4 rivalry male n = 76 n = 13 dimension (admiration or rivalry), participants were pro- vided with the definition of either narcissistic admiration or narcissistic rivalry: • Narcissistic admiration: People who are high in nar- cissistic admiration are more likely to believe that they should be seen as great personalities, more likely to show others how special they are and are more likely to attract attention in conversations, compared to people who score lower in narcissistic admiration. • Narcissistic rivalry: People who are high in narcissistic rivalry are more likely to react annoyed when another person steals the show from them, are more likely to believe that most people won’t achieve anything and are more likely to respond to criticism in an annoyed manner, compared to people who score lower in nar- cissistic rivalry. Figure 1. Illustrative and static example of one They were then instructed that they will have to rate standardized male and one female 3D body scan bodies on perceived narcissism as defined in the instruction they received (either admiration or rivalry). Next, stimuli scanning process. Body models were scaled, thus, they re- were presented to the participants in a randomized order. Every stimulus was rated separately on a 10-point scale that tained original height differences. To minimize the influ- ranged from 1 (not narcissistic at all) to 10 (very narcissis- ence of confounding variables, such as facial attractiveness tic) (“How narcissistic is this man / woman?”). Interrater re- or skin color, all bodies were truncated above the neck and liabilities for both narcissism dimensions were acceptable consistently colored in grey (using the software Blender, (Cronbach’s α > 0.73 for narcissistic admiration and > 0.71 version 2.75, www.blender.org), so that they appeared with- out texture and head on the screen as shown in Figure 1. for narcissistic rivalry), thus, ratings were averaged across The 3D body scans thus contained only information about participants. body morphology. The bodies rotated around their vertical Materials axis so that they could be inspected from all sides. Partici- pants rated each stimulus after at least one full rotation but Body scans were able to inspect them without time limitation. As described above, all 3D body stimuli were obtained Body cues from two previous studies (target women from Jünger et al., 2018; target men from Kordsmeyer & Penke, 2019). The Body height (in cm) was measured twice with a sta- body scans were natural stimuli of men and women in stan- diometer (SECA® 213) whilst participants were barefoot. dardized tight underwear, captured with a high-resolution Both values were averaged. Weight (in kg) was measured Vitus Smart XXL 3D body scanner (Human Solutions GmbH, with the body scanner’s integrated scale (SECA® 635). BMI Kaiserslautern, Germany). Men and women were instructed was determined afterwards based on height and weight to stand upright with their legs hip-widely apart, arms ex- measures (kg / m ). Visual cues of the upper body were di- tended and held slightly away from the body. Furthermore, rectly measured during the scanning process using the au- they were asked to make a fist with their thumbs showing tomatic measures of the software AnthroScan (all according forward, to position their head in accordance with the to ISO 20685:2005). The following parameters are relevant Frankfort Horizontal, and to breathe normally during the to this study: bust-chest girth (AnthroScan measure 4510), Collabra: Psychology 4 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance Table 2. Descriptive statistics of data on our target samples Male bodies Female bodies M SD Min Max M SD Min Max Bodily attractiveness -0.18 1.83 -4.80 3.27 -0.04 1.01 -2.90 2.00 BMI 23.93 3.67 16.90 41.58 22.58 3.42 16.81 36.36 WHR 0.84 0.05 0.74 1.03 0.72 0.05 0.63 0.86 SHR 0.43 0.02 0.37 0.53 0.39 0.03 0.33 0.49 BUR 1.09 0.02 1.02 1.14 1.17 0.05 1.06 1.29 Strength 48.48 7.89 26.00 77.50 25.43 5.10 13.33 39.67 Upper arm girth 30.16 2.54 23.37 37.05 27.77 2.69 21.90 36.75 NARQ adm 2.87 0.83 1.00 5.00 2.60 0.83 1.00 4.67 (self-report) NARQ riv 2.40 0.82 1.00 4.67 1.76 0.74 1.00 4.67 (self-report) buttock girth (7520), cross shoulder over neck (3010), upper applied to them. Item values for both NARQ dimensions arm girth (8520), and waist girth (6510). We divided cross were aggregated to create an overall score for each subscale shoulder over neck (shoulder width, measured over the (internal consistencies: men/women: α = .71/.82 for narcis- neck) by hip girth (in AnthroScan, this measure if named sistic admiration and α = .56/.85 for narcissistic rivalry). To “buttock girth”, which is the closest measure to the waist- increase comparability between our two target datasets, we band, see also Kordsmeyer et al., 2019) to calculate SHR. decided to only use the items of the NARQ short scale ver- Finally, we calculated WHR by dividing waist girth by but- sion for female targets in our main analyses (Cronbach’s α tock girth and BUR was determined by dividing bust girth = .65 for admiration, α = .65 for rivalry). This decision was by under-bust girth. Men’s and women’s dominant hand made during the review process and we report results of grip and upper body strength, measured with a hand dy- analyses using all items of the long scale version in the sup- namometer (Saehan® SH5001), were aggregated and finally plementary material (Figures S1 – S4). Importantly, n = 14 used to operationalize physical strength following the pro- female participants dropped out, as they did not fill out the cedure described in Sell and colleagues (2009). The max- narcissism scales, resulting in n = 141 female participants imum strength of three trials for each measurement was for further analyses. used. In addition, attractiveness ratings of the body stimuli were assessed using an independent sample of n = 60 raters Statistical analyses and test power who evaluated males’ (Kordsmeyer et al., 2018), and n = Men’s and women’s body measures were z-standardized 84 raters who evaluated females’ body attractiveness on using Fisher’s z-transformation (R. A. Fisher, 1915). Then, a 11-point Likert scale from -5 (extremely unattractive) to Brunswikian lens model analyses were conducted to exam- +5 (extremely attractive), including zero as a neutral point ine the cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy of narcis- (Cronbach’s α = .98 for female body stimuli and α = .92 sism judgments (see Figure 2). For cue validity and cue uti- for male body stimuli). Descriptive statistics for all assessed lization, the body cues were introduced as predictors and variables can be found in Table 2. We dummy coded gender (self-reported and judged) narcissistic admiration or rivalry with 1 = female and 0 = male. as outcome variables in separate multiple linear regression models. In line with previous research, we included all sex- Participants’ self-reported narcissism ually dimorphic body cues in the regression models for both Female narcissism was measured using the Narcissistic female and male body scans (Brooks et al., 2015; Fan et Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ, Back et al., al., 2005; Maisey et al., 1999; Pazhoohi et al., 2019). To 2013), male narcissism was determined with the short scale assess the accuracy of narcissism judgments, self-reported version (NARQ-S, Leckelt et al., 2017). Both questionnaires and judged narcissistic admiration and rivalry were corre- reflect the two-dimensional structure of the NARC (Back lated. All statistical analyses were calculated using the sta- et al., 2013) and consider narcissistic admiration as well as tistic software R, version 4.0.4 (R Core Team, 2021). The narcissistic rivalry equally in the 18 and 6 items, respec- following packages were used: car (Fox & Weisberg, 2019), tively. On a six-point rating scale from 1 (not agree at all) psych (Revelle, 2017), sjPlot (Lüdecke, 2018), ggplot2 to 6 (agree completely) participants rated how well the items (Wickham, 2011), openxlsx (Schauberger et al., 2019), and 2 Please note that the data from the target stimuli were collected as part of two previous, separate studies with initially different study aims, which is the reason why male and female targets completed different versions of the NARQ. Their data are used in the current study for the purpose of a secondary data analysis. Collabra: Psychology 5 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance Figure 2. Lens model based on Brunswik (1956) with observable body cues investigated in the present study QuantPsyc (Fletcher, 2012). An a priori power analysis Judged narcissistic admiration (cue utilization) (G*Power 3.1.9.2) suggested that, to detect a medium effect A multiple regression model to test the utilization of size in a linear multiple regression with 95% power, we body cues to judge narcissistic admiration was conducted. would need an N of 89 participants (in our case stimuli) with The test regarding the assumption of independence of an α level of 0.05, or N = 123 participants with a corrected residuals was significant (Durbin Watson value = 1.76; α level of 0.01 (to account for multiple testing). We decided Durbin & Watson, 1950). However, as the Durbin Watson to collect ratings for all body targets available, to even in- statistic was close to the value of 2 and lied within the range crease test power and make it more likely to also find effects of 1 to 3 the model was accepted (Field et al., 2012). For fur- of smaller magnitudes. ther analyses, one outlier (M +/- 3 SDs) was removed. Re- Results sults indicated that the seven predictors significantly ex- plained 43% of the variance in participants’ judgment of Preliminary analyses narcissistic admiration (F = 29.83, p < .001, multiple R 7, 279 = .43, r = .65, all results are displayed in Figure 3). Bodily First, we tested whether the data met the assumption of attractiveness, physical strength, BMI and SHR were sig- collinearity, as some of our variables were intercorrelated nificantly positively associated with judged narcissistic ad- (see Table 3). For this purpose, we calculated the variance miration, in that individuals with more attractive bodies, inflation factor (VIF) for all body cues included as predictors higher physical strength, higher BMI and broader shoulders in the regression models, a method for producing collinear- in relation to hips were rated as higher in narcissistic admi- ity diagnostics that indicates whether predictors have ration, with medium to large effect sizes. Further, WHR was strong relationships with other predictors researchers strongly negatively associated with judged narcissistic ad- should be concerned about (e.g. Field et al., 2012). Results miration, in that participants with a broader waist in rela- revealed no strong multicollinearity (Bowerman & O’Con- tion to hips were judged as lower in narcissistic admiration. nell, 1990; Menard, 1995), see the open analysis script for The positive association between BUR and judged narcis- a detailed overview and test statistics. Accordingly, all body sistic admiration was only significant when applying “com- cues were analyzed in the same regression model predicting mon conventions” with a significance threshold of α = .05 self-reported and judged narcissistic admiration or rivalry. (Cowles & Davis, 1982), but did not reach our predefined The separate calculation of four regression models and the significance threshold of .01 accounting for multiple test- accompanying alpha error accumulation would have re- ing. These results support Hypothesis 1, except the effect sulted in a significance threshold of α = .19 (Ryffel, 2017). for BMI was expected in the opposite direction. However, To account for multiple testing, a decreased significance upper arm girth was not significantly related to judged nar- level of α = .01 was used. cissistic admiration and the effect size was very small, con- trary to Hypothesis 1. To investigate potential effects of target participants’ gender, we repeated the previously reported analyses, but Collabra: Psychology 6 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance Figure 3. Lens model displaying results for self-reported (left) and judged (right) narcissistic admiration and accuracy, respectively. Note: Standardized regression (β) and correlation (r) coefficients with significance values (p) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Variables significantly predicting judged narcissistic admiration (α = .01) are printed in bold. Narcissistic admiration was judged by n = 56 raters and self-reported by N = 292 targets (after the removal of one statistical outlier). Collabra: Psychology 7 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance Table 3. Correlation matrix with zero-order correlation coefficients (r) among body cue predictors Bodily Physical Upper Arm BMI BUR SHR WHR Attractiveness Strength Girth Bodily Attractiveness BMI -0.60 BUR 0.17 -0.19 Physical Strength -0.05 0.29 -0.66 SHR 0.20 -0.25 -0.41 0.48 Upper Arm Girth -0.28 0.74 -0.30 0.50 -0.03 WHR -0.39 0.54 -0.57 0.70 0.45 0.51 modelled an interaction effect of gender with each of the body variables significantly interacted with target partici- body variables. Some of the results reported above re- pants’ gender, contrary to Hypothesis 2. mained virtually identical, others decreased: bodily attrac- Accuracy in narcissistic admiration tiveness, physical strength and SHR were positively asso- ciated with judged narcissistic admiration, whereas the Finally, the accuracy between self-reported and judged positive associations between BMI and BUR with judged narcissistic admiration was analyzed, revealing a small, but narcissistic admiration decreased and the negative asso- significant correlation (see Figure 3). Fisher’s z-tests sug- ciation of WHR was not significant anymore, suggesting gested that this accuracy correlation coefficient was not sig- that participant gender had an influence on the results. nificantly different from the accuracy coefficients for extra- However, none of the body variables significantly interacted version (Cohen’s q = .17, z = 1.43, p = .15) or agreeableness with target participants’ gender, contrary to Hypothesis 2. (Cohen’s q = .02, z = 0.14, p = .89) reported in Borkenau and The model explained 46% of variance (F = 15.42, p 15, 271 2 Liebler (1992; r = .33 and r = .19 for extraversion and agree- <.001, R = .46, r = .68, detailed results can be found in the ableness, respectively) based on full-body photographs. supplementary material Table S1). Judged narcissistic rivalry (cue utilization) Self-reported narcissistic admiration (cue validity) Next, body cues were inserted in a multiple regression Another multiple regression model was calculated, in- model predicting judged narcissistic rivalry. The data met cluding the body cues as variables predicting individuals’ the assumption of independence of residuals (Durbin Wat- self-reported narcissistic admiration. The test on the as- son value = 1.85). For further analyses one outlier (M +/- sumption of independence of residuals confirmed the 3 SDs) was removed. Results of the regression model indi- model’s independence (Durbin Watson value = 2.06). None cated a significant explanation of 34% of variance in judged of the variables had any outliers (M +/- 3 SDs). The regres- 2 narcissistic rivalry (F = 20.48, p < .001, R = .34, r = sion model explained 6% variance (F = 2.37, p = .023, R 7, 279 7, 280 0.58), all results are displayed in Figure 4. Overall, the pat- = .06, r = .24), with none of the body cues significantly pre- tern of results was comparable to results regarding judged dicting self-reported narcissistic admiration when applying narcissistic admiration reported above. Bodily attractive- our predefined significance threshold, contrary to Hypoth- ness, BMI and SHR were significantly positively associated esis 1 (all results are displayed in Figure 3). However, SHR with judged narcissistic rivalry, in that individuals with was positively associated with self-reported narcissistic ad- more attractive bodies, higher BMI and broader shoulders miration when applying conventional standards (p <.05), in in relation to hips were rated as higher in narcissistic ri- that participants with broader shoulders in relation to hips valry, with medium to large effect sizes. Further, WHR was self-reported as higher in narcissistic admiration. Further, strongly significantly negatively associated with judged Fisher’s z-tests suggested that the correlation coefficient narcissistic rivalry, in that participants with a broader waist between self-reported narcissistic admiration and bodily at- in relation to hips were judged as scoring lower on nar- tractiveness was not significantly different from the coeffi- cissistic rivalry. The positive association between physical cient reported in Weber and colleagues (2021; r = .10) based strength and judged narcissistic rivalry was only significant on full-body photographs (Cohen’s q = .05, z = 0.62, p = .53). when applying “common conventions” with a significance To investigate gender differences in the association be- threshold of α = .05 (Cowles & Davis, 1982), but did not tween body cues and self-reported narcissistic admiration reach our predefined significance threshold of .01 account- we repeated the previously reported analyses, and addition- ing for multiple testing. BUR and upper arm girth were not ally modelled an interaction effect of gender with each of significantly related to judged narcissistic rivalry and the the body. The model did not explain a significant amount of 2 effect sizes were very small. variance (F = 1.62, p = .068, R = .08, r = .29, detailed 15, 272 Again, to investigate potential effects of target partici- results can be found in the supplementary material Table pants’ gender, we repeated the previously reported analy- S2). None of the body variables were significantly associ- ses, but modelled an interaction effect of gender with each ated with self-reported narcissistic rivalry, and none of the Collabra: Psychology 8 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance Figure 4. Lens model displaying results for self-reported (left) and judged (right) narcissistic rivalry and accuracy, respectively. Note: Standardized regression (β) and correlation (r) coefficients with significance values (p) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Variables significantly predicting judged narcissistic rivalry (α = .01) are printed in bold. Narcissistic rivalry was judged by n = 54 raters and self-reported by N = 290 targets (after the removal of three statistical outliers). Collabra: Psychology 9 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance of the body variables. Bodily attractiveness and SHR were Liebler’s (1992) reported accuracy coefficient for extraver- still positively associated with judged narcissistic rivalry, sion (r = .33) was significantly higher (Cohen’s q = .24, z = whereas the positive associations between BMI and judged 2.07, p = .04). narcissistic rivalry decreased and the negative association Discussion of WHR was not significant anymore, suggesting that par- ticipants gender had an influence on the results. None of The present study aimed to extend the research on nar- the body variables significantly interacted with target par- cissism perception at zero acquaintance by investigating ticipants’ gender. The model explained 35% of variance the cue validity and cue utilization for human body mor- (F = 9.61, p <.001, R = .35, r = .59, detailed results can 15, 271 phology in grandiose narcissism. Based on the NARC (Back be found in the supplementary material Table S3). et al., 2013), we sought to clarify the role of both assertive and antagonistic facets of narcissism, namely narcissistic Self-reported narcissistic rivalry (cue validity) admiration and rivalry. We used lens model analyses As a next step, we examined the body cues as predictors (Brunswik, 1956; Nestler & Back, 2013) to investigate the of self-reported narcissistic rivalry. The data did not violate correspondence of self-reported and perceived narcissism the assumption of independence of residuals (Durbin Wat- with bodily appearance in female and male targets. son value = 2.10) but included three outliers (M +/- 3 SDs) Summary of findings for self-reported narcissistic rivalry, which were removed for further analyses (for details see the open analysis In contrast to our Hypothesis 1, our results suggest no script). The seven predictors significantly explained 17% of compelling evidence that targets’ self-reported narcissistic the variance in participants’ self-reported narcissistic ri- 2 admiration is related to bodily attractiveness or most other valry (F = 7.94, p < .001, R = .17, r = .41, all results 7, 278 body cues investigated in this study. SHR showed a small are displayed in Figure 4). SHR was significantly associated positive relationship with self-reported narcissistic admi- with self-reported narcissistic rivalry, in that individuals ration, but this effect did not reach our predefined signifi- with broader shoulders in relation to hips reported higher cance threshold. However, bodily attractiveness, BMI, SHR values of narcissistic rivalry, with a small to medium effect and physical strength positively and WHR negatively pre- size. None of the other body cues revealed significant ef- dicted judged narcissistic admiration with medium to large fects. A Fisher’s z-test suggested that the correlation coef- effect sizes. These effects did not significantly interact with ficient between self-reported narcissistic rivalry and bodily gender, contrary to Hypothesis 2. Further, our results sug- attractiveness was not significantly different from the co- gest that self-reported narcissistic admiration can be judged efficient reported in Weber and colleagues (2021; r = -.08) somewhat accurately based on 3D body scans. While the based on full-body photographs (Cohen’s q = .05, z = 0.63, p effect size was small, it was in line with accuracy effects = .53). reported for judgments of extraversion or agreeableness Again, to investigate potential effects of target partici- based on photographs in a previous study (Borkenau & pants’ gender, we repeated the previously reported analy- Liebler, 1992). ses, but modelled an interaction effect of gender with each Narcissistic rivalry was investigated in an exploratory of the body variables. The model explained 21% of variance manner and our results indicate a medium-sized, positive (F = 4.76, p <.001, R = .21, r = .46, detailed results can 15, 270 association between self-reported narcissistic rivalry and be found in the supplementary material Table S4). In short, SHR. However, this effect was not robust in further analyses none of the body variables significantly interacted with tar- when adding gender as a potential moderator variable. The get participants’ gender. The association of SHR and self- results regarding the associations between body morphol- reported narcissistic rivalry increased regarding the effect ogy and judged narcissistic rivalry were comparable to those size, but the p-value increased as well. Gender was strongly of judged narcissistic admiration: bodily attractiveness, significantly negatively related to self-reported narcissistic BMI, SHR and WHR were used to form judgments of nar- rivalry, in that men self-reported higher levels of narcissis- cissistic rivalry. The association between self-reported and tic rivalry as compared to women. All other results reported judged narcissistic rivalry (accuracy) was small and non- above remained virtually identical. significant, but still not statistically distinguishable from the significant positive association between self-reported Accuracy in narcissistic rivalry and judged narcissistic admiration. Finally, to analyze the accuracy, we investigated the as- Cue validity in narcissism perception sociation between judged and self-reported narcissistic ri- valry, resulting in a non-significant bivariate association Our results do not provide strong support for the as- (see Figure 4). Nevertheless, the correlation coefficients be- sumption of self-reported narcissism being associated with tween accuracy of narcissistic admiration and narcissistic perceived bodily attractiveness and objectively measured rivalry ratings did not significantly differ from each other body cues. Contrary to previous results (Weber et al., 2021), (Cohen’s q = 0.06, z = 0.91, p = .36). Further, Fisher’s z-tests we did not find compelling evidence for a positive narcis- suggested that the accuracy correlation coefficient for nar- sism-attractiveness link when applying a 3D body scan-de- cissistic rivalry was not significantly different from the ac- sign with a standardization of skin color, a lack of texture curacy coefficient for agreeableness (Cohen’s q = .09, z = and head information. Further, studies considered in the 0.79, p = .43) reported in Borkenau and Liebler (1992; r meta-analysis by Holtzman and Strube (2010) showing a = .19) based on full-body photographs, but Borkenau and Collabra: Psychology 10 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance positive association between self-reported narcissism and before further interpretation. If replicable, it might be pos- judged attractiveness predominantly used stimulus mater- sible that either people reporting higher narcissistic admi- ial that contained information going beyond sole body mor- ration or rivalry might engage in more sports that lead to phology. Studies that reported significant correlations be- broader shoulders relative to narrower hips or that peo- tween attractiveness and narcissism based their findings ple with broader shoulders report higher narcissistic admi- either on unstandardized Facebook photos (Buffardi & ration and rivalry in line with facultative calibration (e.g. Campbell, 2008), waist-up 30-seconds videos of individuals Sell et al., 2009), although this effect might also transfer to responding to a question (Oltmanns et al., 2004) or full- other investigated variables, such as physical strength, for body photos (Vazire et al., 2008). Thus, previous approaches which we did not find significant effects. Nevertheless, none to the narcissism-attractiveness link might rather be attrib- of the other investigated body cues (BMI, BUR, WHR, phys- uted to adjustable (i.e., clothing, facial expression), instead ical strength, upper arm girth) were significantly related to of fixed (i.e., stable appearance attributes, such as body self-reported narcissistic admiration or rivalry. measures and ratios) indicators of bodily attractiveness, as An increasing amount of research suggests that specific investigated in the present study. This idea is supported by facets of narcissism correspond systematically with the in- the results reported by Holtzman and Strube (2013) sug- dividual body perception: Agentic and antagonistic narcis- gesting that narcissism is more strongly related to adorned sism (as assessed by the NARQ) seem to come along with a (photographs of participants how they entered the lab, β = positive body image, high body satisfaction, lower levels of .19) versus unadorned attractiveness (photographs of par- body shame and less weight discrepancy, regardless of gen- ticipants in a neutral state, e.g. with standardized clothing der, sexual orientation, and BMI (J. Brown & Graham, 2008; and removed make-up, β = .09). Carrotte & Anderson, 2019; Jackson et al., 1992). Interest- ingly, when applying a trifurcated structure of narcissism, Nevertheless, Weber and colleagues (2021) found that in- which additionally includes the facet of neurotic narcissism, dividuals high in narcissistic admiration possess “natural the body-related pattern appears to change drastically: Fe- beauty” by investigating static appearance attributes: Facial males high in neurotic narcissism, which is characterized and bodily attractiveness were rated by trained observers to by hypersensitivity, insecurity, and a fragile self-esteem as create one overall measure for attractiveness instead of two different measures. However, this association was rather well as shame (Back & Morf, 2018; Mota et al., 2020), report small (r = .07 and r = .10), inconsistent across studies and higher levels of weight discrepancy, body image concerns, targets, and the effect size was not significantly different and body shame (Carrotte & Anderson, 2019; Hater et al., from the effect size reported in the current study (r = .05). 2021; Swami et al., 2015). Whether neurotic narcissism- Preceding research has reported that people predominantly specific findings also arise among males is yet understudied. use facial information to assess physical attractiveness Our application of the two-dimensional conceptualization (Currie & Little, 2009), which may account for the incon- of narcissism with its agentic (narcissistic admiration) and sistency of results in approaches investigating the body in- antagonistic (narcissistic rivalry) pathways may explain why we did not detect any strong significant relationships cluding head and facial information (Weber et al., 2021). In between body morphology and self-reported narcissistic turn, this may explain why faces (Holtzman, 2011) and par- admiration and rivalry. In this sense, individuals high in ticularly characteristics like the distinctiveness of eyebrows narcissistic admiration and rivalry show less body dissatis- (Giacomin & Rule, 2019) cue grandiose narcissism, as these faction compared to individuals high in neurotic narcissism are indicative of attractiveness (Cosio & Robins, 2000). An- other potential explanation of differences in results might (J. Brown & Graham, 2008; Carrotte & Anderson, 2019; be the difference in sample sizes: the sample size used in Hater et al., 2021; Jackson et al., 1992) and might rather not Weber and colleagues (2021) was larger than ours, resulting engage in adornment of body morphology through work- in higher statistical power for detecting small effect sizes. outs and gym-activity (which may lead to differences in Nevertheless, when judging attractiveness by means of bod- cues investigated in this study, such as WHR or physical ily attractiveness and without facial information, our re- strength) in the same manner as they do regarding their sults, including the reported effect sizes, are rather in line clothing or hairstyle. with previous studies reporting that narcissistic rivalry is However, we cannot conclude null results. Most reported unrelated to bodily attractiveness and corresponding body effects, although being non-significant, suggest that effect sizes (and their confidence intervals) might still be in line cues (Dufner et al., 2013; Weber et al., 2021; Wurst et al., with small effects that are in a range of a smallest effect size 2017). Thus, the antagonistic aspects of narcissism do not of interest (SESOI; e.g. Lakens, 2017). Just to give one ex- seem to be strongly reflected in the human body morphol- ample, in our a priori power analysis, we expected a medium ogy and may rather be displayed in facial and/or dynamic cues, such as behavioral patterns (Fatfouta et al., 2015; sized effect. If we define a medium sized effect as r = .20 Leckelt et al., 2015; Wurst et al., 2017). (Funder & Ozer, 2019), we cannot reject that there might Regarding the other investigated body variables and be a medium sized association for the accuracy of narcissis- their associations with self-reported narcissistic admiration tic rivalry judgments, as the confidence interval includes r and rivalry, we found small positive associations of SHR = .20. Importantly, all reported confidence intervals include with self-reported narcissistic admiration and rivalry. Given small effect sizes (β = .10), which means that we cannot ac- that these effects would either not remain significant when cept the null hypothesis either if we consider small effect controlling for multiple testing, or were exploratory and sizes as potentially relevant. Hence, we urge for replication were not robust when including participants’ gender in the studies with larger sample sizes to increase test power and, same model, we see a need for replication of these effects preregistering a smallest effect size of interest. Collabra: Psychology 11 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance Cue utilization in narcissism perception Accuracy in narcissism perception We report evidence that bodily attractiveness, BMI, SHR, In general, perceivers were able to judge self-reported WHR and physical strength are utilized to judge narcissistic narcissistic admiration somewhat accurately (r = .17, see admiration as well as rivalry. More precisely, all of these Figure 3). Self-reported narcissistic rivalry was judged variables were positively related to judged narcissistic ad- slightly less accurately and the effect was non-significant (r miration and rivalry, with medium to strong effect sizes, ex- = .10, see Figure 4), although the effect size was not signif- cept for WHR, which was negatively related to narcissism icantly different from the accuracy effect size of narcissis- judgments, but this effect was not robust in further analy- tic admiration. With respect to narcissistic rivalry in both ses. These results suggest bodily attractiveness, BMI, SHR female and male targets, the theoretical conceptualization and physical strength to be body cues utilized by perceivers, (Back et al., 2013) and empirical evidence (Leckelt et al., although these body cues appear not to be valid in terms 2015; Paulhus, 1998; Wurst et al., 2017) suggests that the of being associated with targets’ self-reported narcissism antagonistic effects of grandiose narcissism (e.g. narcissis- (except for SHR which has to be investigated further). In- tic rivalry) are most visible and evident as the level of ac- terestingly, the utilization of invalid body cues discloses quaintance increases. In the present investigation, judg- erroneous inferences and judgments of others, which may ments were made upon zero acquaintance, so that the shift underlie perceptual biases and heuristics (Chaiken & Trope, from initial popularity and charmingness qua narcissistic 1999; Kahneman et al., 1982). More bodily attractive, phys- admiration to subsequent unpopularity and aggressiveness ically strong targets with a higher BMI might have been qua narcissistic rivalry was not observable. As a result, per- perceived as scoring higher in narcissistic admiration and ceivers might have found it particularly challenging to eval- rivalry because of raters’ implicit biases and heuristics as uate targets’ narcissistic rivalry precisely, which potentially well. For example, as more muscular people (that might be explains the descriptively lower accuracy. That the acquain- stronger but potentially also have a higher BMI) are also tance length plays a crucial role in the accuracy of personal- discerned as more formidable (Sell et al., 2009), perceivers ity judgments is further supported by the so-called acquain- may expect them to rather pursue antagonistic strategies, tanceship effect (Biesanz et al., 2007; Letzring et al., 2006). such as reacting annoyed when another person steals the The accuracy of personality judgments increases with the show from them and responding to criticism in an annoyed acquaintance length due to a rising level of information manner. Further, the present results suggest that most available to perceivers. According to the Realistic Accuracy physical characteristics associated with perceptions of nar- Model (RAM, Funder, 1995, 2012), correct personality cissistic admiration and rivalry are in line with ideals of judgements are obtained through a multi-step process in beauty, and potentially with the idea that men and women which the target person should disclose characteristics that may try to adorn themselves by e.g. doing sports to enhance are relevant to the trait being assessed. Subsequently, these their bodily attractiveness, SHR and physical strength in or- relevant traits should be made available to perceivers and der to achieve and maintain their grandiose self. This as- then correctly detected by them. In a final step, the rel- sumption is in line with perceptions of attractive celebrities evant, available and detected information should be cor- as being narcissistic (as described by Weber et al., 2021). rectly used to form an accurate judgement. As stated in the In other narcissism perception studies, however, some sequential process of the RAM (Funder, 1995, 2012), the specific appearance-based cues have been identified in or- step which might have interfered the accurate judgment of der to detect narcissistic people at zero acquaintance: In- targets’ narcissism might already have been the first step, dividuals high in narcissism aim to influence their physical namely the trait relevance of the characteristics displayed. appearance through self-enhancing strategies (Grijalva & In this regard, morphology reveals little to no information Zhang, 2016), which allows them to invest much in an at- for perceivers to accurately judge narcissistic traits. In gen- tractive physical façade (Davis et al., 2001; Holtzman & eral, judgments were based on highly standardized 3D stim- Strube, 2013). Correspondingly, previous studies demon- uli, so that relatively little information on targets was avail- strated that narcissism is related to fashionable, stylish, and able, resulting in comparatively thin slices. Previous expensive clothing as well as an organized and neat ap- research demonstrated that the consensus of personality pearance (Back et al., 2010; Sedikides et al., 2007; Vazire judgments based on photographs is lowest compared to et al., 2008). Moreover, individuals high in narcissism tend personality judgments based on other “thicker sliced” con- to stage themselves by means of humorous verbal expres- ditions (e.g. videos) at zero acquaintance (Back et al., 2010; sions and self-assured body movements (Back et al., 2010; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992, 1995; Naumann et al., 2009). Campbell, 1999; Paulhus, 1998). In this regard, narcissism Nevertheless, as perceivers were capable of accurately appears to be rather related to dynamic cues (expressive judging at least narcissistic admiration in targets by their behaviors) and static cues which promote social relevance mere body morphology in a manner that was comparable (face and clothing), to convey their attractiveness and to e.g. judgments of extraversion and agreeableness based grandiose self, as a wide range of their self-portrayal effort on photographs in previous studies (Borkenau & Liebler, occurs on the social stage (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). All of 1992), although the body cues investigated in the present these dynamic cues have been absent in the current study. study were rather unrelated to targets’ self-reported narcis- sistic admiration (and rivalry). This implies that perceivers must have utilized body cues, which were left unconsidered in the present manuscript, as the accuracy increases with the perceivers’ utilization of observable cues, which in fact Collabra: Psychology 12 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance correspond to targets’ self-reported narcissism (Nestler & on mating interest; Confer et al., 2010). Furthermore, the Back, 2013). Therefore, we propose to contemplate other assessment of targets’ narcissistic admiration and rivalry cues of body morphology, such as body height, in future was based on targets’ self-reports and, thus, may be biased narcissism perception research. by socially desirable responding, or by relying on thoughts Additionally, the standardization of target stimuli ap- and feelings rather than behavior, which can harm the ac- pears to have an impact on the accuracy of personality curacy of self-reports for more interpersonal manifestations judgements: multiple personality traits can be judged ac- of narcissism (Vazire, 2010). Future investigations should curately when targets pose in a natural pose (no given in- follow a multi-method approach employing both self-re- structions how to pose), allowing them a free adoption of ports and peer-reports or observer-ratings to examine pose and expression. On the contrary, the amount of ac- whether results differ when using different sources of infor- curately judged personality traits declines when observers mation regarding targets levels of narcissism . Another lim- rate the target’s personality on basis of a standardized pho- itation is that we used 3D body scans as stimuli to augment tograph only (Naumann et al., 2009). Similarly, there is evi- external validity in the judgment of narcissistic admiration dence that personality judgments become more accurate as and rivalry. The standardization of skin color, the lack of soon as targets personalize situations through unstructured texture (and body hair) and head information was applied to face-to-face interactions, compared to standardized, neu- account for confounding variables. As a downside, however, tral photographs (Satchell, 2019). The present findings may these body scans might also have looked overly artificial. indicate that the perception of narcissism rather depends Instead, actual photos of bodies rather than 3D body scans on appearance-based cues, which allow the influence of tar- may be used as target stimuli, which should be investigated gets’ individual characteristics to be detected accurately by in further experimental designs under careful consideration laypersons. Since the targets in our sample were deprived of of potentially limited internal validity. Moreover, the phys- any kind of individualization of perceptible cues (through ical appearance of narcissistic people at zero acquaintance the standardized posture, underwear, and color as well as can be addressed more precisely and coherently across dif- lack of facial information), perceivers might have found it ferent stimulus materials by including natural body-, face-, particularly challenging to evaluate targets’ narcissistic ad- and dressed body-photos as well as short video clips of the miration and rivalry precisely. same target persons. Further, we used two different versions of the NARQ to Limitations and recommendations for future assess narcissism in men and women, reducing comparabil- research ity and resulting in rather low reliability for the narcissistic rivalry dimension of the short version of the NARQ. To ren- We would like to note several limitations of the current der analyses for men and women more comparable, we an- study that directly result in implications for future research. alyzed the same items of the NARQ for women and men (as There are constraints on generality (Simons et al., 2017). the short scale version is part of the long scale version). In The sample of raters consisted mostly of female partici- addition, even though our study had appropriate test power pants (80%) and most of the raters were students (95%) with to detect medium effect sizes, some medium sized effects the majority studying psychology (79%), which can be ex- were non-significant. Some small, but potentially meaning- plained by course credit serving as the main incentive for ful effect sizes were non-significant as well, suggesting that participating. Targets as well as raters were mostly highly future studies should rather increase their sample size. Fi- educated young adults of European origin. Further, our nally, our study was not preregistered before conducting it, study was conducted in a WEIRD country and might thus which further highlights the need for replication of the cur- not be generalizable to other countries and cultures (Hen- rent results. While we share our data and analysis script, rich et al., 2010). For example, the relationship between a preregistration would have decreased researcher degrees bodily attractiveness evaluations and BMI seems to vary of freedom, increased transparency and contributed to the cross-culturally (e.g. Boothroyd et al., 2016), thus, we have goal of preregistration being the new norm. We encourage good reasons to believe that person perception of other future research to conduct preregistered replication or reg- variables (e.g. narcissism) based on body morphology may istered reports of our work. vary cross-culturally as well. Our results may be repro- ducible with students from similar subject pools as the one Conclusion we used, but we lack evidence that our results will general- In summary, we conclude that bodily attractiveness, ize to situations outside the lab. We have no reason to be- BMI, SHR and physical strength appear to be used as cues lieve that results depend on other characteristics of the par- when judging narcissistic admiration and rivalry. Most of ticipants, materials, or context. the investigated body cues were not significantly related to Moreover, as rater characteristics did not show enough self-reported narcissistic admiration and rivalry and we did variance (e.g. in gender or age), we were not able to test not find compelling gender differences. In terms of the ac- whether rater characteristics moderate our key results or curacy of judgments narcissistic admiration was evaluated whether results change when e.g. controlling for rater gen- accurately, whereas no significant accuracies resulted for der. We recommend future studies to collect a larger, more female and male narcissistic rivalry, although both effect diverse sample to be able to test for confounding or moder- sizes were not significantly different from each other. The ating effects of rater characteristics as, for example, women present results may imply that static appearance-based and men may put different weight on body characteristics cues disclose social information (i.e., via face and clothing) when judging an opposite-sex body (which may also depend Collabra: Psychology 13 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance at zero acquaintance. However, naïve perceivers may be Analysis and interpretation of data: TR under supervi- prone to perceptual biases and heuristics in their narcissis- sion of JS tic admiration and rivalry judgment. Though highly stan- Drafted or revised the article: TR, TLK, JS dardized and controlled, the present study has some limi- Approved the submitted version for publication: TR, tations that should be addressed in future investigations to TLK, JS provide further evidence on the exact relationship between Competing interests grandiose narcissism and body morphology. For this pur- pose, preferably pre-registered studies with good method- The authors declare that they have no conflicts of inter- ological standards, also to reach sufficient interrater relia- est. bilities and high statistical power, are required. Data accessibility statement Data and analysis script are publicly available at the Contributions Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/gynx9/). Contributed to conception and design: TR, JS Submitted: June 24, 2021 PDT, Accepted: July 14, 2022 PDT Acquisition of data: Target participants (bodies): TLK, JS. Rating data: TR under supervision of JS This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecom- mons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information. Collabra: Psychology 14 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance References Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Brown, R. P., Budzek, K., & Tamborski, M. (2009). On Consensus in personality judgments at zero the meaning and measure of narcissism. Personality acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(7), 951–964. http Psychology, 55(3), 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/00 s://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209335461 22-3514.55.3.387 Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative Andrews, T. M., Lukaszewski, A. W., Simmons, Z. L., & design of psychological experiments (2nd ed.). Bleske-Rechek, A. (2017). Cue-based estimates of University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.152 reproductive value explain women’s body 5/9780520350519 attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(4), Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism 461–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.201 and social networking web sites. Personality and 7.04.002 Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10), 1303–1314. http Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., s://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208320061 Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2013). Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2005). A narrow waist versus Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the broad shoulders: Sex and age differences in the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of jealousy-evoking characteristics of a rival’s body Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013–1037. build. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034431 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.020 Back, M. D., & Morf, C. C. (2018). Narcissism. In V. Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Personality and Individual Differences. Springer. http 77(6), 1254–1270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-351 s://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_704-1 4.77.6.1254 Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why Carney, D. R., Colvin, C. R., & Hall, J. A. (2007). A thin are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding slice perspective on the accuracy of first impressions. the narcissism–popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(5), 1054–1072. h Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.01.004 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016338 Carrotte, E., & Anderson, J. (2019). Risk factor or Biesanz, J. C., West, S. G., & Millevoi, A. (2007). What protective feature? The roles of grandiose and do you learn about someone over time? The hypersensitive narcissism in explaining the relationship between length of acquaintance and relationship between self-objectification and body consensus and self-other agreement in judgments of image concerns. Sex Roles, 80(7–8), 458–468. http personality. Journal of Personality and Social s://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0948-y Psychology, 92(1), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0 Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in 022-3514.92.1.119 socialpsychology. Guilford Press. Boothroyd, L. G., Jucker, J.-L., Thornborrow, T., Cloud, J. M., & Perilloux, C. (2015). “Drawing” Jamieson, M. A., Burt, D. M., Barton, R. A., Evans, E. conclusions about perceptions of ideal male and H., & Tovee, M. J. (2016). Television exposure predicts female body shapes. Evolutionary Psychological body size ideals in rural Nicaragua. British Journal of Science, 1(3), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s4080 Psychology, 107(4), 752–767. https://doi.org/10.1111/b 6-015-0020-x jop.12184 Confer, J. C., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). More Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait inferences: than just a pretty face: Men’s priority shifts toward Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of bodily attractiveness in short-term versus long-term Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 645–657. http mating contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, s://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.4.645 31(5), 348–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbeh Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1995). Observable attributes av.2010.04.002 as manifestations and cues of personality and Cosio, R., & Robins, C. (2000). The eyebrow. intelligence. Journal of Personality, 63(1), 1–25. http HarperCollins. s://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00799.x Cowles, M., & Davis, C. (1982). On the origins of the .05 Bowerman, B. L., & O’Connell, R. T. (1990). Linear level of statistical significance. American Psychologist, statistical models: An applied approach (2nd ed.). 37(5), 553–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.3 Duxbury Press. 7.5.553 Brooks, R. C., Shelly, J. P., Jordan, L. A., & Dixson, B. Currie, T. E., & Little, A. C. (2009). The relative (2015). The multivariate evolution of female body importance of the face and body in judgments of shape in an artificial digital ecosystem. Evolution and human physical attractiveness. Evolution and Human Human Behavior, 36(5), 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1 Behavior, 30(6), 409–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ev 016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.02.001 olhumbehav.2009.06.005 Brown, J., & Graham, D. (2008). Body satisfaction in gym-active males: An exploration of sexuality, gender, and narcissism. Sex Roles, 59(1–2), 94–106. ht tps://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9416-4 Collabra: Psychology 15 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance Davis, C., Dionne, M., & Shuster, B. (2001). Physical and Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality psychological correlates of appearance orientation. judgment: a realistic approach. Psychological Review, Personality and Individual Differences, 30(1), 21–30. ht 102(4), 652–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.1 tps://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00006-4 02.4.652 Dixson, B. J., Dixson, A. F., Bishop, P. J., & Parish, A. Funder, D. C. (2012). Accurate personality judgment. (2010). Human physique and sexual attractiveness in Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), men and women: A New Zealand-U.S. comparative 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412445309 study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(3), 798–806. htt Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size ps://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9441-y in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Dixson, B. J., Duncan, M., & Dixson, A. F. (2015). The Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological role of breast size and areolar pigmentation in Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152 perceptions of women’s sexual attractiveness, 45919847202 reproductive health, sexual maturity, maternal Giacomin, M., & Rule, N. O. (2019). Eyebrows cue nurturing abilities, and age. Archives of Sexual grandiose narcissism. Journal of Personality, 87(2), Behavior, 44(6), 1685–1695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12396 10508-015-0516-2 Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. Norton. Dufner, M., Rauthmann, J. F., Czarna, A. Z., & Denissen, Grijalva, E., & Zhang, L. (2016). Narcissism and self- J. J. A. (2013). Are narcissists sexy? Zeroing in on the insight: A review and meta-analysis of narcissists’ effect of narcissism on short-term mate appeal. self-enhancement tendencies. Personality and Social Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), Psychology Bulletin, 42(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.11 870–882. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213483580 77/0146167215611636 Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1950). Testing for Serial Grillot, R. L., Simmons, Z. L., Lukaszewski, A. W., & Correlation in Least Squares Regression: I. Biometrika, Roney, J. R. (2014). Hormonal and morphological 37(3/4), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.2307/2332391 predictors of women’s body attractiveness. Evolution Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2011). and Human Behavior, 35(3), 176–183. https://doi.org/ When and why do ideal partner preferences affect the 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.01.001 process of initiating and maintaining romantic Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., Murphy, N. A., Mast, M. relationships? Journal of Personality and Social S., & Feinstein, B. A. (2008). Accuracy of judging Psychology, 101(5), 1012–1032. https://doi.org/10.103 others’ traits and states: Comparing mean levels 7/a0024062 across tests. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), Fan, J., Dai, W., Liu, F., & Wu, J. (2005). Visual 1476–1489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.013 perception of male body attractiveness. Proceedings of Harris, M. J., & Garris, C. P. (2008). You never get a the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272(1560), second chance to make a first impression: Behavioral 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2922 consequences of first impressions. In N. Ambady & J. Fatfouta, R., Gerlach, T. M., Schröder-Abé, M., & Merkl, J. Skowronski (Eds.), First impressions (pp. 147–168). A. (2015). Narcissism and lack of interpersonal Guilford Publications. forgiveness: The mediating role of state anger, state Haselton, M. G., & Funder, D. C. (2006). The evolution rumination, and state empathy. Personality and of accuracy and bias in social judgment. In M. Individual Differences, 75, 36–40. https://doi.org/10.10 Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), 16/j.paid.2014.10.051 Evolution and social psychology (pp. 15–37). https://do Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering i.org/10.4324/9780203782965 statistics using R. SAGE Publications Ltd. Hater, L., Schulte, J., Geukes, K., Buhlmann, U., & Back, Fisher, M. L., & Voracek, M. (2006). The shape of M. D. (2021). Disentangling the contributions of beauty: Determinants of female physical agentic, antagonistic, and neurotic narcissism to attractiveness. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 5(2), drive for thinness and drive for muscularity. PLOS 190–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-2165.2006.0 ONE, 16(6), e0253187. https://doi.org/10.1371/journa 0249.x l.pone.0253187 Fisher, R. A. (1915). Frequency distribution of the values Havlíček, J., Třebický, V., Valentova, J. V., Kleisner, K., of the correlation coefficient in samples from an Akoko, R. M., Fialová, J., Jash, R., Kočnar, T., Pereira, indefinitely large population. Biometrika, 10(4), K. J., Štěrbová, Z., Varella, M. A. C., Vokurková, J., 507–521. https://doi.org/10.2307/2331838 Vunan, E., & Roberts, S. C. (2017). Men’s preferences Fletcher, T. D. (2012). QuantPsyc: Quantitative for women’s breast size and shape in four cultures. psychology tools. https://cran.r-project.org/package=Q Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(2), 217–226. http uantPsyc s://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.10.002 Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2019). Car: Companion to applied Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most regression. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ca people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29–29. http r/index.html s://doi.org/10.1038/466029a Franzoi, S. L., & Herzog, M. E. (1987). Judging physical Hirschmüller, S., Schmukle, S. C., Krause, S., Back, M. attractiveness: What body aspects do we use? D., & Egloff, B. (2018). Accuracy of self-esteem Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(1), judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167287131002 Personality, 86(2), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/jo py.12316 Collabra: Psychology 16 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance Holtzman, N. S. (2011). Facing a psychopath: Detecting Leckelt, M., Wetzel, E., Gerlach, T. M., Ackerman, R. A., the dark triad from emotionally-neutral faces, using Miller, J. D., Chopik, W. J., Penke, L., Geukes, K., prototypes from the Personality Faceaurus. Journal of Küfner, A. C. P., Hutteman, R., Richter, D., Renner, K.- Research in Personality, 45(6), 648–654. https://doi.or H., Allroggen, M., Brecheen, C., Campbell, W. K., g/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.09.002 Grossmann, I., & Back, M. D. (2017). Validation of the narcissistic admiration and rivalry questionnaire Holtzman, N. S., & Strube, M. J. (2010). Narcissism and short scale (NARQ-S) in convenience and attractiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, representative samples. Psychological Assessment, 44(1), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.1 30(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000433 0.004 Letzring, T. D., Wells, S. M., & Funder, D. C. (2006). Holtzman, N. S., & Strube, M. J. (2013). People with Information quantity and quality affect the realistic dark personalities tend to create a physically accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of attractive veneer. Social Psychological and Personality Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 111–123. http Science, 4(4), 461–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485 s://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.111 Lönnqvist, J. E., Ilmarinen, V.-J., & Verkasalo, M. (2020). Jackson, L. A., Ervin, K. S., & Hodge, C. N. (1992). Who likes whom? The interaction between perceiver Narcissism and body image. Journal of Research in personality and target look. Journal of Research in Personality, 26(4), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/0 Personality, 90, 104044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2 092-6566(92)90065-c 020.104044 Jünger, J., Kordsmeyer, T. L., Gerlach, T. M., & Penke, L. Lüdecke, D. (2018). sjPlot: Data visualization for (2018). Fertile women evaluate male bodies as more statistics in social science. R package version, 2(1). htt attractive, regardless of masculinity. Evolution and ps://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.2400856 Human Behavior, 39(4), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.03.007 Maisey, D. S., Vale, E. L. E., Cornelissen, P. L., & Tovée, M. J. (1999). Characteristics of male attractiveness for Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). women. The Lancet, 353(9163), 1500. https://doi.org/1 Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. 0.1016/s0140-6736(99)00438-9 Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/c bo9780511809477 Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. SAGE Publications Ltd. Kenny, D. A., Horner, C., Kashy, D. A., & Chu, L. (1992). Consensus at zero acquaintance: Replication, Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., & Campbell, W. behavioral cues, and stability. Journal of Personality K. (2017). Controversies in narcissism. Annual Review and Social Psychology, 62(1), 88–97. https://doi.org/1 of Clinical Psychology, 13(1), 291–315. https://doi.org/ 0.1037/0022-3514.62.1.88 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045244 Kordsmeyer, T. L., Freund, D., Vugt, M. V., & Penke, L. Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the (2019). Honest signals of status: Facial and bodily paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory dominance are related to success in physical but not processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), nonphysical competition. Evolutionary Psychology, 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1204_1 17(3), 1474704919863164. https://doi.org/10.1177/14 Mota, S., Humberg, S., Krause, S., Fatfouta, R., Geukes, K., Schröder-Abé, M., & Back, M. D. (2020). Kordsmeyer, T. L., Hunt, J., Puts, D. A., Ostner, J., & Unmasking Narcissus: A competitive test of existing Penke, L. (2018). The relative importance of intra- hypotheses on (agentic, antagonistic, neurotic, and and intersexual selection on human male sexually communal) narcissism and (explicit and implicit) self- dimorphic traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, esteem across 18 samples. Self and Identity, 19(4), 39(4), 424–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbeh 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2019.162 av.2018.03.008 0012 Kordsmeyer, T. L., & Penke, L. (2019). Effects of male Naumann, L. P., Vazire, S., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. testosterone and its interaction with cortisol on self- D. (2009). Personality judgments based on physical and observer-rated personality states in a competitive appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, mating context. Journal of Research in Personality, 78, 35(12), 1661–1671. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.11.001 09346309 Kordsmeyer, T. L., Stern, J., & Penke, L. (2019). 3D Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2013). Applications and anthropometric assessment and perception of male extensions of the lens model to understand body morphology in relation to physical strength. interpersonal judgments at zero acquaintance. American Journal of Human Biology, 31(5), e23276. htt Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), ps://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23276 374–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413486148 Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer Norman, W. T., & Goldberg, L. R. (1966). Raters, ratees, for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social and randomness in personality structure. Journal of Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 355–362. h Personality and Social Psychology, 4(6), 681–691. http ttps://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177 s://doi.org/10.1037/h0024002 Leckelt, M., Küfner, A. C. P., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. Oltmanns, T. F., Friedman, J. N. W., Fiedler, E. R., & (2015). Behavioral processes underlying the decline of Turkheimer, E. (2004). Perceptions of people with narcissists’ popularity over time. Journal of Personality personality disorders based on thin slices of behavior. and Social Psychology, 109(5), 856–871. https://doi.or Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 216–229. http g/10.1037/pspp0000057 s://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00066-7 Collabra: Psychology 17 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to- adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed hip ratio, breasts, and hips: Role in judgments of blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, female attractiveness and desirability for 74(5), 1197–1208. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-351 relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(6), 4.74.5.1197 483–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(95)0007 4-7 Pazhoohi, F., Garza, R., Doyle, J. F., Macedo, A. F., & Arantes, J. (2019). Sex differences for preferences of Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Oleszkiewicz, A., shoulder to hip ratio in men and women: An eye Frackowiak, T., Huk, A., & Pisanski, K. (2015). Selfie tracking study. Evolutionary Psychological Science, posting behaviors are associated with narcissism 6(1), 94–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-019-0020 among men. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 4-1 123–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.004 Python Software Foundation. (2016). Python language Stern, J., Kordsmeyer, T. L., & Penke, L. (2021). A reference (Version 2.7.11). http://www.python.org/ longitudinal evaluation of ovulatory cycle shifts in women’s mate attraction and preferences. Hormones R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for and Behavior, 128, 104916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.y statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical hbeh.2020.104916 Computing. https://www.r-project.org/ Swami, V., Cass, L., Waseem, M., & Furham, A. (2015). Revelle, W. (2017). Psych: Procedures for personality and What is the relationship between facets of narcissism psychological research. https://cran.r-project.org/pack and women’s body image? Personality and Individual age=psych Differences, 87, 185–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pai Rogoza, R., Wyszyńska, P., Maćkiewicz, M., & Cieciuch, d.2015.08.006 J. (2016). Differentiation of the two narcissistic faces Treffenstädt, C., & Wiemann, P. (2018). Alfred - A library in their relations to personality traits and basic for rapid experiment development. https://doi.org/10.5 values. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 281/ZENODO.1437220 85–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.038 Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The Ryffel, F. A. (2017). Alpha and beta error self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. (accumulation). The International Encyclopedia of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), Communication Research Methods, 1–5. https://doi.or 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017908 g/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0002 Vazire, S., Naumann, L. P., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. Satchell, L. P. (2019). From photograph to face-to-face: D. (2008). Portrait of a narcissist: Manifestations of Brief interactions change person and personality narcissism in physical appearance. Journal of Research judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in Personality, 42(6), 1439–1447. https://doi.org/10.10 82, 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.02.0 16/j.jrp.2008.06.007 von Borell, C. J., Kordsmeyer, T. L., Gerlach, T. M., & Schauberger, P., Walker, A., & Braglia, L. (2019). Penke, L. (2019). An integrative study of facultative Openxlsx: Read, write and edit xlsx files. https://cran.r- personality calibration. Evolution and Human project.org/web/packages/openxlsx/index.html Behavior, 40(2), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ev Sedikides, C., Gregg, A., Cisek, S., & Hart, C. (2007). The olhumbehav.2019.01.002 I that buys: Narcissists as consumers. Journal of Weber, S., Geukes, K., Leckelt, M., & Back, M. D. (2021). Consumer Psychology, 17(4), 254–257. https://doi.org/ The attractiveness of narcissists: Hard work or 10.1016/s1057-7408(07)70035-9 natural beauty? Self and Identity, 20(2), 235–267. http Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., Von s://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2019.1575899 Rueden, C., & Gurven, M. (2009). Human adaptations Wickham, H. (2011). ggplot2. Wiley Interdisciplinary for the visual assessment of strength and fighting Reviews: Computational Statistics, 3(2), 180–185. http ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the s://doi.org/10.1002/wics.147 Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1656), 575–584. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1177 Wurst, S. N., Gerlach, T. M., Dufner, M., Rauthmann, J. F., Grosz, M. P., Küfner, A. C. P., Denissen, J. J. A., & Sell, A., Lukazsweski, A. W., & Townsley, M. (2017). Back, M. D. (2017). Narcissism and romantic Cues of upper body strength account for most of the relationships: The differential impact of narcissistic variance in men’s bodily attractiveness. Proceedings of admiration and rivalry. Journal of Personality and the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284(1869), Social Psychology, 112(2), 280–306. https://doi.org/1 20171819. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1819 0.1037/pspp0000113 Sheldon, W. H. (1940). The varieties of human physique. Yeagley, E., Morling, B., & Nelson, M. (2007). Nonverbal Harper. zero-acquaintance accuracy of self-esteem, social Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). dominance orientation, and satisfaction with life. Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition Journal of Research in Personality, 41(5), 1099–1106. h to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.12.002 Science, 12(6), 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/17 Zelazniewicz, A. M., & Pawlowski, B. (2011). Female breast size attractiveness for men as a function of Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female sociosexual orientation (restricted vs. unrestricted). physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 1129–1135. http Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), s://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9850-1 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.293 Collabra: Psychology 18 The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance Supplementary Materials Peer Review History Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/37150-the-relationship-between-body-morphology-and- narcissism-at-zero-acquaintance/attachment/94594.docx?auth_token=mwKCaaGl_ORNEL8cW8vk Supplemental Material Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/37150-the-relationship-between-body-morphology-and- narcissism-at-zero-acquaintance/attachment/94595.docx?auth_token=mwKCaaGl_ORNEL8cW8vk Collabra: Psychology

http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Collabra Psychology University of California Press

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/university-of-california-press/the-relationship-between-body-morphology-and-narcissism-at-zero-SVwzy1SKKF

The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance

Loading next page...

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher: University of California Press
eISSN: 2474-7394
DOI: 10.1525/collabra.37150
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Journal

Collabra Psychology – University of California Press

Published: Jul 27, 2022

Keywords: zero acquaintance; personality judgment; lens model; attractiveness; body morphology; narcissistic admiration and rivalry

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance

The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance

The Relationship Between Body Morphology and Narcissism at Zero Acquaintance

References

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies