自戀與攻擊性關(guān)系的元分析*

張麗華 朱 賀

自戀與攻擊性關(guān)系的元分析

張麗華 朱 賀

(遼寧師范大學(xué)心理學(xué)院, 大連 116029)

本研究采用元分析技術(shù)探討自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系。通過文獻(xiàn)檢索和篩選, 共納入原始文獻(xiàn)121篇, 含177個獨立樣本, 參與者總數(shù)達(dá)73687名。元分析的結(jié)果顯示, 自戀與攻擊性存在顯著正相關(guān), 二者關(guān)系受性別和自戀報告方式的調(diào)節(jié), 但不受攻擊性報告方式和文化的調(diào)節(jié)。同時, 不同類型的自戀與攻擊性呈現(xiàn)出不同的相關(guān)程度, 內(nèi)隱自戀與攻擊性的相關(guān)程度高于外顯自戀, 非適應(yīng)性自戀與攻擊性的相關(guān)程度高于適應(yīng)性自戀。后續(xù)的研究應(yīng)加強自戀測量的準(zhǔn)確性, 注重探討不同類型自戀與不同類型攻擊性的關(guān)系。

自戀, 攻擊性, 元分析

1 問題提出

攻擊和暴力是全球普遍存在的公共衛(wèi)生問題, 給個體、家庭和社會帶來了巨大的傷害。傳統(tǒng)觀點認(rèn)為低自尊是導(dǎo)致攻擊性問題的重要原因, 但有研究者提出攻擊性可能來自“受威脅的自我主義”, 即夸大、自戀的自我觀受到威脅, 而不是低自尊本身(Barry et al., 2007; Baumeister et al., 1996)。諸多研究表明自戀與攻擊性呈正相關(guān)(Rasmussen, 2016), 但這種關(guān)系的強度在各研究中差異較大(Kim et al., 2008; Kokkinos et al., 2016; Tanrikulu & Erdur-Baker, 2019)。另外, 還有研究結(jié)果顯示自戀與攻擊性不存在相關(guān)性(Ojanen et al., 2012)。Rasmussen (2016)對自戀與激發(fā)性攻擊的關(guān)系進(jìn)行了元分析, 但該研究沒有將無端性攻擊納入元分析, 也沒有探索文化對自戀與攻擊性關(guān)系的影響。因此, 為了進(jìn)一步理清自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系, 我們納入基于中國樣本的研究, 對自戀和攻擊性的關(guān)系進(jìn)行綜合元分析, 以期加深對二者關(guān)系理解的一致性。

1.1 自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系

諸多研究發(fā)現(xiàn)自戀與攻擊性呈正相關(guān)。最廣泛用于解釋自戀和攻擊性關(guān)系的理論為受威脅的自我主義模型, 基于該模型, 自戀者往往需要通過他人的欽佩和肯定來確認(rèn)自己不切實際的積極自我觀和強烈的優(yōu)越感, 當(dāng)他們脆弱的積極自我觀受到威脅時, 其內(nèi)部評價和外部評價之間產(chǎn)生了差異, 這種差異會導(dǎo)致他們對自我威脅的根源產(chǎn)生負(fù)面情緒和敵意, 他們拒絕降低自我評價, 因而助長了攻擊性(Baumeister et al., 1996)。

自戀暴怒理論認(rèn)為, 與非自戀者相比, 自戀者對人際事件的反應(yīng)更加強烈, 報告出更多的情緒變化和更高的情緒強度(Rhodewalt et al., 1998), 當(dāng)自戀者受到威脅時, 會產(chǎn)生羞恥、憤怒、焦慮等負(fù)面情緒, 進(jìn)而導(dǎo)致其攻擊性增強(Krizan & Johar, 2015; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1998)。

自戀的心理動力學(xué)面具模型指出, 自戀者所表達(dá)的積極自我觀不是完全真實的, 而是作為一種“面具”來掩飾自己潛在的低自尊(Zeigler-Hill & Besser, 2013)。基于這一模型, 攻擊性可以被理解為潛在低自尊的公開表達(dá)(Barnett & Powell, 2016)。自戀的動態(tài)自我調(diào)節(jié)加工模型也認(rèn)為, 自我調(diào)節(jié)加工是為了建立或維持期望的自我并滿足自我評價需求而進(jìn)行的有動機(jī)的自我建構(gòu)。雖然自戀者的自我概念很浮夸, 但也非常脆弱, 這種脆弱性驅(qū)使自戀者不斷激勵自己通過各種個人機(jī)制和人際機(jī)制來維持他們膨脹的自尊。原則上可以通過多種方式來應(yīng)對這種脆弱性, 比如通過回避行為將負(fù)面結(jié)果降至最低; 通過親和與友好行為來獲得社會認(rèn)可和支持; 通過自我提升使積極結(jié)果最大化。自戀者似乎選擇了自我提升的形式, 他們?yōu)榱俗C實浮夸的自我觀點, 達(dá)到預(yù)期的積極結(jié)果, 不管人際代價多大, 仍會采取攻擊的方式提升自我, 旨在先發(fā)制人地降低失敗的可能性或避免消極的后果(Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001)。綜上所述, 自戀者的攻擊性反應(yīng)是調(diào)節(jié)情緒、認(rèn)知、動機(jī)和行為的一種適應(yīng)性機(jī)制(Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Washburn et al., 2004)。

還有一些研究發(fā)現(xiàn)自戀和攻擊性不相關(guān)。有研究指出, 當(dāng)自戀個體具有高自尊時, 在面對威脅信息后的反應(yīng)不會那么具有攻擊性, 而且可能會在察覺到自己輕微的反應(yīng)后表現(xiàn)出更具建設(shè)性的行為(Hart, Richardson, & Tortoriello, 2018)。也有研究認(rèn)為自戀與性格攻擊性(dispositional aggression)無關(guān), 而是對自我威脅有攻擊性反應(yīng), 只要自戀者的優(yōu)越感不被干擾, 他們會認(rèn)為沒有必要表現(xiàn)出攻擊性(Jones & Neria, 2015)。

1.2 調(diào)節(jié)變量

第一, 自戀和攻擊性存在性別差異, 因此有必要考慮性別在自戀和攻擊性關(guān)系中的調(diào)節(jié)作用。就自戀而言, 研究發(fā)現(xiàn)男性的自戀水平往往高于女性(Grijalva et al., 2015)。就攻擊性而言, 大多數(shù)的經(jīng)驗證據(jù)表明, 男性比女性更具有攻擊性(Knight et al., 2002)。Wallace等人(2012)的研究發(fā)現(xiàn), 相比于女性, 男性的自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系更強。綜上, 提出本研究的假設(shè)H1：性別能夠調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系。

第二, 報告的類型可能會影響自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系。以往自戀和攻擊性的研究多采用自我報告的形式, 但自我報告容易受到社會期望的影響(Wallace et al., 2012), 尤其當(dāng)問題涉及到社會無法接受的行為或特征時, 容易出現(xiàn)回答偏差。因此, 較于自我報告的攻擊性, 自戀可能更與他人報告和行為測量的攻擊性相關(guān)。另外, 自戀程度高的個體往往能夠意識到自己的性格不能得到社會的高度評價(Carlson et al., 2011), 因此, 他們可能在必要時故意偽造自我報告(Heinze et al., 2020), 導(dǎo)致他人報告的自戀比自我報告的自戀與攻擊性的相關(guān)程度更高。綜上, 提出本研究的假設(shè)H2a：自戀的報告方式能夠調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系; 假設(shè)H2b：攻擊性的報告方式能夠調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系。

第三, 文化也可能會影響自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系。面子是與集體主義文化相關(guān)的概念, 較于個人主義文化, 集體主義文化背景下的個體更為重視面子的保護(hù), 更加在乎他人對自己的看法(Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005/2010; Bond, 2010)。因此, 在面對威脅時, 集體主義文化中的自戀個體更可能采用攻擊行為以保護(hù)自己的形象。綜上, 提出本研究的假設(shè)H3：文化能夠調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系。

第四, 并不是所有類型的自戀都會表現(xiàn)出攻擊性(Alexander et al., 2020)。Wink (1991)按照心理動力理論將自戀分為外顯自戀與內(nèi)隱自戀, 又分別稱為浮夸型自戀和脆弱型自戀。外顯自戀的特點是具有夸大的自我表現(xiàn)欲、公開地表達(dá)特權(quán)感、相信自己具有獨特的能力和優(yōu)越性并專注于從別人那里得到贊賞和關(guān)注, 而內(nèi)隱自戀是一種更加隱蔽的自戀, 具有過于看重他人對自己的評價、缺乏自信、對批評和拒絕等威脅極度敏感的特點(Barry et al., 2015; Besser & Priel, 2010; Fan et al., 2016; Houlcroft et al., 2012)。這兩種自戀都有傲慢和自我中心的核心特征, 但后者更易表現(xiàn)出防御性(Barry & Kauten, 2014), 具有更多的不適應(yīng)特征(Fan et al., 2016)。綜上, 提出本研究的假設(shè)H4a：自戀類型(外顯自戀vs.內(nèi)隱自戀)能夠調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系。

此外, 根據(jù)適應(yīng)功能可將自戀分為適應(yīng)性自戀和非適應(yīng)性自戀。自戀的適應(yīng)性成分評估了個體的權(quán)威性、領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力和自我滿足, 與自信、獨立等品質(zhì)有關(guān), 與社會適應(yīng)不良幾乎沒有聯(lián)系(Amad, 2015; Raskin & Terry, 1988), 且高適應(yīng)性自戀個體的自控力較好; 而自戀的非適應(yīng)性成分評估了個體的特權(quán)感、剝削感和自我表現(xiàn), 通常與敵意、難以延遲滿足等有關(guān), 且高非適應(yīng)性自戀個體的理想自我與現(xiàn)實自我相差較大(Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995), 自控力較差(Ackerman et al., 2011)。因此, 較于適應(yīng)性自戀, 非適應(yīng)性自戀與攻擊性可能具有更強的相關(guān)性。綜上, 提出本研究的假設(shè)H4b：自戀類型(適應(yīng)性自戀vs.非適應(yīng)性自戀)能夠調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系。

第五, 攻擊性的多維度結(jié)構(gòu)也可能會影響自戀與攻擊性的相關(guān)強度。首先, 根據(jù)攻擊的意圖可將攻擊分為主動性攻擊和反應(yīng)性攻擊。受威脅的自我主義模型認(rèn)為, 自戀只是在個體受到自我威脅后才與攻擊性存在相關(guān)(Thomaes, Bushman et al., 2008), 描述了反應(yīng)性攻擊的過程, 隱含著反應(yīng)性攻擊和主動性攻擊之間的區(qū)別。Baumeister等人(2000)指出, 只要沒有受到自我威脅, 自戀者與非自戀者在攻擊性方面沒有很大差異。因此, 相對于主動性攻擊, 自戀與反應(yīng)性攻擊的相關(guān)性可能更強。綜上, 提出本研究的假設(shè)H5a：攻擊性類型(主動性攻擊vs.反應(yīng)性攻擊)能夠調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系。

其次, 按照攻擊形式可將攻擊分為直接攻擊和間接攻擊。相比于直接攻擊, 自戀者可能更傾向于使用間接攻擊, 因為間接攻擊的隱蔽性特點給自戀者一種錯覺, 即盡管自戀者做出了傷害行為, 但呈現(xiàn)在他人面前的仍是其積極的一面, 有助于他們保持較高的社會地位(Bukowski et al., 2009; Golmaryami & Barry, 2010), 而直接攻擊可能會破壞一個人的社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)(Klimstra et al., 2014), 不利于自戀者維持或加強自己的統(tǒng)治地位。綜上, 提出本研究的假設(shè)H5b：攻擊性類型(直接攻擊vs.間接攻擊)能夠調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系。

再次, Buss和Perry提出的攻擊性問卷(Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire, BPAQ)將攻擊性分為4個方面：言語攻擊、身體攻擊、敵意和憤怒, 其中身體攻擊和言語攻擊代表攻擊性的直接形式, 憤怒和敵意分別代表攻擊性的情緒和認(rèn)知成分。內(nèi)隱自戀個體對他人的評價非常敏感, 因而他們不會輕易公開表達(dá)自己的攻擊性傾向, 但是由于他們具有一種特權(quán)感, 往往忽視他人(Wink, 1991), 在沒有得到自認(rèn)為應(yīng)得的特別關(guān)注時, 容易產(chǎn)生憤怒和敵意(Okada, 2010)。綜上, 提出本研究的假設(shè)H5c：攻擊性類型(敵意vs.憤怒vs.言語攻擊vs.身體攻擊)能夠調(diào)節(jié)內(nèi)隱自戀和攻擊性的關(guān)系。

最后, 攻擊性可分為外顯攻擊和關(guān)系攻擊。有研究指出女性比男性更重視社會交往中的關(guān)系問題, 因此女性更傾向于采用關(guān)系攻擊以達(dá)到最大傷害效果, 而男性更重視社會支配性, 因而更傾向于采用外顯攻擊(Crick et al., 1997)。已有研究發(fā)現(xiàn), 自戀與女性的關(guān)系攻擊相關(guān), 而與男性的關(guān)系攻擊無關(guān)(Marsee et al., 2005)。綜上, 提出本研究的假設(shè)H5d：性別和攻擊性類型(外顯攻擊vs.關(guān)系攻擊)的交互作用能夠調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系。

2 研究方法

2.1 文獻(xiàn)檢索與篩選

在中國知網(wǎng)、維普、萬方、Web of Science、Elsevier、Wiley和Pubmed數(shù)據(jù)庫檢索篇名、摘要或關(guān)鍵詞中包含“自戀/narcissistic/narcissism”聯(lián)合“攻擊/aggressive/aggression”、“暴力/violent/violence”、“欺負(fù)/bullying/cyberbulling”的文獻(xiàn)。檢索時間范圍為：1965～2021年, 最后一次的檢索時間為2021年2月22日, 共檢索到文獻(xiàn)1200篇。

使用Endnote X9導(dǎo)入文獻(xiàn)并按照以下標(biāo)準(zhǔn)篩選：(1)報告了自戀和攻擊性總分或維度之間的零階相關(guān)系數(shù); (2)報告了樣本量; (3)必須為實證研究, 綜述性研究被排除; (4)對測量工具有明確的介紹; (5)重復(fù)數(shù)據(jù)僅選擇信息更為充分的; (6)調(diào)查情境為正常的生活環(huán)境, 排除戰(zhàn)爭環(huán)境; (7)排除以自殺為攻擊性結(jié)果的研究, 本元分析的攻擊對象針對的是他人而不是自我; (8)狀態(tài)自戀是指因為特定情境引起對自身重要性及自我形象暫時性夸大的狀態(tài)(楊晨晨等, 2016)。集體自戀是一種認(rèn)為自己所在的群體具有獨特性, 但沒有得到他人充分認(rèn)可的信念(de Zavala, & Lantos, 2020)。限于國內(nèi)外關(guān)于集體自戀和狀態(tài)自戀與攻擊性關(guān)系的文獻(xiàn)較少, 而元分析研究需要有全面且系統(tǒng)的文獻(xiàn)來支撐(丁鳳琴, 趙虎英, 2018), 因此, 本元分析主要探討了個體水平上的特質(zhì)自戀對攻擊性的影響, 排除了狀態(tài)自戀和集體自戀。文獻(xiàn)篩選流程見圖1。最終共納入177個獨立研究, 樣本量共計73687。

圖1 元分析文獻(xiàn)篩選流程圖

2.2 文獻(xiàn)編碼

對作者信息、出版年份、發(fā)表類型、樣本量、參與者特征(參與者類型、男性比、年齡)、文化背景、自戀和攻擊性的測量工具、自戀和攻擊性的報告方式(見表1)進(jìn)行編碼。自戀總分及各個維度與攻擊性總分及各個維度的相關(guān)系數(shù)納入編碼, 獨立樣本編碼一次, 若一篇論文報告了多個獨立樣本, 則分開編碼; 若原始文獻(xiàn)只報告了自戀和攻擊性各個維度的相關(guān)系數(shù)或不同實驗條件下(實驗條件非本研究關(guān)注的調(diào)節(jié)變量)的相關(guān)系數(shù), 則通過轉(zhuǎn)換為后求均分, 然后再轉(zhuǎn)為相關(guān)系數(shù)錄入; 若實驗條件為本研究關(guān)注的調(diào)節(jié)變量, 則分別進(jìn)行編碼。

表1 納入的原始研究的基本資料

續(xù)表

續(xù)表

注：a 為減少篇幅, 僅列出了第一位作者。b 單個數(shù)字表示平均年齡。c ZHNPQ = 鄭涌和黃藜的自戀人格問卷; ZHNPQ-O = ZHNPQ外顯自戀分量表; ZHNPQ-C = ZHNPQ內(nèi)隱自戀分量表; NPQ = 周暉等人的自戀人格問卷。d RPQ = Reactive and Proactive Aggression Questionnaire; AOABS = 少年網(wǎng)絡(luò)攻擊行為評定量表; CRT = competitive reaction-time task; CTS2 = Revised Conflict Tactic Scales; PCS = Peer Conflict Scale。e 核心 = 北大或南大核心期刊論文; 普通 = 一般公開刊物論文; 學(xué)位 = 碩博學(xué)位論文; SSCI = 社會科學(xué)引文索引; ESCI = 新興資源引文索引; SCIE = 科學(xué)引文索引拓展版。

文化個人主義得分來自于Hofstede (2021)的數(shù)據(jù)庫, 參考以往的研究(Cheng et al., 2021), 得分在50分或以上的國家被歸為個人主義國家, 得分低于50分的國家被歸為集體主義國家。

有些工具分別測量了內(nèi)隱自戀和外顯自戀兩種形式的自戀, Pincus等人的病理性自戀問卷(Pathological Narcissism Inventory, PNI)及鄭涌和黃藜的自戀人格問卷就是典型的代表。但很多量表沒有說明所測量的自戀屬于外顯自戀或內(nèi)隱自戀, 參考以往的研究(Gnambs & Appel, 2018; Grijalva et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2016; 陳媛媛, 2018), 自戀人格問卷(Narcissistic Personality Inventory, NPI)是外顯自戀的典型例子, 因此, 54個條目、40個條目、16個條目、13個條目、37個條目版本的NPI, 以及NPI的兒童版Narcissistic Personality Questionnaire for Children (NPQC)和Narcissistic Personality Inventory– Children (NPIC)、Jonason和Webster的黑暗十二條(Dirty Dozen, DD)的自戀分量表也被歸類為外顯自戀的衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。此外, 我們還將如下的測量工具歸為外顯自戀：Jones和Paulhus的短式黑暗三聯(lián)征量表(Short Dark Triad, SD3)的自戀分量表; 米隆臨床多軸問卷第三版(Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-Ⅲ, MCMI-Ⅲ)的自戀型人格障礙分量表; First等人的人格障礙診斷問卷(Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-Ⅳ Axis Ⅱ, SCID-Ⅱ)的自戀分量表; Thomaes等人的童年期自戀量表(Childhood Narcissism Scale, CNS); 反社會過程篩查表(Antisocial Process Screening Device, APSD)自評版和他評版; 周暉等人的自戀人格問卷。而Hendin和Cheek的過度敏感自戀量表(Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale, HSNS)則是衡量內(nèi)隱自戀的典型例子。

2.3 數(shù)據(jù)處理與分析

采用CMA 3.3 (Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 3.3)軟件對數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行元分析的主效應(yīng)分析和調(diào)節(jié)效應(yīng)分析, 調(diào)節(jié)效應(yīng)分析采用元回歸分析。

3 研究結(jié)果

3.1 同質(zhì)性檢驗及模型選定

通過對納入的效應(yīng)量進(jìn)行同質(zhì)性檢驗發(fā)現(xiàn),= 1793.44 (< 0.001), 表明結(jié)果存在異質(zhì)性;= 90.19, 表明模型中有約90.19%的觀察變異來自效應(yīng)值的真實差異, 約9.80%的變異來自隨機(jī)誤差,大于75%, 表明結(jié)果存在高異質(zhì)性。因此, 自戀與攻擊性的元分析采用隨機(jī)效應(yīng)模型, 有必要分析調(diào)節(jié)變量對自戀和攻擊性關(guān)系的影響。

3.2 發(fā)表偏差

漏斗圖顯示, 自戀與攻擊性關(guān)系各效應(yīng)值大部分集中在頂部且均勻分布在總效應(yīng)的兩側(cè); Egger直線回歸法顯示,為?0.24,= 0.678。這些結(jié)果表明研究結(jié)果受出版偏誤的影響較小, 自戀與攻擊性關(guān)系的元分析結(jié)果較為穩(wěn)定。

3.3 主效應(yīng)檢驗

采用隨機(jī)模型綜合分析自戀與攻擊性的整體關(guān)聯(lián)程度, 結(jié)果顯示, 自戀和攻擊性的相關(guān)系數(shù)為0.27, 95% CI [0.25, 0.29]。根據(jù)Gignac和Szodorai (2016)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn), 可以認(rèn)為本研究中自戀和攻擊性存在中等程度的正相關(guān)。

3.4 調(diào)節(jié)效應(yīng)檢驗

性別可以顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系。元回歸分析(173個效應(yīng)值)的結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn), 男性比對效應(yīng)值的回歸系數(shù)顯著(= 0.10),= 0.026。男性比越高, 自戀和攻擊性的相關(guān)系數(shù)越高。

如表2所示：(1)自戀報告方式可以顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系(Q= 5.54,= 0.019), 他人報告的相關(guān)系數(shù)顯著高于自我報告的相關(guān)系數(shù)。(2)攻擊性報告方式不能顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系(Q= 1.46,= 0.482)。(3)文化不能顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系(Q= 0.06,= 0.808)。

如表3所示：(1)自戀類型(外顯自戀vs.內(nèi)隱自戀)可以顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性總分(Q= 5.46,= 0.019)、憤怒(Q= 31.86,< 0.001)、敵意(Q= 33.09,< 0.001)的關(guān)系。相比于外顯自戀, 內(nèi)隱自戀與攻擊性總分、憤怒、敵意的相關(guān)性更強。自戀類型(外顯自戀vs.內(nèi)隱自戀)不能顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀和主動性攻擊(Q= 0.29,= 0.592)、反應(yīng)性攻擊(Q= 0.132,= 0.716)、身體攻擊(Q= 0.97,= 0.325)、言語攻擊(Q= 0.014,= 0.907)的關(guān)系。(2)自戀類型(適應(yīng)性自戀vs.非適應(yīng)性自戀)可以顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系(Q= 5.74,= 0.017)。相比于適應(yīng)性自戀, 非適應(yīng)性自戀與攻擊性總分的相關(guān)性更強。(3)攻擊性類型(主動性攻擊vs.反應(yīng)性攻擊)不能顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀總分(Q= 0.90,= 0.342)、外顯自戀(Q= 1.15,= 0.284)和內(nèi)隱自戀(Q= 0.04,= 0.846)與攻擊性的關(guān)系。(4)攻擊性類型(直接攻擊vs.間接攻擊)不能顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀和攻擊性的關(guān)系(Q= 2.66,= 0.103)。(5)攻擊性類型(敵意vs.憤怒vs.言語攻擊vs.身體攻擊)不能顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀總分(Q= 0.78,= 0.854)、外顯自戀(Q= 2.74,= 0.433)與攻擊性的關(guān)系, 能夠顯著調(diào)節(jié)內(nèi)隱自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系(Q= 29.92,< 0.001)。通過配對比較發(fā)現(xiàn), 敵意顯著高于憤怒(= 2.57,= 0.010)、身體攻擊(= 4.53,0.001)和言語攻擊(= 1.61,0.001), 憤怒顯著高于言語攻擊(= 2.15,= 0.032)。(6)性別和攻擊性類型(外顯攻擊vs.關(guān)系攻擊)的交互作用對效應(yīng)值的回歸系數(shù)不顯著(= 0.60),= 0.979。

表2 分類變量調(diào)節(jié)效應(yīng)分析結(jié)果

表3 自戀不同結(jié)構(gòu)與攻擊性不同結(jié)構(gòu)相關(guān)系數(shù)的元分析

4 討論

4.1 自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系

本研究對檢索后獲得的121項研究進(jìn)行了元分析, 結(jié)果表明自戀與攻擊性存在中等程度的正相關(guān), 與以往的多數(shù)研究結(jié)果一致, 支持了自戀與攻擊性呈正相關(guān)的觀點。

該結(jié)果符合自戀的心理動力學(xué)面具模型、動態(tài)自我調(diào)節(jié)加工模型和受威脅的自我主義模型的觀點, 自戀者將浮夸的自我感作為面具來掩蓋他們的低自尊(Zeigler-Hill & Besser, 2013), 他們除了表現(xiàn)出對自己有較高的評價之外, 還希望他人對自己的價值表現(xiàn)出同樣高度的評價(Barry et al., 2003; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Raskin et al., 1991)。自戀者通過認(rèn)知和情感的個人內(nèi)部過程以及人際自我調(diào)節(jié)策略的動態(tài)交互作用來進(jìn)行自我調(diào)節(jié)加工, 在尋求評估性反饋的過程中, 不斷將任務(wù)視為與他人競爭并展示自己優(yōu)越性的機(jī)會; 希望自己比別人更優(yōu)越, 對他人產(chǎn)生消極的看法和蔑視; 在極端的情況下, 容易產(chǎn)生憤怒, 甚至產(chǎn)生攻擊性(Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1998)。因此, 攻擊性這種行為層面的極端表現(xiàn)可能在潛在的動機(jī)層面起到避免失敗、自我保護(hù)和自我提升的作用, 是一種保護(hù)自我高度認(rèn)同的方法(Baumeister et al., 2000; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001)。

4.2 調(diào)節(jié)效應(yīng)分析

本研究發(fā)現(xiàn)男性比越高, 自戀與攻擊性的相關(guān)性越強, 證實了本研究的假設(shè)H1。這表明自戀的男性和女性面對壓力情況的反應(yīng)方式存在社會化差異(Wallace et al., 2012)。這一結(jié)果與以往的研究結(jié)果不一致(Rasmussen, 2016), Rasmussen的元分析發(fā)現(xiàn), 性別不能顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀與激發(fā)性攻擊的關(guān)系, 這可能是因為Rasmussen考察的是自戀與激發(fā)性攻擊的關(guān)系, 因此沒有納入無端性攻擊以及將激發(fā)性攻擊和無端性攻擊視為同質(zhì)結(jié)構(gòu)的研究。有研究指出, 在無端性攻擊條件下, 男性比女性更具有攻擊性, 而挑釁會明顯減弱這種性別差異(Bettencourt & Miller, 1996)。

研究結(jié)果顯示, 自戀報告方式可以顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系, 他人報告的相關(guān)系數(shù)顯著高于自我報告的相關(guān)系數(shù), 證實了假設(shè)H2a。自戀者缺乏自我洞察力, 認(rèn)識不到自己性格上的負(fù)性方面, 而其他評定者可能會提供個體在自我報告時不愿意承認(rèn)或無法感知的特征(Cooper et al., 2012)。

另外, 本研究發(fā)現(xiàn)攻擊性報告方式不能顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系, 與研究假設(shè)H2b不一致。雖然受社會期望的影響, 自戀者具有隱藏真實自我的傾向, 但也有研究指出, 自戀者并不擔(dān)心把自己描繪成攻擊性的, 或者他們不認(rèn)為攻擊性一定是不適應(yīng)的(Ang et al., 2011), 有可能會過度報告自己的攻擊行為, 以增強其宏偉的自我形象。另外, 實驗室環(huán)境不利于觀察較為隱蔽的攻擊性, 且其他評定者對攻擊性的觀察僅限于特定的環(huán)境, 無法接觸到目標(biāo)個體表現(xiàn)出攻擊性的所有情境(Klimstra et al., 2014)。

研究結(jié)果顯示, 文化不能顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀和攻擊性的關(guān)系, 表明自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系具有跨文化的一致性, 這與本研究的假設(shè)H3不一致。一種可能的解釋是, 在個人主義文化背景下, 人們普遍認(rèn)為使用攻擊性有助于實現(xiàn)個人目標(biāo), 增加了對攻擊性的理解和容忍(Amad et al., 2020)。而在集體主義文化背景下, 個體認(rèn)為自己是嵌入在集體中的, 高度重視集體的需要(Bergeron & Schneider, 2005), 但攻擊性行為違背了合作和人際和諧的目標(biāo)(Xu et al., 2004), 因此可能得到了抑制。另一種可能的解釋是文化的全球化效應(yīng), 隨著全球經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會的發(fā)展, 文化呈現(xiàn)出個體主義逐漸增強, 而集體主義相對式微的趨勢(黃梓航等, 2018)。因此, 自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系受文化的影響較小。

研究結(jié)果顯示, 自戀類型(外顯自戀vs.內(nèi)隱自戀)可以顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系, 相比于外顯自戀, 內(nèi)隱自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系更強, 證實了本研究的假設(shè)H4a。外顯自戀程度高的個體往往性格較為外向, 情緒彈性較強(Miller & Campbell, 2008), 具有良好的人際關(guān)系(Fan et al., 2016)。有研究指出, 與外顯自戀相關(guān)的高自尊和膨脹的自信對攻擊性有緩沖作用(Knight et al., 2018)。相比之下, 內(nèi)隱自戀者較為內(nèi)向, 情緒不穩(wěn)定, 且充滿消極情緒(Miller & Campbell, 2008), 人際敏感性較強(Miller et al., 2010), 在其脆弱的自尊受到打擊時, 更可能表現(xiàn)出攻擊性(Knight et al., 2018)。

研究結(jié)果顯示, 自戀類型(適應(yīng)性自戀vs.非適應(yīng)性自戀)可以顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系, 證實了本研究的假設(shè)H4b。表明與適應(yīng)性自戀相比, 非適應(yīng)性自戀與攻擊性的相關(guān)性更強。高適應(yīng)性自戀個體較少進(jìn)行消極自我關(guān)注(Emmons, 1987), 更加樂觀, 甚至有研究指出適應(yīng)性自戀是抵抗攻擊性的保護(hù)因素(Washburn et al., 2004)。而非適應(yīng)性自戀個體更傾向于通過攻擊性來獲得期望的支配地位(Golmaryami & Barry, 2010)。

我們的研究發(fā)現(xiàn), 無論是外顯自戀、內(nèi)隱自戀還是自戀總分, 攻擊性類型(主動性攻擊vs.反應(yīng)性攻擊)對自戀與攻擊性關(guān)系的調(diào)節(jié)作用均不顯著。這表明自戀不僅會誘發(fā)反應(yīng)性攻擊,也可能為了獲得某些期望的社會地位或關(guān)注, 實現(xiàn)對他人的支配, 構(gòu)建、促進(jìn)和加強浮夸的自我形象而產(chǎn)生主動性攻擊(Mu?oz et al., 2013)。Raskin等人(1991)認(rèn)為敵意、浮夸和支配是相互關(guān)聯(lián)的, 形成了一個連貫的結(jié)構(gòu)系統(tǒng), 與自戀密切相關(guān), 他們將攻擊性視為自戀者個性的核心特征, 而不是源于特定的過程(Bukowski et al., 2009)。

研究結(jié)果并未發(fā)現(xiàn)攻擊性類型(直接攻擊vs.間接攻擊)能顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系, 沒有證實本研究的假設(shè)H5b。原因可能是, 本元分析納入的直接攻擊和間接攻擊的研究較少, 且Klimstra等人(2014)的研究納入了同伴評價和教師評價的攻擊性, 由于間接攻擊具有隱蔽性的特點, 因此他人評價可能很難發(fā)現(xiàn)自戀者的間接攻擊行為。

研究結(jié)果顯示, 攻擊性類型(身體攻擊vs.言語攻擊vs.敵意vs.憤怒)能夠顯著調(diào)節(jié)內(nèi)隱自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系, 相關(guān)程度從高到低分別為敵意、憤怒、身體攻擊和言語攻擊, 基本證實了本研究的假設(shè)H5c。雖然內(nèi)隱自戀者對他人的評價很敏感, 他們不一定會在身體或言語上直接表達(dá)自己的攻擊性傾向, 但是他們也存在特權(quán)感和忽視他人的傾向(Wink, 1991), 因此, 如果內(nèi)隱自戀者沒有被視為特殊和重要的人, 便容易感到憤怒和敵意(Okada, 2010)。

研究結(jié)果并未發(fā)現(xiàn)性別和攻擊性類型(外顯攻擊vs.關(guān)系攻擊)的交互作用顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系。這可能是因為, 本元分析納入的均為自我報告和他人報告的關(guān)系攻擊, 但有研究指出采用觀察法更可能得到女性比男性傾向于關(guān)系攻擊的結(jié)果, 因為這種研究方法比基于自我、同伴和教師報告的評估方法更不容易因性別刻板印象而產(chǎn)生偏見。另外, 女性比男性更傾向于采用關(guān)系攻擊這一結(jié)論在美國的研究中較為一致, 但不同的文化背景下, 關(guān)系攻擊的含義和功能不同, 因此在其他文化中這一結(jié)論并不一致(Crick et al., 2012)。

4.3 研究不足與展望

本研究的不足：(1)不同亞組的樣本量分配不夠均勻, 可能會影響元分析的結(jié)果; (2)雖然本元分析初步避免了發(fā)表偏差的影響, 但是因為語言的限制, 仍有少數(shù)研究沒有納入進(jìn)本研究; (3)本元分析沒有說明自戀與其他潛在的不良人格特征一起考慮時的情況, 或許攻擊性可以通過自戀與其他特征之間的聯(lián)系來解釋(Rasmussen, 2016; Rasmussen & Boon, 2014)。展望：(1)以往研究中的自戀多采用自我報告的方式, 本元分析發(fā)現(xiàn), 自戀的報告方式可以顯著調(diào)節(jié)自戀和攻擊性的關(guān)系, 為了獲得自戀最準(zhǔn)確、最完整的信息, 可以使用多個評定者的數(shù)據(jù), 對不同的測量方式進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步整合; (2)已有的自戀與攻擊性關(guān)系研究缺乏對內(nèi)隱自戀的關(guān)注, 本元分析發(fā)現(xiàn), 內(nèi)隱自戀更可能是攻擊性的危險因素, 因此, 以后的研究應(yīng)加強對內(nèi)隱自戀的探討。

5 研究結(jié)論

本研究發(fā)現(xiàn)自戀與攻擊性之間存在中等程度的正相關(guān); 二者關(guān)系受性別和自戀報告方式的調(diào)節(jié), 但不受攻擊性報告方式和文化的調(diào)節(jié); 不同類型的自戀與攻擊性呈現(xiàn)出不同的相關(guān)程度, 內(nèi)隱自戀與攻擊性的相關(guān)程度高于外顯自戀, 非適應(yīng)性自戀與攻擊性的相關(guān)程度高于適應(yīng)性自戀。

元分析用到的參考文獻(xiàn)

Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory really measure?(1), 67–87.

Alexander, M. B., Gore, J., & Estep, C. (2020). How need for power explains why narcissists are antisocial.. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0033294120926668

Amad, S. (2015).(Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Cardiff University, UK.

Amad, S., Gray, N. S., & Snowden, R. J. (2020). Self-esteem, narcissism, and aggression: Different types of self-esteem predict different types of aggression.. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260520905540

An, Z. H., Li, X. C., Chang, R. S, Ma, J. F., & Liang, C. (2021). The influence of covert narcissism on aggressive driving behavior.(2), 109–115.

[安志浩, 李曉晨, 常若松, 馬錦飛, 梁超. (2021). 隱性自戀對駕駛員攻擊行為的影響.(2), 109–115.]

Ang, R. P., Huan, V. S., Li, X., & Chan, W. T. (2016). Factor structure and invariance of the Reactive and Proactive Aggression Questionnaire in a large sample of young adolescents in Singapore.(6), 883–889.

Ang, R. P., Ong, E. Y. L., Lim, J. C. Y., & Lim, E. W. (2010). From narcissistic exploitativeness to bullying behavior: The mediating role of approval-of-aggression beliefs.(4), 721–735.

Ang, R. P., Tan, K. A., & Mansor, A. T. (2011). Normative beliefs about aggression as a mediator of narcissistic exploitativeness and cyberbullying.(13), 2619–2634.

Ball, L., Tully, R., & Egan, V. (2018). The influence of impulsivity and the Dark Triad on self-reported aggressive driving behaviours., 130–138.

Barnett, M. D., & Powell, H. A. (2016). Self-esteem mediates narcissism and aggression among women, but not men: A comparison of two theoretical models of narcissism among college students., 100–104.

Barry, C. T., Frick, P. J., & Killian, A. L. (2003). The relation of narcissism and self-esteem to conduct problems in children: A preliminary investigation.(1), 139–152.

Barry, C. T., & Kauten, R. L. (2014). Nonpathological and pathological narcissism: Which self-reported characteristics are most problematic in adolescents?(2), 212–219.

Barry, C. T., Loflin, D. C., & Doucette, H. (2015). Adolescent self-compassion: Associations with narcissism, self-esteem, aggression, and internalizing symptoms in at-risk males., 118–123.

Barry, C. T., Pickard, J. D., & Ansel, L. L. (2009). The associations of adolescent invulnerability and narcissism with problem behaviors.(6), 577–582.

Barry, T. D., Thompson, A., Barry, C. T., Lochman, J. E., Adler, K., & Hill, K. (2007). The importance of narcissism in predicting proactive and reactive aggression in moderately to highly aggressive children.(3), 185–197.

Baughman, H. M., Dearing, S., Giammarco, E., & Vernon, P. A. (2012). Relationships between bullying behaviours and the Dark Triad: A study with adults.(5), 571–575.

Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Self-Esteem, narcissism, and aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or from threatened egotism?(1), 26–29.

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem.(1), 5–33.

Bergeron, N., & Schneider, B. H. (2005). Explaining cross-national differences in peer-directed aggression: A quantitative synthesis.(2), 116–137.

Besser, A., & Priel, B. (2010). Grandiose narcissism versus vulnerable narcissism in threatening situations: Emotional reactions to achievement failure and interpersonal rejection., 874–902.

Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis.(3), 422–447.

Bird, B. M., Carre, J. M., Knack, J. M., & Arnocky, S. (2016). Threatening men's mate value influences aggression toward an intrasexual rival: The moderating role of narcissism.(2), 169–183.

Bond, M. H. (2010).. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bukowski, W. M., Schwartzman, A., Santo, J., Bagwell, C., & Adams, R. (2009). Reactivity and distortions in the self: Narcissism, types of aggression, and the functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis during early adolescence.(4), 1249–1262.

Burt?verde, V., Chraif, M., Ani?ei, M., & Mih?il?, T. (2016). The incremental validity of the Dark Triad in predicting driving aggression., 1–11.

Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2011). Aggressive reactions to abusive supervision: The role of interactional justice and narcissism.(4), 389–398.

Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence?(1), 219–229.

Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., Thomaes, S., Ryu, E., Begeer, S., & West, S. G. (2009). Looking again, and harder, for a link between low self-esteem and aggression.(2), 427–446.

Caiozzo, C. N., Houston, J., & Grych, J. (2016). Predicting aggression in late adolescent romantic relationships: A short-term longitudinal study., 237–248.

Carlson, E. N., Vazire, S., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2011). You probably think this paper's about you: Narcissists' perceptions of their personality and reputation.(1), 185–201.

Chen, Y. Y. (2018).(Unpublished master’s thesis). Shanxi Normal University, Xi’an, China.

[陳媛媛. (2018).(碩士學(xué)位論文). 陜西師范大學(xué), 西安.]

Cheng, C., Lau, Y., Chan, L., & Luk, J. W. (2021). Prevalence of social media addiction across 32 nations: Meta-analysis with subgroup analysis of classification schemes and cultural values., 106845.

Cheng, H., Zhang, X. K., Cui, L. Y., & Guo, J. H. (2020). Reliability and validity of Chinese version of Narcissistic Personality Inventory-13.(3), 487–491.

[程浩, 張向葵, 崔力炎, 郭锏壑. (2020). 13條目自戀人格量表中文版的信度效度研究.(3), 487–491.]

Chester, D. S., & DeWall, C. N. (2016). Sound the alarm: The effect of narcissism on retaliatory aggression is moderated by dACC reactivity to rejection.(3), 361–368.

Cooper, L. D., Balsis, S., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2012). Self- and informant-reported perspectives on symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder.(2), 140–154.

Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and overt aggression in preschool.(4), 579–588.

Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., & Kawabata, Y. (2012). Relational aggression and gender: An overview. In D. Flannery, A. Vazsonyi, & I. Waldman(Eds.),(pp. 245–259). Cambridge University Press.

Crowe, M. L., Lynam, D. R., Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2019). Exploring the structure of narcissism: Toward an integrated solution.(6), 1151–1169.

de Zavala, A. G., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R., & Jayawickreme, N. (2009). Collective narcissism and its social consequences.(6), 1074–1096.

de Zavala, A. G., & Lantos, D. (2020). Collective narcissism and its social consequences: The bad and the ugly.(3), 273–278.

Deng, J. X., Yang, R., Wang, M. C., & Deng, Q. W. (2017). Psychometric properties of Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire in Chinese adolescent.(3), 445–447, 425.

[鄧嘉欣, 楊忍, 王孟成, 鄧俏文. (2017). 欽佩-競爭自戀量表在中學(xué)生群體的信效度檢驗.(3), 445–447, 425.]

Ding, F. Q., & Zhao, H. Y. (2018). Is the individual subjective well-being of gratitude stronger? A meta-analysis.(10), 1749–1763.

[丁鳳琴, 趙虎英. (2018). 感恩的個體主觀幸福感更強?——一項元分析.(10), 1749–1763.]

Dini?, B. M., & Wertag, A. (2018). Effects of Dark Triad and HEXACO traits on reactive/proactive aggression: Exploring the gender differences., 44–49.

Dobrucal?, B., & ?zkan, T. (2021). What is the role of narcissism in the relationship between impulsivity and driving anger expression?, 246–256.

Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2005). Low self-esteem is related to aggression, antisocial behavior, and delinquency.(4), 328–335.

Edwards, B. D., Warren, C. R., Tubre, T. C., Zyphur, M. J., & Hoffner-Prillaman, R. (2013). The validity of narcissism and driving anger in predicting aggressive driving in a sample of young drivers.(3), 191–210.

Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement.(1), 11–17.

Erzi, S. (2020). Dark Triad and schadenfreude: Mediating role of moral disengagement and relational aggression., 109827.

Falkenbach, D. M., Howe, J. R., & Falki, M. (2013). Using self-esteem to disaggregate psychopathy, narcissism, and aggression.(7), 815–820.

Fan, C. Y., Chu, X. W., Zhang, M., & Zhou, Z. K. (2016). Are narcissists more likely to be involved in cyberbullying? Examining the mediating role of self-esteem.(15), 3127–3150.

Fanti, K. A., Demetriou, C. A., & Kimonis, E. R. (2013). Variants of callous-unemotional conduct problems in a community sample of adolescents.(7), 964–979.

Fanti, K. A., & Henrich, C. C. (2015). Effects of self-esteem and narcissism on bullying and victimization during early adolescence.(1), 5–29.

Gai, X. R., Lei, L., Fu, X. J., & Wang, X. C. (2016). The association among narcissism, social status insecurity and cyberbullying: A cross culture study.(6), 73–80.

[蓋曉然, 雷靂, 付曉潔, 王興超. (2016). 中美青少年自戀與網(wǎng)絡(luò)欺負(fù)行為的關(guān)系：社會地位不安全感的中介作用.(6), 73–80.]

Gao, X. H., Sun, H. W., Gao, S. H., Bi, J. C., & Qin, F. M. (2014). Narcissism and aggression in impulsive—premeditated violent criminals.(10), 941–943.

[高曉寒, 孫宏偉, 高樹宏, 畢建超, 秦峰鳴. (2014). 沖動性-預(yù)謀性暴力犯的自戀人格特征與攻擊行為.(10), 941–943.]

Geng, Y. G., Sun, Q. B., Huang, J. Y., Zhu, Y. Z., & Han, X. H. (2015). Dirty Dozen and Short Dark Triad: A Chinese validation of two brief measures of the Dark Triad.(2), 246–250.

[耿耀國, 孫群博, 黃婧宜, 朱遠(yuǎn)征, 韓曉紅. (2015). 黑暗十二條與短式黑暗三聯(lián)征量表：兩種黑暗三聯(lián)征測量工具中文版的檢驗.(2), 246–250.]

Gewirtz-Meydan, A., & Finzi-Dottan, R. (2018). Narcissism and relationship satisfaction from a dyadic perspective: The mediating role of psychological aggression.(3), 296–312.

Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers., 74–78.

Gnambs, T., & Appel, M. (2018). Narcissism and social networking behavior: A meta-analysis.(2), 200–212.

Golmaryami, F. N., & Barry, C. T. (2010). The associations of self-reported and peer-reported relational aggression with narcissism and self-esteem among adolescents in a residentialsetting.(1), 128–133.

Goodboy, A. K., & Martin, M. M. (2015). The personality profile of a cyberbully: Examining the Dark Triad., 1–4.

Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D., Robins, R. W., & Yan, T. (2015). Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review.(2), 261–310.

Gumpel, T. P., Wiesenthal, V., & Soderberg, P. (2015). Narcissism, perceived social status, and social cognition and their influence on aggression.(2), 138–156.

Han, X., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, S. S. (2018). Multiple mediating effects of antisocial traits in the relation between self-control and campus bullying among middle school girls.(3), 372–375.

[韓雪, 張野, 張珊珊. (2018). 初中女生反社會行為特質(zhì)自我控制與校園欺凌關(guān)系分析.(3), 372–375.]

Hart, W., Richardson, K., & Tortoriello, G. K. (2018). Revisiting the interactive effect of narcissism and self-esteem on responses to ego threat: Distinguishing between assertiveness and intent to harm.. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260518777551

Hart, W., Tortoriello, G. K., & Richardson, K. (2018). Provoked narcissistic aggression: Examining the role of de-escalated and escalated provocations.. Advance online publication. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0886260518789901

He, D. (2016).(Unpublished master’s thesis). Central China Normal University, Wuhan.

[何丹. (2016).(碩士學(xué)位論文). 華中師范大學(xué), 武漢.]

He, T. (2010).(Unpublished master’s thesis). Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.

[何婷. (2010).(碩士學(xué)位論文). 中山大學(xué), 廣州.]

Heinze, P. E., Fatfouta, R., & Schr?der-Abé, M. (2020). Validation of an implicit measure of antagonistic narcissism., 103993.

Hofstede, G. 2021-03-01取自https://www.hofstede-insights. com/country-comparison/

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2010).(Y. Li, & J. M. Sun, Trans.). China Renmin University Press. (Original work published 2005)

[霍夫斯泰德, G., 霍夫斯泰德, G. J. (2010).(李原, 孫健敏譯). 中國人民大學(xué)出版社.]

Houlcroft, L., Bore, M., & Munro, D. (2012). Three faces of Narcissism.(3), 274–278.

Huang, Z. H., Jing, Y. M., Yu, F., Gu, R. L., Zhou, X. Y., Zhang, J. X., & Cai, H. J. (2018). Increasing individualism and decreasing collectivism? Cultural and psychological change around the globe.(11), 2068–2080.

[黃梓航, 敬一鳴, 喻豐, 古若雷, 周欣悅, 張建新, 蔡華儉. (2018). 個人主義上升, 集體主義式微?——全球文化變遷與民眾心理變化.(11), 2068–2080.]

Jonason, P. K., Duineveld, J. J., & Middleton, J. P. (2015). Pathology, pseudopathology, and the Dark Triad of personality., 43–47.

Jones, D. N., & Neria, A. L. (2015). The Dark Triad and dispositional aggression., 360–364.

Juarros-Basterretxea, J., Herrero, J., Escoda-Menéndez, P., & Rodríguez-Díaz, F. J. (2020). Cluster B personality traits and psychological intimate partner violence: Considering the mediational role of alcohol.. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260520922351

Kalemi, G., Michopoulos, I., Efstathiou, V., Konstantopoulou, F., Tsaklakidou, D., Gournellis, R., & Douzenis, A. (2019). Narcissism but not criminality is associated with aggression in women: A study among female prisoners and women without a criminal record., 21.

Kauten, R., & Barry, C. T. (2014). Do you think I’m as kind as I do? The relation of adolescent narcissism with self- and peer-perceptions of prosocial and aggressive behavior.–, 69–73.

Kauten, R., Barry, C. T., & Leachman, L. (2013). Do perceived social stress and resilience influence the effects of psychopathy-linked narcissism and CU traits on adolescent aggression?(5), 381–390.

Kauten, R. L., Lui, J. H. L., Doucette, H., & Barry, C. T. (2015). Perceived family conflict moderates the relations of adolescent narcissism and CU traits with aggression.(10), 2914–2922.

Kealy, D., Ogrodniczuk, J. S., Rice, S. M., & Oliffe, J. L. (2017). Pathological narcissism and maladaptive self-regulatory behaviours in a nationally representative sample of Canadian men., 156–161.

Keene, A. C., & Epps, J. (2016). Childhood physical abuse and aggression: Shame and narcissistic vulnerability., 276–283.

Kerig, P. K., & Stellwagen, K. K. (2010). Roles of callous- unemotional traits, narcissism, and machiavellianism in childhood aggression.(3), 343–352.

Kiire, S. (2017). Psychopathy rather than Machiavellianism or narcissism facilitates intimate partner violence via fast life strategy., 401–406.

Kim, E. J., Namkoong, K., Ku, T., & Kim, S. J. (2008). The relationship between online game addiction and aggression, self-control and narcissistic personality traits.(3), 212–218.

Kircaburun, K., Jonason, P. K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). The Dark Tetrad traits and problematic social media use: The mediating role of cyberbullying and cyberstalking., 264–269.

Klimstra, T. A., Sijtsema, J. J., Henrichs, J., & Cima, M. (2014). The Dark Triad of personality in adolescence: Psychometric properties of a concise measure and associations with adolescent adjustment from a multi-informant perspective., 84–92.

Knight, G. P., Guthrie, I. K., Page, M. C., & Fabes, R. A. (2002). Emotional arousal and gender differences in aggression: A meta-analysis.(5), 366–393.

Knight, N. M., Dahlen, E. R., Bullock-Yowell, E., & Madson, M. B. (2018). The HEXACO model of personality and Dark Triad in relational aggression., 109–114.

Kokkinos, C. M., Baltzidis, E., & Xynogala, D. (2016). Prevalence and personality correlates of Facebook bullying among university undergraduates., 840–850.

Krizan, Z., & Johar, O. (2015). Narcissistic rage revisited.(5), 784–801.

Küfner, A. C. P., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2013). The two pathways to being an (un-)popular narcissist.(2), 184–195.

Kurek, A., Jose, P. E., & Stuart, J. (2019). ‘I did it for the LULZ’: How the dark personality predicts online disinhibition and aggressive online behavior in adolescence., 31–40.

Lau, K. S. L., & Marsee, M. A. (2013). Exploring narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism in youth: Examination of associations with antisocial behavior and aggression.(3), 355–367.

Law, H., & Falkenbach, D. M. (2018). Hostile attribution bias as a mediator of the relationships of psychopathy and narcissism with aggression.(11), 3355–3371.

Li, C. N., Sun, Y., Ho, M. Y., You, J., Shaver, P. R., & Wang, Z. H. (2016). State narcissism and aggression: The mediating roles of anger and hostile attributional bias.(4), 333–345.

Li, D. Y., & Gao, X. M. (2011). Research on the relationship between covert narcissism and aggression.(3), 29–31.

[李東陽, 高雪梅. (2011). 隱性自戀與攻擊性的關(guān)系研究.(3), 29–31.]

Li, J., Dong, S. H., & Wang, X. T. (2018). Validation of Pathological Narcissism Inventory in Chinese university students.,(2). 249–253.

[李嘉, 董圣鴻, 王小桃. (2018). 病理性自戀量表在中國大學(xué)生中的信效度檢驗.(2). 249–253.]

Liao, X. W., Zhao, L., Liu X. C., & Yang, L. (2015). Mediating effect of hostile cognition between narcissism and dating violence.(4), 686–689.

[廖小偉, 趙琳, 劉新春, 楊麗. (2015). 敵意認(rèn)知在自戀和戀愛暴力間的中介效應(yīng).(4), 686–689.]

Linton, D. K., & Power, J. L. (2013). The personality traits of workplace bullies are often shared by their victims: Is there a dark side to victims?(6), 738–743.

Liu, G., Meng, Y., Pan, Y., Ma, Y., & Zhang, D. (2019). Mediating effect of Dark Triad personality traits on the relationship between parental emotional warmth and aggression.. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519877950

Liu, Y. P., Li S. S., He, Y., Wang, D. D. & Yang, B. (2021). Eliminating threat or venting rage? The relationship between narcissism and aggression in violent offenders.,(3), 244–258.

[劉宇平, 李姍珊, 何赟, 王豆豆, 楊波. (2021). 消除威脅或無能狂怒？自戀對暴力犯攻擊的影響機(jī)制.,(3), 244–258.]

Lobbestael, J., Baumeister, R. F., Fiebig, T., & Eckel, L. A. (2014). The role of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism in self-reported and laboratory aggression and testosterone reactivity., 22–27.

Lobbestael, J., Emmerling, F., Brugman, S., Broers, N., Sack, A. T., Schuhmann, T., ... Arntz, A. (2020). Toward a more valid assessment of behavioral aggression: An open source platform and an empirically derived scoring method for using the Competitive Reaction Time Task (CRTT).. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1073191120959757

Lu, F. (2020). The influence of psychological privilege on the aggressive behavior of students in higher vocational colleges.(6), 945–947.

[呂芳. (2020). 心理特權(quán)對高等職業(yè)院校學(xué)生攻擊行為的影響.(6), 945–947.]

Lustman, M., Wiesenthal, D. L., & Flett, G. L. (2010). Narcissism and aggressive driving: Is an inflated view of the self a road hazard?(6), 1423–1449.

Maples, J. L., Miller, J. D., Wilson, L. F., Seibert, L. A., Few, L. R., & Zeichner, A. (2010). Narcissistic personality disorder and self-esteem: An examination of differential relations with self-report and laboratory-based aggression.(4), 559–563.

March, E., Grieve, R., Wagstaff, D., & Slocum, A. (2020). Exploring anger as a moderator of narcissism and antisocial behaviour on tinder., 109961.

Marsee, M. A., Silverthorn, P., & Frick, P. J. (2005). The association of psychopathic traits with aggression and delinquency in non-referred boys and girls.(6), 803–817.

Ménard, K. S., Dowgwillo, E. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2018). The role of gender, child maltreatment, alcohol expectancies, and personality pathology on relationship violence among undergraduates.. Advanceonline publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518784589

Meng, Q. Y., & Shi, C. H. (2014). Relationships between family financial difficulty, narcissism and network attacks of middle school students.,(4), 605–607.

[蒙啟宇, 施春華. (2014). 家庭經(jīng)濟(jì)困難、自戀與中學(xué)生網(wǎng)絡(luò)攻擊行為的關(guān)系.(4), 605–607.]

Michel, J. S., & Bowling, N. A. (2013). Does dispositional aggression feed the narcissistic response? The role of narcissism and aggression in the prediction of job attitudes and counterproductive work behaviors.(1), 93–105.

Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism.(3), 449–476.

Miller, J. D., Campbell, W. K., Young, D. L., Lakey, C. E., Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Goodie, A. S. (2009). Examining the relations among narcissism, impulsivity, and self-defeating behaviors.(3), 761–794.

Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: Comparing Factor 2 psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disorder.(5), 1529–1564.

Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model.(4), 177–196.

Mu?oz, L. C., Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., & Aucoin, K. J. (2013). Emotional reactivity and the association between psychopathy-linked narcissism and aggression in detained adolescent boys.(2), 473–485.

Odaci, H., & Celik, C. B. (2013). Who are problematic internet users? An investigation of the correlations between problematic internet use and shyness, loneliness, narcissism, aggression and self-perception.(6), 2382–2387.

Ojanen, T., Findley, D., & Fuller, S. (2012). Physical and relational aggression in early adolescence: Associations with narcissism, temperament, and social goals.(2), 99–107.

Okada, R. (2010). The relationship between vulnerable narcissism and aggression in Japanese undergraduate students.(2), 113–118.

?ngen, D. E. (2010). Relationships between narcissism and aggression among non-referred Turkish university students., 410–415.

Onishi, A., Kawabata, Y., Kurokawa, M., & Yoshida, T. (2012). A mediating model of relational aggression, narcissistic orientations, guilt feelings, and perceived classroom norms.(4), 367–390.

Pabian, S., de Backer, C. J. S., & Vandebosch, H. (2015). Dark Triad personality traits and adolescent cyber-aggression., 41–46.

Pailing, A., Boon, J., & Egan, V. (2014). Personality, the Dark Triad and violence., 81–86.

Pechorro, P., Hidalgo, V., Nunes, C., & Jiménez, L. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Antisocial Process Screening Device.(16), 1856–1872.

Przepiorka, A. M., Blachnio, A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (2014). The determinants of driving aggression among Polish drivers., 69–80.

Raskin, R., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissistic self-esteem management.(6), 911–918.

Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity.(5), 890–902.

Rasmussen, K. R. (2016). Entitled vengeance: A meta-analysis relating narcissism to provoked aggression.(4), 362–379.

Rasmussen, K. R., & Boon, S. D. (2014). Romantic revenge and the Dark Triad: A model of impellance and inhibition., 51–56.

Reidy, D. E., Foster, J. D., & Zeichner, A. (2010). Narcissism and unprovoked aggression.(6), 414–422.

Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., Foster, J. D., & Martinez, M. A. (2008). Effects of narcissistic entitlement and exploitativeness on human physical aggression.(4), 865–875.

Rhodewalt, F., Madrian, J. C., & Cheney, S. (1998). Narcissism, self-knowledge organization, and emotional reactivity: The effect of daily experiences on self-esteem and affect.(1), 75–87.

Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1995). Self and interpersonal correlates of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory: A review and new findings.(1), 1–23.

Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1998). On self-aggrandizement and anger: A temporal analysis of narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure.(3), 672–685.

Sagioglou, C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2016). Individual differences in bitter taste preferences are associated with antisocial personality traits., 299–308.

Seah, S. L., & Ang, R. P. (2008). Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in Asian adolescents: Relations to narcissism, anxiety, schizotypal traits, and peer relations.(5), 553–562.

Shi, D. (2020).(Unpublished master’s thesis). Zhengzhou University.

[史丹. (2020).(碩士學(xué)位論文). 鄭州大學(xué).]

Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Chen, S., Saklofske, D. H., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2016). Perfectionism and narcissism: A meta-analytic review., 90–101.

Song, J., Cai, Q., Hu, X. L., & Chen, X. (2013). The Relationships among university students’ overt, covert narcissism, and trait aggression.(5), 746–749.

[宋健, 蔡晴, 胡興林, 陳曉. (2013). 大學(xué)生顯性自戀、隱性自戀與特質(zhì)攻擊的關(guān)系研究.(5), 746–749.]

Stuart, J., & Kurek, A. (2019). Looking hot in selfies: Narcissistic beginnings, aggressive outcomes?(6), 500–506.

Tanrikulu, I., & Erdur-Baker, ?. (2019). Motives behind cyberbullying perpetration: A test of Uses and Gratifications Theory.. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518819882

Tetreault, C., Bates, E. A., & Bolam, L. T. (2018). How dark personalities perpetrate partner and general aggression in Sweden and the United Kingdom.. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260518793992

Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., Stegge, H., & Olthof, T. (2008). Trumping shame by blasts of noise: Narcissism, self-esteem, shame, and aggression in young adolescents.(6), 1792–1801.

Thomaes, S., Stegge, H., Bushman, B. J., Olthof, T., & Denissen, J. (2008). Development and validation of the Childhood Narcissism Scale.(4), 382–391.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003). "Isn't it fun to get the respect that we're going to deserve?" Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression.(2), 261–272.

van Geel, M., Goemans, A., Toprak, F., & Vedder, P. (2017). Which personality traits are related to traditional bullying and cyberbullying? A study with the Big Five, Dark Triad and sadism., 231–235.

Vize, C. E., Collison, K. L., Crowe, M. L., Campbell, W. K., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2019). Using dominance analysis to decompose narcissism and its relation to aggression and externalizing outcomes.(2), 260–270.

von Collani, G., & Werner, R. (2005). Self-related and motivational constructs as determinants of aggression: An analysis and validation of a German version of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire.(7), 1631–1643.

Wallace, M. T., Barry, C. T., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Green, B. A. (2012). Locus of control as a contributing factor in the relation between self-perception and adolescent aggression.(3), 213–221.

Washburn, J. J., McMahon, S. D., King, C. A., Reinecke, M. A., & Silver, C. (2004). Narcissistic features in young adolescents: Relations to aggression and internalizing symptoms.(3), 247–260.

Webster, G. D., Gesselman, A. N., Crysel, L. C., Brunell, A. B., Jonason, P. K., Hadden, B. W., & Smith, C. V. (2016). An actor–partner interdependence model of the Dark Triad and aggression in couples: Relationship duration moderates the link between psychopathy and argumentativeness., 196–207.

Westhead, J., & Egan, V. (2015). Untangling the concurrent influences of the Dark Triad, personality and mating effort on violence., 222–226.

Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism.(4), 590–597.

Xu, Y., Farver, J. A., Schwartz, D., & Chang, L. (2004). Social networks and aggressive behaviour in Chinese children.(5), 401–410.

Yang, C. C., Li, C. N., Wang, Z. H., & Bian, Y. F. (2016). The mediational roles of perceived threat, anger, and hostile attribution bias between state narcissism and aggression.(2), 236–245.

[楊晨晨, 李彩娜, 王振宏, 邊玉芳. (2016). 狀態(tài)自戀與攻擊行為——知覺到的威脅、憤怒情緒和敵意歸因偏差的多重中介作用.(2), 236–245.]

Yang, S. D., Zhu, Q. Z., Zhu, H. M., Mo, Q. M., Tao, J. F., & Guo, L. (2017). Relationship between narcissism and aggression among Macau and mainland college students.(3), 374–377.

[楊松達(dá), 朱麒臻, 朱會明, 莫慶民, 陶劍飛, 郭麗. (2017). 澳門內(nèi)地大學(xué)生自戀人格與攻擊性關(guān)聯(lián)分析.(3), 374–377.]

Zeigler-Hill, V., & Besser, A. (2013). A glimpse behind the mask: Facets of narcissism and feelings of self-worth.(3), 249–260.

Zerach, G. (2016). Pathological narcissism, cyberbullying victimization and offending among homosexual and heterosexual participants in online dating websites., 292–299.

Zhai, Y. Y. (2012).(Unpublished master’s thesis). Shanxi Normal University, Linfen, China.

[翟云彥. (2012).(碩士學(xué)位論文). 山西師范大學(xué), 臨汾.]

Zhang, B. Q. (2012).(Unpublished master’s thesis). Hangzhou Normal University, China.

[張寶強. (2012).(碩士學(xué)位論文). 杭州師范大學(xué).]

Zhang, G. P., & Lan, S. (2020). The influence mechanism of social exclusion on college students' aggressive behavior: The internal mechanism of anxiety and narcissistic personality,(3), 95–100.

[張桂平, 蘭珊. (2020). 社會排斥對大學(xué)生攻擊行為的影響機(jī)制——焦慮情緒和自戀型人格的內(nèi)在機(jī)理.(3), 95–100.]

Zhang, H., & Zhao, H. (2020). Dark personality traits and cyber aggression in adolescents: A moderated mediation analysis of belief in virtuous humanity and self-control., 105565.

Zhang, T. (2019).(Unpublished master’s thesis). Wuhan University, China.

[張彤. (2019).(碩士學(xué)位論文). 武漢大學(xué).]

Zheng, Y. N., Liao H. Y., & Liu, D. X. (2020). Current situation and relationship between aggressive behavior and Dark Triad of medical students in a medical university in GanZhou City.(10), 89–93.

[鄭亞楠, 廖慧云, 劉地秀. (2020). 贛州市某醫(yī)學(xué)院校醫(yī)學(xué)生攻擊行為與黑暗三聯(lián)征現(xiàn)況及相互關(guān)系.(10), 89–93.]

Relationship between narcissism and aggression: A meta-analysis

ZHANG Lihua, ZHU He

(School of Psychology, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China)

Aggression and violence are prevalent public health problems, tremendously harming individuals, families and society. Supposedly, low self-esteem is an important cause of aggression. However, some researchers have suggested that aggression may be attributable to threatened egoism, that is, the inflated and narcissistic view of self that is threatened, rather than low self-esteem itself. Numerous studies have explored the relationship between narcissism and aggression. However, these results appear somewhat inconsistent in different studies. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to explore the strength and moderators of the relationship between narcissism and aggression.

We included Chinese and English literature from 1965 to 2021. A total of 177 independent effect sizes (121 studies, 73687 participants) were found within the criteria of the meta-analysis. On the basis of the characteristics of studies, we selected the random-effects model. After coding the data, independent effect sizes were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3.3 program.

The results of the funnel plot and Egger test showed no publication bias. Results showed a significant positive correlation (= 0.27, 95% CI [0.25, 0.29]) between narcissism and aggression. Additionally, the moderation analyses revealed that the strength of the relationship was moderated by gender and report modality of narcissism, but not by report modality of aggression and culture. Meanwhile, different types of narcissism related differently to aggression, in that covert narcissism was more positively correlated with aggression compared with overt narcissism, and maladaptive narcissism was more positively correlated with aggression compared with adaptive narcissism.

Based on the meta-analysis, narcissism and aggression were closely related. The mechanisms of aggression must be identified to develop effective prevention and intervention strategies to alleviate the public health problems caused by aggression. Future research could: (1) The present study found that report modality of narcissism plays a moderating role in the relationship between narcissism and aggression. Therefore, to gain insights into the reporters’ bias and obtain accurate and complete information regarding narcissism, the data of multiple reporters can be employed. (2) Overt narcissism and covert narcissism are distinct structures, and the existing studies on the relationship between narcissism and aggression have paid less attention to covert narcissism. The present study found that covert narcissism is more likely to be a risk factor for aggression than overt narcissism. Therefore, future research could strengthen the exploration of covert narcissism.

narcissism, aggression, meta-analysis

2020-12-19

* 遼寧省社會科學(xué)規(guī)劃基金項目(L19BSH004)資助。

張麗華和朱賀為本文的共同一作。

B848

張麗華, E-mail: zhanglihua7@163.com