Over the last decades, research on narcissism was dominated with a focus on grandiose narcissism as measured by the NPI (Raskin & Terry, 1988), however, recent discussions emphasize the broad range of manifestations of narcissism, in particular more vulnerable aspects. As a result, new questionnaires were developed to cover the full range of these aspects. One example is the Pathological Narcissism Scale (PNI, Pincus et al. 2009), a 52 item questionnaire with seven subscales covering both grandiose and vulnerable aspects. Validation studies show that narcissism as measured with the PNI differs substantially from narcissism as measured with the NPI. Moreover, a discussion concerning the composition of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism has evolved from these data. In our study we demonstrate how scores on narcissism and narcissism subtypes are associated with a broad variety of personality and clinical measures. In a sample of 1837 participants (1240 female, 597 male; mean age 26.8 years) we investigated the correlation patterns of both PNI and NPI subscales with constructs like FFM, aggression, emotions, clinical symptoms, and well-being. Results show that the assignment of subscales to grandiose and vulnerable subtypes are not unambiguous. We therefore conclude that the decision of how to measure narcissism needs further investigation.

A 37-item tool to measure social responsibility was developed from questionnaires filled out by students at the National Technical University of Ukraine “KPI” (n = 311, age 19-24). In designing this questionnaire we summarized the theoretical and empirical studies of Ukrainian and foreign authors (Savchin, 2008; Kocharyan, 2010; Dementiy, 2001; Sakharova, 2003; Salkovskis et al., 2000; Gough, McClosky, Meehl, 1957; Berkowitz, Lutterman; 1968; Rotter, 1966; Kohlberg, 1964) to outline its phenomenological field. For psychometrics testing the questionnaire, we used procedures such as factor structure reconstruction, reliability, criterion validity, construct validity and standardization. Factor analysis showed five components of social responsibility, i.e. civil consciousness, law-abiding ability, reflection of the action results, moral consciousness, and altruism. The tool was developed having adequate reliability and validity for the specification of group trends and differences and it meets all main requirements for good psychological scales that are discriminatory power, reliability, validity, and standardization (H. Coolican, 2009). The implications of the scale analysis were discussed, and its limitations were recognized.

This paper describes a non-verbal personality assessment that consists of 10 cartoon-like portrayals, one for each factor in the five-factor model of personality and their counterparts (i.e. open-minded, conscientious, extravert, agreeable, and neurotic; versus close-minded, impulsive, introvert, antagonistic, and emotionally stable). The assessment has been constructed in collaboration with graphic designers at an international top-ranking design and innovation agency, Veryday. Unlike existing personality assessments, this assessment is developed for interviews and combines the respondent´s perceived self and ideal self rather than only focusing on the respondent´s self-reported perceived self. The aim of the assessment is to provide insight into gaps that reside in incongruity between the respondent´s perceived self and ideal self and thereafter focusing the interview on how to bridge the gap(s). The portrayals have been validated through 156 undergraduate students at Stockholm University. The content validity was verified via tag clouds of top-of-mind words and the criterion validity was verified via the verbal assessment criterion, HP5i. The preliminary analyses are promising in terms of reshaping and adjusting established personality assessments into non-verbal tools for interview settings in therapy and user-studies. However, the assessment need to be further validated and discussed with experts in the field of psychological assessments.

Dominance is proven to be an important trait for exerting influence in groups and teams (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009) and is described as a highly relevant leadership skill (Hoffman et al., 2011). In the present discussion about the relationship between dark triad personality factors (psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism) and leadership performance, dominant behaviour is considered, as well. Besides behavioural observations and peer-ratings, self-reports are applied very often to assess dominance. Clinical instruments exist as well as subclinical surveys, furthermore dominance is operationalised as a personality trait or as a motive. But do these various instruments converge in a joint construct of dominance? To test the internal structure of the dominance construct, items from differing dominance self-report scales have been subjected to common analysis (i. a. EFA and CFA). Moreover, additional personality traits, demographic variables, and external criteria have been collected (n = 300; students and professionals). Despite diverse backgrounds of scale construction, essentially two general factors could be identified for the dominance concept: social-oriented dominance and object-oriented dominance. Gender effects and differential validities for external criteria are discussed. Implications for future research are derived.