NARCISSISTIC RAGE 791 Results and Discussion to participantsas atest of people's food preferences and created an has in some e way p voked the partic dictor c wherea the anting for al respo y flavo r.co hoking)is an ctual weapon ents to th .2012).The fit of the mod I was good.y(10) 19.4 0 nar cause harm to another see Ritter&Eslea 2005 n S whethe responses to addition manip late entitlemen whe age Third and ager on).Thi of with the herabiliy-4o-displaced-aggrcsion aggression (ie choosine a hot sauce intended either fo and point to rust and angry rumination as personality features earch on nar sity an predictor of grandio The findings from the first three studies thus consistently reveal 2006:Bus A that out at t who stand in the way.However,the findings oth. ened them an unplea tance.Onl a for the oked the rage hypothesi but not gra of future nggressive behavior u thin a labor aory study presu ehavio while also ass art impressions of the supposed prov hould take the rabl aggres Study 4:Narcissism and Aggression in the laboratory ponsible for the original prov ocation Finally we To marshal direct eviden narcissistic vulnerability fuels those high on vulnerable sism when provoked. administered to another individ ord with theorizing about the role of fragility and shame in ual within a laboratory study.This procedure portrayed the study narcissistic rage Table 4 Correlations Between Narcissism,Anger,Aggression,and Entitlement in Study 3 2 3 M SD 1 _0 90 856 Results and Discussion Correlations between the variables in the model are presented in Table 4. As we anticipated, only vulnerability was a potent pre￾dictor of reactive and displaced aggression, whereas grandiosity was not. The structural model that examined mistrust, angry ru￾mination, and entitlement as factors accounting for narcissistic aggression is presented in Figure 1; it was estimated using full￾information maximum likelihood procedures in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). The fit of the model was good, 2 (10)  19.41, p  .03, comparative fit index  .99, root mean square error of approximation  .05, 95% confidence interval (CI) [.01, .08]. Several key results are worth highlighting. First, vulnerable nar￾cissism was a significant predictor of mistrust and angry rumina￾tion, which accounted for its links to both reactive and displaced aggression. Second, grandiosity only predicted entitlement, with entitlement playing only a minor role in predicting reactive ag￾gression and no role in predicting displaced aggression. Third and final, we were able to almost fully account for the links between both dimensions of narcissism and aggression, with the sole ex￾ception of the vulnerability-to-displaced-aggression pathway. Taken together, these results reveal narcissistic vulnerability as a key facilitator of reactive and displaced aggression, and point to mistrust and angry rumination as personality features responsible for these outcomes. The findings from the first three studies thus consistently reveal narcissistic vulnerability to be a driver of narcissistic rage, an explosive mix of mistrust, anger, and rumination that results in lashing out at those who stand in the way. However, the findings thus far are all based on concurrent self-reports of narcissism, anger, and aggression. To address this limitation and establish direct behavioral evidence for the narcissistic rage hypothesis, Study 4 evaluated narcissistic vulnerability and grandiosity as predictors of future aggressive behavior, unsuspectedly assessed within a laboratory study presumably investigating food tasting. This approach allowed us to objectively examine actual aggressive behavior, while also assessing participants’ emotions and their impressions of the supposed provocateur. Study 4: Narcissism and Aggression in the Laboratory To marshal direct evidence that narcissistic vulnerability fuels actual aggressive behavior, Study 4 measured aggressive behavior as a choice of a noxious stimulus administered to another individ￾ual within a laboratory study. This procedure portrayed the study to participants as a test of people’s food preferences and created an opportunity for participants to assign “hot sauce” to a presumed coparticipant who has in some way provoked the participant earlier during the study (as in the “hot-sauce paradigm”; see Lieberman, Solomon, Greenberg, & McGregor, 1999). Given that capsaicin (the chemical responsible for the spicy flavor, coughing, sweating, or choking) is an actual weapon that is used on other people (e.g., in pepper spray), this paradigm has appealing ecological validity (Milne, 1995). Moreover, we made a number of adjustments to the original paradigm in order to strengthen its internal validity (i.e., to ensure that the choice of hot sauce is a freely chosen act intended to cause harm to another; see Ritter & Eslea, 2005). In Study 4 we manipulated provocation and examined whether narcissism (assessed prior to the experiment) augmented aggres￾sive responses to provocation. In addition, we manipulated whether the eventual target of aggression was the initial provoca￾teur, or a third party who was not responsible for the original provocation (yet was rude, i.e., could “trigger” aggression). This enabled a direct assessment of both reactive and triggered￾displaced aggression (i.e., choosing a hot sauce intended either for the initial provocateur or an annoying third party, respectively). Note that the provocation in this paradigm does not involve an explicit “ego threat,” typical of research on narcissistic grandi￾osity and an established predictor of grandiose narcissists’ laboratory aggression (at least when assessed with the Compet￾itive Reaction Time task; Bettencourt et al., 2006; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; see also previous discussion). Rather, par￾ticipants were provoked by believing another person freely assigned them an unpleasantly bitter substance. Only a narcis￾sist that takes everything personally should be especially venge￾ful toward another person who provoked them in this way. In this vein, we expected narcissistic vulnerability, but not gran￾diosity, to augment aggressive responses to such provocation. Specifically, only those high on vulnerable narcissism should be especially likely to aggressively retaliate when provoked in this largely nonpersonal way. Furthermore, this retaliation should take place regardless of the target: When provoked, vulnerable narcissists’ anger should lead them to aggress against even those who are a minor annoyance but are not responsible for the original provocation. Finally, we expected those high on vulnerable narcissism, when provoked, to be especially prone to anger, hostility, as well as depression, in accord with theorizing about the role of fragility and shame in narcissistic rage. Table 4 Correlations Between Narcissism, Anger, Aggression, and Entitlement in Study 3 1 2 3 4 5 67 M SD 1. Grandiosity .80 15.69 6.72 2. Vulnerability .09 .84 2.73 0.69 3. Angry Rumination .06 .58 .92 1.98 0.53 4. Entitlement .37 .21 .17 .88 3.36 1.11 5. Mistrust .12 .42 .51 .02 .76 0.30 0.25 6. Reactive Aggression .04 .40 .48 .19 .23 .90 1.98 0.56 7. Displaced Aggression .03 .45 .50 .08 .27 .50 .90 2.05 0.59 Note. ns  374 to 378. Reliabilities appear in the diagonal. p .05. p .01. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. NARCISSISTIC RAGE 791