Narcissistic Leadership¶

A leadership process in which grandiose self-enhancement and admiration seeking systematically shape entrusted influence, making emergence, bold action, follower response, and collective outcomes depend on feedback, discretion, accountability, and time.

Version: v2 · 2026-09-06 · History
Domain-specific #: 2348
Origin domain: organizational psychology
Subdomain: leadership and personality

Core Idea¶

Narcissistic leadership is a recurring leadership process in which a leader's grandiose self-conception, need for admiration, entitlement, and self-enhancement motives systematically shape the exercise of influence. Its defining issue is not simply that a person scores high on a narcissism scale. It is that self-regulatory needs for validation, power, or acclaim become consequential for decisions made on behalf of followers, teams, organizations, or other constituents. Rosenthal and Pittinsky's foundational formulation centers this displacement: the leader's own egocentric needs and beliefs take priority over the interests of the people and institutions being led.^[1]

The abstraction explains a characteristic but contingent pattern. Grandiose confidence, assertiveness, charisma, and an ambitious vision can help a person emerge as a leader or mobilize action. The same self-enhancing orientation can suppress dissent, distort information exchange, make praise more behaviorally potent than objective feedback, encourage conspicuous or risky choices, and subordinate collective interests. These are possibilities connected by a stable role structure, not a moral rule that every narcissistic leader always fails. Meta-analytic evidence distinguishes leadership emergence from effectiveness: narcissism is positively related to emergence, yet has no overall linear relation to effectiveness, and effectiveness may vary nonlinearly with trait level and rating source.^[2]^[3]

The category primarily concerns subclinical grandiose narcissism in leadership research, not a psychiatric diagnosis. Narcissistic Personality Disorder requires clinical assessment of a pervasive, persistent, maladaptive pattern associated with impairment or distress. A questionnaire score, an executive's photograph, a forceful speech, or an observer's dislike cannot establish that diagnosis.^[4]^[5] Nor does the abstraction authorize armchair diagnosis of public figures. It provides a disciplined model for studying how a measured personality disposition and self-enhancing motives interact with a leadership role, follower perceptions, discretion, feedback, accountability, and time.

Structural Signature¶

A qualifying case contains the following roles and relations:

A leadership mandate or de facto influence position. A person is accepted, selected, or permitted to coordinate collective action, allocate attention or resources, represent a group, or shape consequential decisions. The role may be formal or emergent, but mere visibility without a leadership relation is insufficient.
A grandiose self-regulatory orientation. The leader displays or measures high on relevant facets such as grandiosity, superiority, entitlement, exhibitionism, exploitativeness, authority seeking, or need for admiration. These facets should not be treated as interchangeable, and the evidence must not silently substitute a clinical diagnosis.^[4]^[6]
Constituent interests and a collective task. Followers, employees, shareholders, citizens, or another constituency depend on the leader's exercise of influence. Their goals may overlap with the leader's, but they are not reducible to the leader's status or self-image.
A motive-to-behavior channel. Self-enhancement shapes observable leadership behavior: dominant self-presentation, credit claiming, bold vision, status seeking, resistance to criticism, preference for conspicuous action, exploitation, or selection of policies that affirm the leader's identity. A trait score without this channel is an antecedent, not yet a complete instance.
Follower attribution and response. Followers interpret confidence, dominance, charm, certainty, or vision and may grant influence. Their initial response can differ from their later evaluation as acquaintance and behavioral evidence accumulate.^[2]^[7]
A feedback environment. Praise, objective performance information, criticism, and threats to self-image do not necessarily have equal influence. Research on chief executives, for example, finds that narcissistic leaders' risk taking may respond more strongly to social acclaim than to recent objective performance, although such field evidence is associative and context-bound.^[8]
Governance and task moderators. Discretion, accountability, power concentration, reward interdependence, task information distribution, selection systems, and organizational norms can amplify, channel, or constrain the process. The same disposition does not mechanically yield one behavior in every setting.^[9]^[10]
Separated outcome channels. Leader emergence, perceived effectiveness, actual team performance, strategic risk, performance variance, employee behavior, and organizational culture are distinct outcomes. Evidence about one cannot be reported as proof of all the others.
A measurement and inference layer. Self-report inventories, observer ratings, experiments, interviews, and unobtrusive archival indexes capture different evidence. A sound analysis identifies which was used, its reliability, and whether the design supports description, association, mechanism, or causal inference.^[6]^[11]

Recognition test. Ask whether a leadership relationship exists; whether narcissistic traits or self-enhancing motives were assessed with defensible evidence; whether those motives can be linked to the way influence is exercised; and whether constituent interests, contextual constraints, and outcome type are separately specified. If the case rests only on confidence, ambition, popularity, authoritarian behavior, a bad result, or a retrospective insult, it does not pass.

What It Is Not¶

Not narcissism alone. A person can display narcissistic traits without occupying or exercising a leadership role. Conversely, a self-serving leader may be driven by greed, ideology, fear, or ordinary career incentives rather than narcissistic self-regulation.
Not Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Organizational studies usually examine dimensional, subclinical grandiose traits. They do not license clinical diagnosis, especially from public records or anecdote.^[5]
Not a synonym for charisma or confidence. Charisma and confidence can help a narcissistic person emerge, but neither entails entitlement, exploitation, admiration seeking, or displacement of constituent interests.
Not every authoritarian, abusive, or destructive leadership pattern. Destructive outcomes can arise from coercive institutions, incompetence, prejudice, group norms, or incentive failure without narcissism. The “toxic triangle” of destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments is a broader framework.^[12]
Not narcissistic organizational culture. A leader may select policies and model behaviors that reduce collaboration or integrity, but a culture is a collective pattern of norms and reinforcement. Organizational narcissism is likewise a group-level identity and self-protective system, not merely an individual leader's trait.^[10]^[13]
Not leader emergence. Being selected or perceived as leader is one outcome. It is neither proof of sustained effectiveness nor a complete definition of narcissistic leadership.^[2]^[3]
Not a universal decline curve. Longitudinal group studies have found that initially favorable impressions can deteriorate with acquaintance, but that result is a documented temporal moderator, not an invariant law for every leader and context.^[7]
Not a label for all bold strategy. Acquisitions, innovation, and strategic change can have many causes. CEO-narcissism research reports associations with dynamism and outcome variance, but archival proxies have important reliability and construct-validity limits.^[14]^[11]
Not a pop-psych verdict. Photographs, pronoun use, compensation, social-media behavior, or biographical impressions can be research indicators only within validated designs. None alone proves motive, diagnosis, or causation.

Scope of Application¶

The abstraction belongs to leadership, personality, organizational behavior, management, and social psychology. It applies to leaderless-group emergence experiments, supervisor–employee relations, executive decision making, team information processing, institutional governance, and the formation of organizational norms. It supports questions such as why confidence is initially persuasive, when a grandiose leader's vision becomes useful rather than self-serving, how discretion changes strategic risk, why distributed information may be ignored, and how a leader's preferences become embedded in policy.

Scope must follow evidence quality. Controlled group experiments can isolate particular perception or information-sharing mechanisms but usually involve short tasks and limited stakes. Field surveys offer realism while remaining vulnerable to common-source and selection effects. Longitudinal designs help separate initial impression from later evaluation. Executive studies can connect leader indicators with consequential strategy, yet they are usually observational and face small samples, endogeneity, and measurement error. A reference-grade use of the abstraction states which level—individual, dyad, team, organization, or institution—is under examination.

The category's best-established empirical center is grandiose narcissism. Vulnerable narcissism, characterized more by insecurity, hypersensitivity, and withdrawal, may have different leadership expressions; it should not be imported into a grandiose-leadership model without separate measurement and evidence. Likewise, political, religious, military, educational, and nonprofit applications require their own institutional analysis. The abstraction travels within leadership research, but it does not erase differences in authority, accountability, constituency, or task.

Clarity¶

Three separations make the category usable.

First, separate identity from indicator. Narcissistic leadership is the motive-linked exercise of influence. An NPI score is evidence about a disposition; an annual-report photo or compensation ratio is an indirect indicator; follower ratings are perceptions; an acquisition is an outcome or behavioral choice. Treating any one of these as the construct itself creates circular reasoning.

Second, separate stages and outcomes. A leader may emerge because grandiose self-presentation reads as confidence. That same leader may later be rated less favorably, may perform well under strong reward interdependence, or may impede a hidden-profile task by suppressing information exchange. “Effective” must name a criterion and time horizon: perceived leadership quality, task accuracy, financial return, innovation, employee well-being, or institutional integrity are not interchangeable.^[9]^[15]^[7]

Third, separate contingent mechanism from moral stereotype. The model predicts neither inevitable heroism nor inevitable disaster. It directs attention to how self-enhancement interacts with discretion, feedback, task structure, follower response, and checks on power. A case becomes clearer when the analyst can say which facet, which behavior, which constituency, which moderator, which outcome, and which evidence design are involved.

Manages Complexity¶

Leadership findings about narcissism appear contradictory if collapsed into a single good-versus-bad score. The abstraction compresses them into a staged system. Grandiose presentation can raise the probability of emergence; emergence grants discretion; discretion creates opportunities for self-enhancing action; follower familiarity changes attribution; information architecture affects whether dissent enters decisions; praise and criticism alter motivation; governance moderates choices; and different outcome measures reveal different consequences.

This decomposition explains why a meta-analysis can find a positive relation with emergence, no overall linear relation with effectiveness, and a possible curvilinear effectiveness pattern without logical inconsistency.^[3] It also prevents an experiment about information exchange from being falsely generalized to all organizations, and prevents an archival association between executive indicators and acquisitions from being treated as a laboratory demonstration of causation.

For practice, the abstraction changes intervention design. If the problem is selection, structured evidence and reference checks may reduce the charisma premium. If the problem is decision process, independent information channels, dissent roles, precommitment, and objective criteria may help. If it is concentrated discretion, governance and review matter. If it is a culture cascade, hiring, promotion, policy, and norm enforcement require attention. The model does not promise that a generic “narcissism training” will solve all four.

Abstract Reasoning¶

The structural signature licenses conditional, testable inferences.

If admiration seeking contributes to emergence, then evaluators should compare early ratings with later behavior and distinguish confidence from performance evidence.
If self-image threat changes decision making, then criticism delivered publicly and feedback delivered through objective, precommitted metrics may have different effects; this is a hypothesis to test, not a guaranteed prescription.
If distributed knowledge is needed, a leader's dominance may be especially costly when success requires members to reveal unique information. Nevicka and colleagues' hidden-profile experiment illustrates precisely this boundary.^[15]
If reward interdependence aligns a leader's personal success with team success, grandiose striving can sometimes be harnessed toward collective performance rather than suppressed. That possibility is supported in a bounded experimental setting and should not be inflated into a universal benefit.^[9]
If a leader has high discretion and weak monitoring, self-serving divergence becomes harder to observe and constrain. This supports the proposed relation to Agency Problem without claiming that every agency problem is narcissistic.
If culture is an outcome channel, leader succession need not immediately reverse it: policies, selection, and learned norms can preserve a pattern after the originating leader departs.

These inferences require rival explanations. Extraversion helps explain the emergence relation in meta-analysis. Industry shocks, firm resources, board selection, and prior performance complicate executive studies. Follower stereotypes and halo effects affect ratings. The abstraction organizes these controls; it does not exempt itself from them.

Knowledge Transfer¶

Within organizational research, the same roles transfer across teams, executive suites, entrepreneurial firms, and institutions: a leader receives influence, self-enhancing motives shape its use, followers attribute qualities, governance conditions behavior, and multiple outcomes follow. Instruments and institutions differ, but the recognition test remains stable.

Transfer to practice should preserve the evidence hierarchy. A board can use the model to examine decision rights, praise sensitivity, information bottlenecks, and accountability without diagnosing a chief executive. A team can distinguish a member's early dominance from task contribution. A researcher can compare leader self-report, observer report, behavior, and archival indicators rather than merge them. These are faithful transfers because the roles remain leadership-specific.

Outside leadership, terms such as “narcissistic market” or “narcissistic technology” are metaphors unless an independently defensible agent, self-regulatory motive, constituency, and influence relation exist. The portable residue—delegated interests diverging under imperfect observability—is already represented by Agency Problem. Impression production belongs partly to Signaling and Reputation. Vulnerability accepted by followers belongs partly to Trust. Those primes travel more broadly than this domain-specific construct.

Examples¶

Leaderless-group emergence. Brunell and colleagues used multiple studies to show that people higher in narcissism were more likely to emerge as leaders in groups without assigned leaders; the power dimension remained predictive after several controls.^[2] The example instantiates grandiose orientation, self-presentation, follower attribution, and emergence. It does not by itself demonstrate superior team performance.

Hidden-profile decision task. In Nevicka and colleagues' experiment, narcissistic leaders were perceived as effective because they displayed authority, but groups shared less task-relevant information and performed worse on a task requiring unique information to be pooled.^[15] Here dominance affects the information channel; perceived effectiveness and objective group performance diverge. The finding is an experimental mechanism, not proof that all narcissistic leaders always suppress information.

Acquaintance over time. Ong and colleagues found that narcissistic individuals could display leader-emergent tendencies while their perceived leadership quality decreased as group members became better acquainted.^[7] This maps time and accumulated behavioral evidence onto follower attribution. It refines the frozen seed's overly categorical “initial attraction then decline” claim into a supported but bounded trajectory.

Executive strategy and variance. Chatterjee and Hambrick studied 111 computer-industry chief executives using unobtrusive indicators. Higher scores were associated with more strategic dynamism, acquisition activity, and extreme or fluctuating organizational performance, but not better average performance.^[14] This example illustrates discretion, conspicuous strategy, and outcome variance. It must be paired with later evidence that archival narcissism indexes can have weak reliability and uncertain construct validity.^[11]

Culture cascade. O'Reilly, Chatman, and Doerr linked leader narcissism with cultures lower in collaboration and integrity and used laboratory studies to examine policy choices and employee responses.^[10] The leader's preferences can therefore be transmitted through selection, policy, and reinforcement. The resulting culture is an outcome and mediator, not a synonym for the individual-level leadership process.

Structural Tensions¶

Visibility versus validity. Narcissistic displays are conspicuous, which makes the construct tempting to infer from public artifacts. Yet the most visible indicators may be weak measures. The diagnostic is triangulation: validated trait measures, behavioral observations, multi-source ratings, temporal evidence, and transparent reliability.

Emergence versus effectiveness. Confidence and dominance can help obtain influence, while sustained performance depends on information use, cooperation, and adaptation. Selection systems that reward presentation without testing contribution intensify this tension.

Vision versus self-aggrandizement. Ambitious vision can coordinate effort and support innovation; it can also turn collective resources into a monument to the leader. The diagnostic is whether objectives, evidence, risk, and benefits remain accountable to constituent interests rather than merely the leader's acclaim.

Boldness versus calibration. Willingness to act can be valuable under uncertainty, but praise-sensitive risk taking and reduced responsiveness to objective feedback can yield excessive variance. Precommitted criteria and independent review reveal whether boldness remains evidence-responsive.

Central authority versus distributed information. Decisive direction can reduce coordination cost, while dominance can silence unique knowledge. The tension is strongest when no individual possesses all information needed for a correct decision.

Short-term alignment versus durable governance. Reward interdependence may temporarily align self-enhancement with team performance. It does not necessarily protect integrity, learning, or stakeholder interests over longer horizons. Time and outcome choice determine whether apparent alignment is real.

Individual disposition versus institutional amplification. A leader's trait matters, but discretion, follower incentives, board oversight, and culture determine how far it travels. Personalizing every outcome hides institutional causes; ignoring the leader hides a source of selection and reinforcement.

Structural–Framed Character¶

Narcissistic leadership is mixed-framed with a strong structural core. Its structure is stable: leadership influence, self-enhancing motive, constituent interest, follower attribution, contextual moderators, behavior, separated outcomes, and measurement. This role system supports recognition, comparison, prediction, and intervention across leadership settings.

Its framing is substantial. “Leadership,” “effectiveness,” “constituent interest,” and appropriate self-regard depend partly on institutional and normative standards. Narcissism instruments privilege particular facets; leader prototypes affect who is perceived as confident; and organizational cultures decide which displays are rewarded. A forceful act may be prudent in one task and self-aggrandizing in another. Measurement source and observation period alter conclusions.

The proper response is neither to discard the construct as moral rhetoric nor to reify it as a universal pathology. Keep the structural roles explicit, disclose the measurement method, compare rival explanations, state the level of analysis, and bind claims to the studied context.

Structural Core vs. Domain Accent¶

The structural core is: entrusted influence + potential interest divergence + incomplete observability + self-enhancing motive + follower attribution + contextual constraint + differentiated outcomes. This skeleton can be recognized in many organizations and links directly to Agency Problem, Signaling, Reputation, Trust, and Authority.

The domain accent is indispensable. Narcissism is a personality construct with specific facets and measures; leadership emergence and effectiveness are organizational-psychology outcomes; follower attribution and transformational-leadership ratings have specialized literatures; executive proxies create field-specific validity disputes; and NPD has a separate clinical threshold. Remove these commitments and the result becomes only a generic self-serving agent, charismatic communicator, or poorly monitored authority.

For that reason, Narcissistic Leadership is not a prime. Its recurrence is strong within leadership and organization research, but literal recognition outside agentic social systems would require metaphorical transfer. The substrate-independent residual is already handled by broader primes rather than by promoting the whole construct.

Agency Problem — proposed parent. Followers or an institution entrust consequential influence to a leader; the leader has self-enhancing interests that may diverge from constituent interests; motives and decision quality are incompletely observable; and governance can constrain or amplify the divergence. Narcissistic Leadership instantiates this structure through a particular personality-linked pathway. Not every occurrence produces harm, and not every agency problem involves narcissism.

Authority — related. Formal leaders often possess legitimate decision rights. However, narcissistic leadership can begin in emergent or informal influence before formal authority exists, so Authority is not a universal parent.

Signaling and Reputation — related mechanisms. Grandiose confidence, charisma, dominance, and visible ambition can signal leadership qualities, while reputation changes as followers accumulate experience. These primes explain parts of emergence and temporal evaluation, not the motive-to-behavior process as a whole.

Trust — related. Followers accept vulnerability when they rely on a leader's decisions. Self-serving conduct, suppressed dissent, or integrity failures may erode that reliance. Trust is an important outcome and constraint, but not every qualifying case requires a measured trust decline.

Relationships to Other Abstractions¶

Current abstraction Narcissistic Leadership Domain-specific

Parents (1) — more general patterns this builds on

Narcissistic Leadership is a kind of Agency Problem Prime

Agency Problem — proposed parent. Followers or an institution entrust consequential influence to a leader; the leader has self-enhancing interests that may diverge from constituent interests; motives and decision quality are incompletely.

Hierarchy paths (3) — routes to 3 parentless roots

Narcissistic Leadership → Agency Problem → Agency

Show alternative paths (2)

Neighborhood in Abstraction Space¶

Narcissistic Leadership sits in a sparse region of the domain-specific corpus (94^th percentile for distinctiveness): few abstractions share its structure, so a faithful description tends to retrieve it precisely.

Family — Unclustered & Miscellaneous (1565 abstractions)

Nearest neighbors

Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-09-08

Not to Be Confused With¶

Opinion Leader concerns a person whose interpretations or endorsements influence others in an information or diffusion network. Such a person need not coordinate collective action, possess narcissistic traits, or displace constituent interests. A narcissistic leader may be an opinion leader, but neither category entails the other.

Implicit Egotism, Illusory Superiority, and False Uniqueness Effect are live psychological neighbors from the semantic rematch. They concern self-associated preference, inflated comparative self-assessment, or underestimation of how widely one's desirable traits are shared. None requires a leadership mandate, follower attribution, or motive-linked exercise of collective influence.

Authority identifies legitimate binding decision rights; Trust identifies accepted vulnerability to another's action; Signaling identifies inference from observable cues; and Reputation aggregates expectations from past conduct. Narcissistic Leadership can use or affect all four, but their combination does not supply narcissistic facets, the emergence–effectiveness split, praise/threat sensitivity, temporal acquaintance, or measurement-validity problem.

Social Identity Theory, Social Norms, and Institution explain group membership, behavioral expectations, and durable rule systems. They are useful for follower and culture effects but do not identify the leader-level self-regulatory process.

Narcissistic organizational culture and organizational narcissism are collective-level constructs. They may be produced or reinforced by leaders, yet they have their own carriers, persistence mechanisms, and evidence.

References¶

[1] Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). “Narcissistic Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.005 registry ↩

[2] Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K. G. (2008). “Leader Emergence: The Case of the Narcissistic Leader.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1663–1676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208324101 registry ↩a ↩b ↩c ↩d

[3] Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). “Narcissism and Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review of Linear and Nonlinear Relationships.” Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12072 registry ↩a ↩b ↩c

[4] Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). “A Principal-Components Analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and Further Evidence of Its Construct Validity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890 registry ↩a ↩b

[5] American Psychiatric Association. (2024). “What Is Narcissistic Personality Disorder?” https://www.psychiatry.org/News-room/APA-Blogs/What-Is-Narcissistic-Personality-Disorder registry ↩a ↩b

[6] Cragun, O. R., Olsen, K. J., & Wright, P. M. (2020). “Making CEO Narcissism Research Great: A Review and Meta-Analysis of CEO Narcissism.” Journal of Management, 46(6), 908–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319892678 registry ↩a ↩b

[7] Ong, C. W., Roberts, R., Arthur, C. A., Woodman, T., & Akehurst, S. (2016). “The Leader Ship Is Sinking: A Temporal Investigation of Narcissistic Leadership.” Journal of Personality, 84(2), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12155 registry ↩a ↩b ↩c ↩d

[8] Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). “Executive Personality, Capability Cues, and Risk Taking: How Narcissistic CEOs React to Their Successes and Stumbles.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 202–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839211427534 registry ↩

[9] Nevicka, B., De Hoogh, A. H. B., Van Vianen, A. E. M., Beersma, B., & McIlwain, D. (2011). “All I Need Is a Stage to Shine: Narcissists' Leader Emergence and Performance.” The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 910–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.011 registry ↩a ↩b ↩c

[10] O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J. A., & Doerr, B. (2021). “When ‘Me’ Trumps ‘We’: Narcissistic Leaders and the Cultures They Create.” Academy of Management Discoveries, 7(3), 419–449. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2019.0163 registry ↩a ↩b ↩c

[11] Van Scotter, J. R. (2020). “Narcissism in CEO Research: A Review and Replication of the Archival Approach.” Management Review Quarterly, 70(4), 629–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00178-1 registry ↩a ↩b ↩c

[12] Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). “The Toxic Triangle: Destructive Leaders, Susceptible Followers, and Conducive Environments.” The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001 registry ↩

[13] Duchon, D., & Burns, M. (2008). “Organizational Narcissism.” Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.07.004 registry ↩

[14] Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). “It's All About Me: Narcissistic Chief Executive Officers and Their Effects on Company Strategy and Performance.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 351–386. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.3.351 registry ↩a ↩b

[15] Nevicka, B., Ten Velden, F. S., De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2011). “Reality at Odds with Perceptions: Narcissistic Leaders and Group Performance.” Psychological Science, 22(10), 1259–1264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417259 registry ↩a ↩b ↩c