To the odds of kissing on the target, there clearly was a life threatening telecommunications between grandiose narcissism and you may participant sex, ? = .161, t = 2.819, p = .005. It telecommunications was showed within the Fig dos. The easy slopes for males (effortless slope = 0.051., t = .007, p = .995) and you can lady (simple mountain = -0.011., t = -0.002, p = .999) weren’t high. Grandiose narcissists did not express an elevated odds of kissing that have a connected address more just a single one (? = .068, t = step 1.127, p = .261), suggesting you to grandiose narcissism wasn’t of the lover poaching having a primary-term fling.

Grandiose narcissists often statement partner poaching -especially for the fresh brief-term . However, a question remains concerning if they select members of relationship a great deal more really worth searching for than folks who are unmarried. Widman and you may McNulty reason that grandiose narcissistic inclinations would be triggered round the facts normally (such as the worry about-report of lifestyle incidence out of intimate choices), however feel triggered whenever listed in a specific condition. Therefore, you’ll be able one grandiose narcissists divulge a history of interesting within the mate poaching, but don’t necessarily see those who work in dating becoming most useful friends. We examined this opportunity into the five education.

Companion poaching list.

For very long-name lover poaching, grandiose narcissism was a life threatening predictor for ladies (? = .306, t = 2.623, p = .010) and you will a somewhat extreme predictor for men (? = .218, t = 1.725, p = .088). Nothing of your own Huge Four parameters was indeed tall. Grandiose narcissism wasn’t a serious predictor regarding success within poaching to the enough time-label for men (? = .120, t = 0.718, p = .476), it is actually for females ( ? = .340, t = dos.369, p = .021). None of your own other variables was high apart from ladies’ neuroticism; whenever people have been more neurotic, it stated much more achievements during the poaching for a long-term intimate relationship.

Results

Of interest, grandiose narcissism wasn’t on the partner poaching one of boys. So it outcome is in line with results stated of the Kardum and you can acquaintances . For this reason, you are able one to grandiose narcissistic women can be more frequently guilty from companion poaching.

Product and you may techniques

There was a significant three-way interaction between grandiose narcissism, participant relationship status, and participant sex for the likelihood of pursuing the target for a relationship (? = .162, t = 2.666, p = .008). This three-way interaction is displayed in Fig 1. Data are plotted at ±1 SD from the mean of grandiose narcissism. The simple slope for attached men was significant (simple slope = .05, t = 9.24, p < .001), revealing that men in a relationship were more likely to pursue the target for a relationship at higher levels of grandiose narcissism. The simple slope for attached women (simple slope = -.04, t = -3.27, p = .001) revealed that women in a relationship were less likely to pursue the target for a relationship at higher levels of grandiose narcissism. The simple slope for single men was also significant (simple slope = -.02, t = -2.38, p = .02), revealing that single men were less interested in pursuing the target for a relationship at higher levels of grandiose narcissism. The simple slope for single women was not significant (simple slope = .024, t = 1.56, p = .12). With the exception of the slope differences between single women and attached men (t = -1.65, p = .10), the differences in slopes were all significant (ts ? -2.16, ps ? .03). The grandiose narcissism ? target relationship status interaction was not significant (? = .068, t = 1.127, p = .261), indicating that grandiose narcissism was not associated with mate poaching for a long-term affair.