Descriptive indices of variables
The research findings in two parts of descriptive (demographic, mean and standard deviation of variables) and inferential and research hypotheses were investigated and fitted to the model.
The gender of the selected respondents in the sample shows that 53.6% of the respondents (185 people) are male respondents and 46.4% of the respondents (160 people) are female respondents; In terms of age, 68.1% were 18 to 25 years old, 24.9% were 25 to 32 years old, and 7% were older than 32. The marital status of the sample was such that 37.7% were married and 62.3% were single. In terms of academic fields, 19.42% are engineering fields, 29.27% are medical sciences fields, 13.04% are basic science fields, 21.44% are humanities fields, and 16.81% are fields of science paramedics.
Table 1
The Mean and Standard Deviation of the Model Variables
Variable
|
Count
|
Minimum value
|
Maximum value
|
Mean
|
standard deviation
|
Grandiose fantasy
|
345
|
10
|
34
|
22.26
|
6.40
|
Self-sacrificing self-enhancement
|
345
|
7
|
29
|
18.73
|
6.40
|
Exploitation
|
345
|
5
|
25
|
12.75
|
4.73
|
Narcissistic grandiosity
|
345
|
30
|
84
|
55.96
|
16.39
|
Contingent self-esteem
|
345
|
16
|
58
|
36.26
|
11.16
|
Hiding the self
|
345
|
12
|
49
|
30.78
|
11.13
|
devaluation
|
345
|
4
|
20
|
11.31
|
3.89
|
Entitlement rage
|
345
|
9
|
39
|
23.62
|
8.38
|
Narcissistic vulnerability
|
345
|
46
|
160
|
101.99
|
29.01
|
Intimate Relationship
|
345
|
7
|
34
|
17.55
|
6.62
|
Attempt to Be Attached
|
345
|
7
|
33
|
17.54
|
6.84
|
Indifference
|
345
|
5
|
25
|
12.75
|
4.73
|
Encouraging independence
|
345
|
6
|
29
|
13.93
|
5.15
|
Parental bonding
|
345
|
31
|
110
|
61.78
|
19.32
|
Anxiety
|
345
|
22
|
82
|
45.98
|
14.70
|
Avoidance
|
345
|
28
|
85
|
52.97
|
15.46
|
Attachment Anxiety
|
345
|
61
|
155
|
98.77
|
21.73
|
Shame
|
345
|
20
|
75
|
42.40
|
14.89
|
Table 1 shows the descriptive factors. The mean Narcissistic vulnerability was 101.99 ± 29.01, the mean Narcissistic grandiosity was 55.96 ± 16.39, and the mean Parental bonding was 61.78 ± 19.32 and the mean Attachment Anxiety was 98.77 ± 15.46 and the mean Shame was 42.40 ± 14.89. The mean values of other variables are presented in Table 1.
Research model analysis
Analysis of models in structural equation method with least squares approach consists of two main stages including the model fit study and then testing the research hypotheses. Moreover, the first phase involves three sections of the model fitting including measurement models, fitness of the constitutive model and the whole model (33). The fitness section of the convergent validity measurement models in two levels of reagents is investigated. at the surface, factor coefficients have been considered as the criterion of 0.4 to suit these factors (34). By investigating the research model, it is observed that all factor charges are more than 0.4 and, thus, convergent validity is confirmed at the representative level. The second criterion for evaluation is generally the reliability of internal consistency. The traditional measure for internal consistency is Cronbach's alpha which provides a measure of reliability based on internal correlation of observed representative variables. Generally tend to decrease the reliability of internal adaptation. The value of this index must be above 0.7 (35).
Table 2
Reliability of Measurement and Convergent Validity
variables
|
cronbach alpha coefficient
|
Combined reliability
|
AVE
|
Avoidance
|
0.943
|
0.949
|
0.508
|
Self-sacrificing self-enhancement
|
0.933
|
0.947
|
0.751
|
Anxiety
|
0.951
|
0.956
|
0.546
|
Attachment Anxiety
|
0.924
|
0.700
|
0.519
|
Exploitation
|
0.961
|
0.970
|
0.865
|
devaluation
|
0.868
|
0.910
|
0.717
|
Indifference
|
0.905
|
0.929
|
0.724
|
Encouraging independence
|
0.909
|
0.930
|
0.688
|
Attempt to Be Attached
|
0.916
|
0.933
|
0.665
|
Entitlement rage
|
0.954
|
0.962
|
0.758
|
Narcissistic grandiosity
|
0.954
|
0.958
|
0.561
|
Narcissistic vulnerability
|
0.971
|
0.890
|
0.676
|
Grandiose fantasy
|
0.878
|
0.906
|
0.578
|
Intimate Relationship
|
0.939
|
0.950
|
0.731
|
Shame
|
0.958
|
0.962
|
0.613
|
Contingent self-esteem
|
0.962
|
0.967
|
0.707
|
Hiding the self
|
0.958
|
0.964
|
0.726
|
Parental bonding
|
0.954
|
0.892
|
0.676
|
Based on the findings of the Table2, the acceptable index for Cronbach's alpha coefficient for all variables was higher than 0.7, and as a result it can be stated that, the fitting for measurement models were provided in terms of Index validity. Due to Cronbach's alpha constrains in society, it is permissible to use another measure for internal consistency, which is referred to as composite reliability (CR). This type of payoff variable external loads will consider representative variables. The appropriate value for this index is 0.7 (34). Composite reliability for all outerloads was more than 0.7. Therefore, structural validity is provided. To study the convergent validity at the factor level, the mean of variance extracted (AVE) is used. The minimum appropriate value for this factor is Fornell-Larker (36) 0.5 and according to Magnar et al (37) Value is 0.4. Since all the values presented in the following table are higher than 0.5, this situation indicates an appropriate concurrency. Table2
The Fornell-Larker criterion is the second and more conservative approach to measure differential validity. This second root criterion compares the mean amount of variance extracted (AVE) with correlation among the present variables(38). To use Fornell and Larcker criterion of discriminant validity of the constructs, the square root of AVE of the construct was compared with its correlations with other constructs. Square root of AVE of every construct must be lesser than correlations of other constructs (33). In Table 3, inclinations bolded are the square root of AVE of the separate latent constructs, while the off- inclinations are correlations.
Table 4-Endogenous Structure Determination Factor Research Model
variables
|
R-square
|
R-square adjusted
|
Avoidance
|
0.344
|
0.342
|
Self-sacrificing self-enhancement
|
0.782
|
0.781
|
Anxiety
|
0.694
|
0.693
|
Attachment Anxiety
|
0.184
|
0.181
|
Exploitation
|
0.721
|
0.720
|
devaluation
|
0.541
|
0.539
|
Indifference
|
0.669
|
0.668
|
Encouraging independence
|
0.515
|
0.514
|
Attempt to Be Attached
|
0.774
|
0.774
|
Entitlement rage
|
0.562
|
0.560
|
Narcissistic grandiosity
|
0.485
|
0.481
|
Narcissistic vulnerability
|
0.470
|
0.466
|
Grandiose fantasy
|
0.854
|
0.854
|
Intimate Relationship
|
0.749
|
0.748
|
Contingent self-esteem
|
0.794
|
0.793
|
Hiding the self
|
0.794
|
0.793
|
Shame
|
0.283
|
0.278
|
Based on the findings of the table 4, the value of coefficient of determination for dependent constructs of the conceptual model is higher than the value of indexes and as a result we can confirm the fitting of the constitutive model based on the coefficient of determination.
Table 5
Hypothesis number
|
Relationship path
|
path coefficient
|
Standard Deviation
|
t-value
|
P Values
|
Hypothesis status
|
H1
|
PB -> NG
|
0.239
|
0.055
|
4.357
|
0.0001
|
Acceptable
|
H2
|
AA -> NG
|
0.577
|
0.039
|
14.637
|
0.0001
|
Acceptable
|
H3
|
SH -> NG
|
-0.244
|
0.043
|
5.614
|
0.0001
|
Acceptable
|
H4
|
PB -> NV
|
0.214
|
0.051
|
4.235
|
0.0001
|
Acceptable
|
H5
|
AA -> NV
|
0.580
|
0.036
|
15.837
|
0.0001
|
Acceptable
|
H6
|
SH -> NV
|
-0.228
|
0.045
|
5.060
|
0.0001
|
Acceptable
|
H7
|
PB -> AA
|
0.429
|
0.055
|
7.723
|
0.0001
|
Acceptable
|
H8
|
PB -> SH
|
0.588
|
0.044
|
13.196
|
0.0001
|
Acceptable
|
H9
|
AA -> SH
|
-0.189
|
0.053
|
3.558
|
0.0001
|
Acceptable
|
Table 5 shows all the variables the direct paths of which to the dependent variable has a higher t value than + 1.96 have significant effects on the dependent variable. According to Table 5, it can be observed that the direct paths from parental bonding variable (T = 4.357, β = 0.239), attachment anxiety (T = 14.637, β = 0.577) and shame (T = 5.614, β= -0.244) to the Narcissistic grandiosity variable are significant. However, the direct path from parental bonding variable (T = 4.235, β = 0.214), attachment anxiety (T = 15.837, β = 580) and shame (T = 5.060, β= -0.228) to the Narcissistic vulnerability variable are significant. Furthermore, based on Tables 5, it can be seen that the direct paths from parental bonding variable variables (T = 13.196, β = 588) and attachment anxiety to the shame variable are significant (T = 3.558, β= -0.189). However, the direct path from parental bonding variable to the attachment anxiety variable is significant (T = 7.723, β = 429).
Table 6
Indirect effects bootstrapping results
Hypothesis number
|
Relationship path
|
path coefficient
|
Standard Deviation
|
t-value
|
P Values
|
Mediation status
|
H10a
|
PB -> AA -> NG
|
0.265
|
0.034
|
7.265
|
0.0001
|
Mediation
|
H10b
|
PB - > SH -> NG
|
-0.142
|
0.026
|
5.396
|
0.0001
|
Mediation
|
H11a
|
PB -> AA -> NV
|
0.247
|
0.035
|
7.081
|
0.0001
|
Mediation
|
H11b
|
PB - >SH -> NV
|
-0.132
|
0.027
|
4.849
|
0.0001
|
Mediation
|
Table 6 shows the mediating effects of the attachment anxiety and shame variables associated with the correlation of parental bonding in the developmental period with Narcissistic grandiosity and Narcissistic vulnerability based on the bootstrap method with 5000 sampling processes at a 95% confidence interval. According to Table 6, it can be observed that the indirect effect of secure parental bonding (p < 0.0001, b = 0.265) on the Narcissistic grandiosity variable and parental bonding (p < 0.0001, b = 0.247) on the Narcissistic vulnerability variable through attachment anxiety is significant. Furthermore, based on Table 6, it can be observed that the indirect effect of secure parental bonding (p < 0.0001, b= -0.142) on the Narcissistic grandiosity variable and parental bonding (p < 0.0001, b= -0.132) on the Narcissistic vulnerability variable through shame is significant.