Iphone As A Proxy Indicator of Adaptive Narcissism
Iphone As A Proxy Indicator of Adaptive Narcissism
21243
RESEARCH ARTICLE
1
Jaipuria Institute of Management, Vineet
Khand, Lucknow, Uttar Pardesh, India Abstract
2
Amity Institute of Corporate Communication, In a consumeristic society, brands have become a signal to the identity and
Noida, Uttar Pardesh, India
personality of the users. Apple Incorporate has been one of the most successful
3
School of Management Studies‐CUSAT,
Kochi, Kerala, India marketers, of modern times, with its iconic range of “i” devices that have a cult‐like
following. The growth of “individualistic” society has also been credited with, as an
Correspondence
Sanjeev M.A., Jaipuria Institute of important reason, for the success of the brand. Societies and people high in terms of
Management, Vineet Khand, Lucknow, Uttar individualism also tend to be more narcissistic. This study is an attempt to ascertain
Pardesh, India.
Email: [email protected] and whether the use of the Apple iPhone is an indication of Narcissism. The results
[email protected] indicate an overall higher narcissistic score among users and aspirers of iPhone.
However, iPhone users exhibit higher scores only in adaptive narcissism—indicative
of leadership and authority and not in maladaptive narcissism—indicative of
Entitlement Exploitativeness and Grandiose Exhibitionism; in comparison to
nonusers. The results of the study have various managerial implications that may
range from personality assessment to designing marketing messages and improving
employee leadership and authority.
KEYWORDS
adaptive narcissism, consumer behavior, individualism, iPhone, maladaptive narcissism,
narcissism
1 | INTRODUCTION brand recognition, and moderately high cost. At the same time, iPods
embody the self‐stimulation aspect of narcissism by playing music
Consumption and consumerism is the cornerstone of a capitalistic and video that no one else can see or hear’ (Miller, 2009, p. 57). This
society. The health of an economy is indicated by the level of goods often necessitates, for the marketer, a study of the deeper
and services produced; which in turn is dependent on the levels of association brands have with its consumers and how they influence
consumption. However, social evolution has ensured that consump- each other.
tion is no more a quest for the acquisition of physical goods but the
acquisition of social status through signaling sent by the consump-
tion. Consumerism has transcended materialism and become 2 | BRAN D R ELAT ION S
semiotic where what we buy is an indication of our apparent fitness.
Products are consumed increasingly for their mental associations Relationships are purposive and serve to bring out meaning in a
(brand image) than for their actual physical utility. According to personʼs life and the formation of their personality (Aron & Elaine,
Geoffrey Miller consumerism has transformed into narcissism and 1996; Kelley, 1986). Every relationship provides psychological,
the state of consumer narcissism alternate the consumer between sociocultural, and relational meaning and significantly adds meaning
states of “public status seeking” and “private pleasure seeking.” While to the life of persons who engage in them. These relationships are
describing the two facets of a product like “iPod” he states that ‘First generally influenced by demographic factors age, life cycle, gender,
iPods display coolness, status, and wealth through their sleek design, social network, and culture (Dion & Dion, 1996; Levinger, 1995).
These demographic factors affect the relationship strength, types of retail plans and a slew of tie‐ups have been turning things around
relationships, emotional expressions in the relationships, interactions and fast making India one of the most important future markets
in the relationships, and relationship commitments. In a growingly for Apple (Gadgets, 2017 360). A brand preference survey
materialistic society, where social relations are constantly getting indicated that Samsung was the most preferred brand (26%)
redefined and weakened, brand relations have assumed immense followed by Apple with 15% preference among smartphone
significance. People make inferences, about others, based on their customers. This also has been reflected in the more than 20%
materialistic possessions and consumption behavior. A personʼs self‐ growth for iPhones in India; while its sales are stagnating in the
concept is played out in the brand relationship the person maintains. developed nations. The fact that India will soon have 10 million
According to Geoffrey Miller “a surprisingly high portion of products iPhone users is a growing testimony to the appeal of this premium
are designed and marketed for showing off‐as narcissism projectors, brand (58% of smartphone sales in India is from the below 10,000
trait amplifiers, fitness indicators, signals of health, wealth and rupees category—the sub 150$ category). When it comes to the
virtue” (Miller, 2009, p. 59) above 30,000 rupees smartphone segment iPhone commands
Products and brands deliver superior customer value by creating a mammoth market share of 44% indicating its premium nature
meaningful brand associations and brands provide the self‐expressive (ET Telecom, 2018).
function. Often consumers choose brands that are suitable to their A study of the demographic profile of iPhone and Android users
self‐concept and use brands as a means of self‐expression and as a in the United States (Hixon, 2014) found that iPhone users were
lifestyle beacon. It has been empirically proven that consumers better educated than Android users. They were also more affluent
prefer brands that are congruent with their identity and use brands and belonged more to the professional/business class. “iPhone”
as a primary means of expressing their personality (Catalin & users were more addicted to technical devices, but followed less
Andreea, 2014). Man is a social animal in constant interaction and technology news in comparison with their Android counterparts
communication with other members of society. The need for self‐ (an indication of a closed technological ecosystem unlike Android
expression, arising due to these interactions, has created predilection which is an open source). An Economic Times (2017) report reveals
for certain brands creating strong customer‐brand bonds (Fournier, that the iPhone has emerged as a class marker in India and is the
1998). Brands act as a tool for social signaling and reinforce the biggest status symbol, after a car, among Indian users. This affluent
consumerʼs identity by adding cues and anchoring points that others group not only purchases the iPhone, but also upgrades with each
can relate to. new launch and uses the phone as a status signal. However, a
growing aspirational class, young and growing in affluence, is the
key driver for iPhone success and consider their “out‐of‐reach”
3 | APP LE AND iPH O NE pricing as the main attraction. This is reflected in the brandʼs sales
and the growing importance of the Indian market in Appleʼs global
Apple has been one of the most successful and legendary business business portfolio. The “aspirational factor” and a “closed technol-
organization in commercial history starting from its first desktop in ogy ecosystem” are considered the most significant factors
1976 and then replicating it through a slew of iDevices that included contributing to the productʼs success.
iMac, iPod, iMusic, iPhones, iPads, iWatch, and iTV. Its success has The future success of iPhone seems to hinge on the youth in the
been varyingly attributed to its cutting edge design and technology, country. The brand is already an aspirational brand among the youth,
innovative business models (as in iTunes and apps for iPhones), an albeit out of their reach. The smartphone use in India is dominated by
ability to outsmart its competitors and the legend of its founder the youth with 50% of the users being below the age of 25 (Mathur,
(Ruth, 2017). Apple introduced iPhone in 2007, completely departing 2013). A survey of students clearly indicates to the fact that cell
from the technical narrative of the day, with a multitouch screen phones are the most widely possessed electronic gadget among the
which, since then, has enabled Apple to dominate the smartphone student community (83% ownership), far higher than any other
technology (probably rivaled only by Samsung and relegating giants electronic devices (Emarketer, 2016). The fact that the younger
of the day like Nokia and Blackberry to oblivion). “iPhone” has since generation uses smartphones for more than just communication is
gone on to become the most successful and profitable product in another important aspect to be considered. The younger generation
business history and contributes to about 60% of Apple sales (88.3 uses their smartphones as communication devices, entertainment
billion $ in sales & 20 billion $ in profits in the last quarter of 2017; devices (watching movies & television), camera, book, and a
Grut, 2015). The worldʼs most loved handset has helped Apple to professional aid (for business purposes). The fact that Apple has
pileup a cash reserve of nearly 270 billion $ and a market started the production of SE devices, the lower priced versions, in
capitalization of nearly 900 billion $ (Anita, 2017). India is also a testimony to the fact that the aspirational younger
The Indian experience of iPhone has been slightly different due generation matters most. They also will upgrade to pricier versions of
to the price‐sensitive nature of the markets. “iPhone” currently iPhones as they move up economically. Another reason for the thrust
constitutes only 3% of the Indian smartphone market. However, on youth, for the success of the iPhone, is the operating system. The
innovative pricing, increasing smartphone penetration, local older generation is more exposed to mobile operating systems like
manufacturing plans, increased penetration of 4G services, new Android and Symbian and it will be a challenge to make them switch.
M. A. ET AL. | 897
The youth will generally be more open to trying a newer operating semantic core and consider it as an existence of a single and distinct
system like iOS, which has been a late entrant to the country. entity distinguished from a group. Oxford dictionary defines
individualism as “the habit or principle of being independent & self‐
reliant.” It also describes individualism as “a social theory favouring
4 | THE “i” I N i D E V I C E S freedom of action for individuals over collective or state.” Individu-
alism made its debut as a moral stance or a political philosophy and
“iDevices” is a general term used for all Apple products and services was used in contrast to philosophies like totalitarianism, collectivism,
since the 1998 release of iMac. The list of iDevices today extends and authoritarianism. According to Lukes (1971; p. 45) the word
from iMac to iBook, iPod, iTunes, iCloud, iPhone, iPad, iTV & iWatch; individualism has a rich semantic history and was used in a different
covering different product lines and their numerous variants. It has context to mean different things and lacked a precise definition.
been extensively debated on what the “i” stands for in the “iDevices.” Politically it is closely associated with the French revolution and
During the introduction of Mac in 1998, Steve Jobs stated that the “i” indicated maximum welfare and freedom of the individual. The
in Mac stood for “internet” and followed up with a slide that showed business interest in individualism started with the publishing of the
the alternate meanings to include “individual,” “instruct,” “inform”, work of Hofstede in the 1980s. Hofstedeʼs work on international
and “inspire” (Beck, 2016). Ken Segall of CHIAT‐the advertising differences in work‐related values included an operationalization of
agency, who worked closely with Steve, in developing the iconic the words individualism and collectivism to indicate the relationship
campaigns of “1984” and “think different,” had a great influence on between the individuals and their social groups to which they belong
the Apple culture. According to Ken, Steve had preferred the name’ to (Hofstede, 1980). His definition of individualism was narrow and
Mac Man’ originally before settling on the “iMac” name (on having pertained to a society in which ties between the individuals were
seen it printed on the device and realizing its simplicity) suggested by loose and the members were expected to look after their own
Ken. According to Ken “We returned with five names, one of which interests. However, the definition of individualism was expanded to
we all loved: “iMac.” Each option came with a presentation board include a larger psychological context by subsequent researchers (Ho
briefly describing why it was a good name. For “iMac,” it was & Chiu, 1994; Hsu, 1983; Waterman, 1984). Individualism included
obviously all about the “i”. Most importantly, it stood for the Internet. three components of—the subordination of collectivities to individual
But it also stood for other valuable “i” things, like individual, goals, sense of independence, and lack of concern for others. Hui and
imagination, “i” as in me, etc. It also did a pretty good job of laying Triandis (1986) opined that the idea of individualism and collectivism
a solid foundation for future product naming” (as quoted in are target specific constructs and varied according to the subjectʼs
[Roemmele, 2011]). It was clear that “i” in the Apple products was relation with the concerned group (spouse, parents, kin, family….).
indicative of the “individual” that was so characteristics of the Accordingly, a person may be involved in one way with one group but
American society; whose narratives are largely centered on totally different from the other. However, this does not exclude some
“individual successes.” Steve Jobs epitomizes this rugged “individu- common characteristics shared across all target groups when it
alism” and the great American “opportunity,” which is an integral part comes to individualism and collectivism which includes autonomy,
of the Apple and “i” persona (James, 2013). According to Glance mature self‐responsibility, and uniqueness. Empirical studies have
(2014), one of the biggest reason for the success of Apple is its ability verified the existence of these three common elements in different
to help customers express their “self‐identity”. Apple has helped context across different domains of social relationships (Anu, Kati,
customers identify with those who “think differently.” Apple has also Eva, & Juri, 2002). Autonomy is the capacity for independent
been successful in providing “social identity” to its users through thinking, judgment, and survival. It also indicates the ability to
community creation (though the points look contradictory; it explains prioritize oneʼs own objectives and be independent of others. Mature
the individual need to be a part of the group but stand‐out within it— self‐responsibility indicates an internal locus of control where the
being “individual” in the “collective”). According to an IT Next article; person assumes responsibility for oneself and oneʼs actions. This is
it is possible to look at the “iDevices” from the perspective of also an indication of oneʼs abilities. Uniqueness is the characteristics
individualism. According to the article, Steve Jobs saw Apple users as of considering oneself not being like others and being significantly
proud individuals, like himself, and not a part of a cult or mob. The different from others.
article also opines that “iDevices” would not have been so successful Individualism has been seeing a growing trend the world over
had it been named “weDevices” and the “i” prefix has contributed with an increase of 12% in individualistic practices and values across
more than anything else, like design and technology, to the success of the world since 1960s based on a study of 51‐year census data
the devices (IT Next, 2013). across 78 countries (Santos, Varnum, & Grossman, 2017). According
to Santos, though there was not enough India specific data to
precisely calculate the progression of individualistic values in India
5 | IN D IV I DU AL IS M since 1960s, the same trend was clear in the country as well. The
biggest predictor of individualistic values and resultant behavior is a
The word individualism is derived from the Greek word “individuus” societyʼs socioeconomic development. The socioeconomic develop-
meaning “indivisible.” Most definitions of individualism rely on its ment leads to the parents giving their children better lives and
898 | M. A. ET AL.
teaching them to be independent and self‐expressive. According to otherʼs sensitivities (Paulhus, 1998). However, there are researchers
Santos “individuals with greater resources have the freedom to who opine that they may be two distinct entities (Pincus et al., 2009);
pursue personal goals, whereas people with lesser resources need to a debate similar to the “two‐factor” theory of motivation. This
work together to survive”. There have been other contemporary dichotomy is also seen in the way narcissism is measured. The
researches that have identified the growth of individualistic behavior, Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI of Reskin and Hall of 1979); a
in Indian society, which was primarily thought to be collectivist 40‐item forced choice questionnaire, being used mostly in social
(Sinha, Sinha, Verma, & Sinha, 2001). Oommen (2005) also refers to settings and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual criteria (DSM for
this change in family and the youth. According to him, accompanied mental disorders published by American Psychiatric Association; the
by urbanization and ideational mobility, there was an increase in latest being DSM‐V) being used in the clinical setting. The usage of
individualism; especially among the women and youth, which has led NPI has also been not very consistent with the underlying
to the growth of nuclear households (when economic constraints dimensional structures differing widely between two and seven
were not there). He also opines that this change in cultural values, (Ackerman et al., 2011). This has led to most researchers using the
among the youth (from collectivism to individualism), has led to total scores which is difficult to interpret considering the embedded
intergenerational conflicts. Since the liberalization in the last decade multiple dimension of the criteria. The usage of NPI and the total
of the 20th century, India has seen progress in the socioeconomic scores may continue for some time considering the popularity of the
conditions, changes in the family structure and roles and changes in instrument and its wide usage.
the value system; all leading to the growth of Individualistic However, lately, efforts are being made to understand the factor
tendencies among Indians. structures better which is being used in the modification of the NPI.
Based on three large studies, using the 40‐item NPI, and ensuing
analysis Ackerman et al. (2011) proposed a 25‐item narcissism
6 | N A R C I S S I SM measure with three underlying factors that include leadership/
authority, grandiose exhibitionism, and entitlement/exploitativeness
Narcissism has attracted great attention, as a psychological con- (Figure 1). The first 11 items measured “leadership/authority”; a
struct, starting with British sexologist Havelock Ellis (Ackerman et al., dimension of personality that is usually separate from other
2011) and then psychoanalytic theorists like Freud (Pincus & dimensions in the narcissist. This dimension represents elements of
Lukowitsky, 2010). The Oxford dictionary defines narcissism as personality linked with confidence, assertiveness, leadership poten-
“the habit of admiring yourself too much, especially your appearance” tial etcetera and does not indicate an association with toxic elements
and attributes its origin to the mythical Greek character “Narcissus,” of personality as captured by the pathological narcissm inventory.
who fell in love with his own reflection in the pool. Narcissism is The other two factors of narcissism‐grandiose exhibitionism and
conceptualized as “oneʼs capacity to maintain relatively positive self‐ entitlement exploitativeness capture the toxic element of personality
image through a variety of self‐, affect‐, and field regulatory process, associated with pathological forms of narcissism like entitlement
and it underlies the individuals” needs for validation and affirmation rage, Machiavellianism, exploitativeness, neuroticism, devaluing
as well as motivation to overtly and covertly seek self‐enhancement others etcetera. This proves the multidimensionality of the narcissm
experiences from oneʼs environment’ (Pincus et al., 2009). There has construct and the need to use subscale analysis, and not the total
been vast research, on narcissism, which spans clinical psychology/ scores while measuring/studying narcissism as a social/personal
psychiatry on one side and social/personality psychology on the psychological construct.
other. Most of the early research associated narcissism with
self‐absorption, exhibitionism, arrogance, and feeling of entitlement
(Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971). However, recent discussions have 7 | N AR CI S SI S M A ND I N DI V ID U AL IS M
brought in a distinction between normal and pathological forms of
narcissism (Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010). The normal/adaptive The relation between individualism and narcissism has been
narcissism includes strategies used to promote a positive self‐image investigated by many researchers and found to be positively
and facilitate agency by psychologically healthy individuals and correlated. A meta‐analysis of increase in narcissism, among
considered a psychologically healthy trait (for example assertion of American college students between 1979 and 2006 correlated well
dominance, adaptive self‐enhancement, positive self‐illusions etce- with an increase in individualism during this period (Twenge,
tera). However, pathological/maladaptive narcissism is characterized Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008). According to Jean
by behavior that causes distress and impairment. Narcissism is today Twenge, author of Narcissism and Culture, societies that score high
considered, by some, to be a part of a single continuum one end of on individualism also score high on narcissism (Twenge, 2012). While
which indicates healthy narcissism indicative of achievement based looking at a sociocultural approach to narcissism in modern China,
self‐love and confidence, ability to overcome setbacks and enlist researchers found that higher levels of individualism were associated
social support. However, on the other end of the continuum lies the with higher levels of narcissism; especially among the youth (Cai,
pathological portion where the individual becomes obsessed with the Kwan, & Sedikides, 2012). Researchers found, in a study of American
need for admiration and approval from others but grows oblivious of and Iranian university students, collectivist values correlated
M. A. ET AL. | 899
negatively with narcissism (Ghorbani, Watson, Krauss, Bing, & the young from an urban affluent background (usual iPhone
Davison, 2004). In a comparison of preunification German subjects customers) and considering its contextual nature; individualism was
(those who were more than 5 years when German unification not measured among the research subjects.
happened), researchers found that the west German subjects (more The following hypotheses were set to be investigated in the
individualistic society) scored higher in narcissism in comparison with study.
their east German counterparts (more collectivist society; Vater,
Moritz, & Roepke, 2018). It can be reasonably concluded, based on H1: There is a significant difference in Overall Narcissism scores
the evidence from various research, that higher levels of individu- between the users of “iPhone” and other smartphones.
alism are an indication of higher levels of narcissism. H2: There is a significant difference in Adaptive Narcissism scores
between the users of “iPhone” and other smartphones.
H3: There is a significant difference in Grandiose Exhibitionism
8 | RES E A RC H O B JEC T I VE S between the users of “iPhone” and other smartphones.
H4: There is a significant difference in Entitlement/Exploitativeness
The use of brands is a means of signaling in the modern consumerist between the users of “iPhone” and other smartphones.
society and indicates the personality of the consumer. The “i” in
“iDevices” is also indicative of “individualism”; growth of which has
contributed to the success of the various “iDevices.” Existing literary
evidence also points to the connection between “individualism” and 9 | METHODOLOGY
“narcissism” in modern society. Under such circumstances, it can be
reasonably argued that the use of “iDevices” can be an indication of The current study is a cross‐sectional survey among graduate
narcissism among its users. Given the above premises, the objective students and adopts a convenient sampling. The sampling unit is a
of the study was to ascertain whether the use of “iPhone,” the most second year Master of Business Administration student who is
successful and visible of all the “iDevices,” is indicative of increased already placed or in the process of placement from campus. Such
narcissism among its users in comparison with other smartphone sampling unit is selected as they will be entering employment shortly
users and if so whether there is a difference in the components of and make independent consumption choices by virtue of their
narcissism being exhibited by the users of “iPhone”; in comparison to economic independence gained through the campus placement
other smartphone users. As the literature review suggests that there (unlike the west, Indian students are usually financed by parents
is a consistent increase in individualistic tendencies especially among throughout their studies and become economically independent
900 | M. A. ET AL.
postplacement/employment). The scope of the study is restricted to the construct loses its common scientific basis and objectivity
three leading Business schools from the south of India with a 100% thereby becoming too subjective for an acceptable universal
placement record during the past 3 years (among students who opted understanding.
for placement). By virtue of being leading colleges, the students were
from across the country with representation from all the four zones
of the country. There were a total of 483 second year students in all 10 | AN AL YSIS AN D I NTERP RET ATIONS
(186, 121, and 176, respectively, from each college). A presurvey
exploration revealed that smartphones were a ubiquitous possession The survey had about 95% response rates with 449 questionnaires
among the students and were mostly gifted or financed by parents. being returned after filling by respondents. The returned question-
The data were collected using a self‐administered questionnaire naires were scrutinized and after discarding the incomplete ones
of the paper and pencil variant. The narcissism data were collected (mostly missed items) and removing outliers a total of 420
using 25 forced‐choice items, representing the three narcissism questionnaires were selected for analysis. The mean age was 23.51
constructs, recommended by Ackerman et al. (2011). Before years and gender distribution was 220 females and 200 males. A
administration, the questionnaire was pilot tested among the 10 cross‐tabulation of usage and aspiration revealed four clear groups of
students from one of the campus and was found to be well smartphone users (Table 1). There were a total of 80 iPhone users of
comprehended by the target group and deemed fit to be adminis- which 68 were Aspiring Users and 12 were Nonaspiring Users. An
tered without any modification. The demographic details collected inquiry revealed that the nonaspirational users were gifted with the
included name, gender, age, the brand of the smartphone being used brands by their family on some occasion or the other. There were a
and their aspirational smartphone brand. Details like income were total of 340 nonusers of “iPhone” (used another brand of
not considered as they were still mostly dependent on their parents. smartphone) of which 124 were Aspiring Nonusers and 216 were
The survey was conducted during the months of December 2017 and Nonaspiring Nonusers. A post survey inquiry revealed that the cost
March 2018 when the students are either in their second‐last or last of the phone was the main reason for not buying the product among
semester of the course. A total of 473 questionnaires were the nonaspiring users (phones were mostly financed by their parents)
distributed with the help of placement teams of the respective and they planned to acquire one after the course when they started
colleges. Informed consent was obtained after explaining the working and earning for themselves.
objectives of the study and offering a choice to each participant to As the data was being subject to parametric tests the narcissism
opt out willingly. The returned questionnaires were thoroughly scores (overall and individual components) were analyzed for
examined for completion before acceptance. The data were analyzed normality of distribution by calculating the skewness & kurtosis
using SPSS version 19.0 (SPSS Inc. 1989, 2010). and Z scores and found to be normally distributed to be subject to
There was a debate on whether the instrument should be parametric tests (Table 2).
subjected to further structural examination. After extensive con- There was no statistically significant gender difference in Overall
sultation, especially with psychologists in the academic domain, a Narcissism (mean of 10.79 and 10.75, p = .698; for females and males,
decision was taken against further structural analysis for four respectively); Adaptive Narcissism (mean of 5.59 and 5.67, p = .527;
reasons. First, Ackerman et al. (2011) had arrived at the structure for females and males, respectively); maladaptive narcissism—Grand-
analyzing over 19,000 responses, of varying national backgrounds, iose Exhibitionism (mean of 4.18 and 4.08, p = .812; for females and
where about 39% of the respondents were Asian Americans and a males, respectively) and Entitlement/Exploitativeness (mean of 1.02
large number of them definitely Indians. This would have made the and 1.00, p = .890 for females and males, respectively). This was
report India inclusive from the beginning. The second reason was contrary to earlier research reports which consider narcissism to be a
that the target group, of the Ackerman et al. (2011) study, was similar predominantly male affliction as observed in a meta‐analysis of
(all students) to the current segment. Third, the study was being done 31‐year study data at University of Buffalo (Grijalva et al., 2015).
for a “transnational brand” that adopts similar marketing strategy A one way Analysis of variance to analyse the influence of iPhone
across the world attracting psychographically similar customer. user groups; viz. Aspiring Users, Nonaspiring Users, Aspiring
Fourth, it was felt that any psychological construct like narcissism Nonusers, and Nonaspiring Nonusers, returned significant difference
should not be over contextualized (for example American narcissism in the levels of Overall Narcissism and Adaptive Narcissism between
vs Indian narcissism like as in American law vs Indian law) whereby the groups (F[3,416] = 14.61, p = .001 and F[3,416] = 29.27, p = .001
for Overall Narcissism & Adaptive Narcissism, respectively). Hence no difference in Grandiose Exhibitionism and Entitlement/Exploita-
Hypothesis 1 (There is a significant difference in Overall Narcissism tiveness between the four iPhone user groups.
scores between the users of “iPhone” and other smart phones) and The observation of higher levels of Adaptive Narcissism among
Hypothesis 2 (There is a significant difference in Adaptive Narcissism users of iPhone (irrespective of whether they aspired for the brand
scores between the users of “iPhone” and other smartphones) are not or not) and higher levels of Adaptive Narcissism among aspirers of
rejected. There was no significant difference in Grandiose Exhibition- iPhone (irrespective of whether they used it or not) needed further
ism and Entitlement/Exploitativeness scores between the four analysis. Hence, the Adaptive Narcissism change scores were
groups (F[3,416] = 2.20, p = .087 and F[3,424] = 1.811, p = .14 for subjected to a two‐way analysis of variance having two levels of
Grandiose Exhibitionism and Entitlement/Exploitativeness, respec- iPhone usage (user and nonuser) and two levels of iPhone aspiration
tively). Hence Hypothesis 3 (There is a significant difference in (aspirer and nonaspirer). All effects were statistically significant at
Grandiose Exhibitionism between the users of “iPhone” and other the 0.01 significance level. The main effect of usage yielded an F ratio
smartphones) and Hypothesis 4 (There is a significant difference in of F(1,416) = 7.33, p = .007, indicating that mean Adaptive Narcissism
Entitlement/Exploitativeness between the users of “iPhone” and scores were higher for users (M = 6.46, standard deviation[SD] = 1.77)
other smartphones) are not accepted. A post hoc, using Tukey B, than for nonusers (M = 5.40, SD = 2.13). The main effect of aspiration
analysis revealed a significant difference in Adaptive Narcissism of yielded an F ratio of F(1,416) = 14.17, p = .001, indicating that the
the Nonaspiring Nonusers group (mean = 4.79) at 95% confidence mean Adaptive Narcissism scores were higher for iPhone aspirers
interval (CI) levels. The other three groups; viz. Aspiring Users, (M = 6.49, SD = 2.11) than for nonaspirers (M = 5.47, SD = 1.72). The
Nonaspiring Users, and Aspiring Nonusers (Mean = 6.76, 6.17, and interaction effect between usage and aspiration was nonsignificant, F
6.48 for Aspiring Users, Nonaspiring Users, and Aspiring Nonusers, (1,416) = 2.62, p = .105 (Table 4).
respectively) were not statistically significantly different from each The analysis of data from the current study help make the
other. The post hoc, using Tukey B, analysis for Overall Narcissism following inferences
revealed the same trend with the Nonaspiring Nonusers group
(mean = 9.77) being statistically significantly different at 95% CI • The usage of the iPhone is an indicator of elevated levels of Overall
levels. The other three groups; viz. Aspiring Users, Nonaspiring Users, Narcissism; irrespective of whether the user aspired for the brand
and Aspiring Nonusers (Mean = 11.68, 11.67, and 11.92 for Aspiring or not. However, the elevation in the Overall Narcissism score is
Users, Nonaspiring Users, and Aspiring Nonusers, respectively) were contributed to by the elevation in the levels of Adaptive
not statistically significantly different from each other (Table 3). It is Narcissism; indicative of leadership and authority among the
clearly evident that the difference in the Overall Narcissism can be users. There was, however, no difference in the levels of Grandiose
attributed solely to the difference in Adaptive Narcissism as there is Exhibitionism and Entitlement/Exploitativeness, two components
of maladaptive narcissism, between the users and nonusers.
T A B L E 3 Post hoc Adaptive Narcissism and Total Narcissism
• Aspiration for iPhone is also indicative of elevated levels of Overall
among user groups
Narcissism; irrespective of whether the aspirer was a user or not;
Multiple comparisons—Tukey B: Adaptive Narcissism and Total
Narcissism
T A B L E 4 Test of between‐subject effects—iPhone usage vs
Adaptive
aspiration
Narcissism Total Narcissism
Subset for Subset for Partial
alpha = .05 alpha = .05 Sum of Eta
Source squares df F Sig squared
User groups N 1 2 1 2
iPhone usage 26.87 1,416 7.33 0.007 0.017
Nonaspiring nonusers 216 4.79 9.77
iPhone aspiration 44.92 1,416 12.26 0.000 0.029
Aspiring users 68 6.42 11.68
iPhone 9.66 1,416 2.63 0.105 0.006
Nonaspiring users 12 6.76 11.67
usage*aspiration
Aspiring nonusers 124 6.17 11.93
Note: Dependent variable: Adaptive Narcissism
Source: Survey data. Source: Survey data.
902 | M. A. ET AL.
of the brand. Here again, the elevated levels of Overall Narcissism the leadership and adaptive capabilities of its users/ aspirers. This
were contributed to by the elevation in the levels of Adaptive is in line with the demographic pattern of current users, in
Narcissism; indicative of leadership and authority among the comparison with Android users, where it has been found that
aspirers. There was, however, no difference in the levels of the user of iPhone are more educated, earn more, are employed
Grandiose Exhibitionism and Entitlement/Exploitativeness, two more in professional and managerial jobs (Hixon, 2014); all an
components of maladaptive narcissism, between the aspirers and indication of social success requiring leadership and adaptive
nonaspirers. capabilities.
(Ed.), Theoretical Frameworks for Personal Relationships (pp. 1–28). Santos, H. C., Varnum, M. E., & Grossman, I. (2017). Global increase in
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Individualism. Psychology Science, 28(9), 1228–1239. https://doi.org/
Lukes, S. (1971). The meanings of individualism. Journal of the History of 10.1177/0956797617700622
Ideas, 32(1), 45–66. Sedikides, C., & Luke, M. (2008). In E. C. Chang (Ed.), On when self‐
Mathur, V. (2013, February 13). Nielsen survey: 50% of smartphone users in enhancement and self‐criticism function adaptively and maladaptively‐
India are under the age of 25. Retrieved August 12, 2018, from https:// Self‐criticism and self‐enhancement: Theory, research, and clinical
www.digit.in: https://www.digit.in/mobile‐phones/nielsen‐survey‐50‐ implications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
of‐smartphone‐users‐in‐india‐are‐under‐the‐age‐of‐25‐13454.html Sinha, J. B., Sinha, T., Verma, J., & Sinha, R. B. (2001). Collectivism,
Miller, G. (2009). Spent. Sex, Evolution and Consumer Behavior. London: coexisting with individualism: An Indian scenario. Asian Journal of
Penguin. Social Psychology, 4(2), 133–145.
Noel, K. (2016, April 1). 8 Simple Body Language Adjustments That Will Twenge, J. M. (2012). Narcissism and Culture. Wiley Online, https://doi.
Boost Your Confidence ‐ Learn to fake it until you make it. Retrieved org/10.1002/9781118093108.ch18
February 21, 2019, from www.inc.com: https://www.inc.com/ Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J.
business‐insider/body‐language‐tricks‐to‐boost‐confidence.html (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross‐temporal meta‐analysis of
Oommen, T. K. (2005). Crisis and contention in Indian society. New Delhi: Sage. the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4),
Paulhus, D. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait 875–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐6494.2008.00507.x
self‐enhancement: A mixed blessings? Journal of Personal and Social Upham, S. (2016, March 4). A Brand’s Personality & Influence on Consumer
Psychology, 74. 1197‐1208. Behavior. Retrieved February 21, 2019, from http://valientmarketresearch.
Pincus, A. L., & Lukowitsky, M. R. (2010). Pathological narcissism and com: http://valientmarketresearch.com/uncategorized/4125/
narcissistic personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, Vater, A., Moritz, S., & Roepke, S. (2018). Does a narcissism epidemic exist
421–446. in modern western societies? Comparing narcissism and self‐esteem
Pincus, A., Ansell, E., CA, P., Cain, N., Wright, A., & Levy, K. (2009). Initial in East and West Germany. PloS one, 13(1), e0188287. https://doi.org/
construction and validation of the pathological narcissism inventory. 10.1371/journal.pone.0188287
Psychological Assessment, 21, 365–379. Waterman, A. S. (1984). The psychology of individualism. New York:
Roemmele, B. (2011, August 03). What is the history of the "i" prefix in Praeger.
Apple product names? Who thought of the "i"? Why? Retrieved April
24, 2018, from https://www.quora.com: https://www.quora.com/
What‐is‐the‐history‐of‐the‐i‐prefix‐in‐Apple‐product‐names‐Who‐
thought‐of‐the‐i‐Why How to cite this article: M.A. Sanjeev, Sehrawat A, P.K. SK.
Ruth, U. (2017, July 13). The No. 1 reason Apple has been so successful iPhone as a proxy indicator of Adaptive Narcissism:
can be traced to Steve Jobs. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from An empirical investigation. Psychol. Mark. 2019;36:895–904.
https://www.cnbc.com: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/13/the‐
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21243
no‐1‐reason‐apple‐has‐been‐so‐successful‐can‐be‐traced‐to‐
steve‐jobs.html