Supervised Research Paper (1)

Running head: NARCISSISM’S IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE UNDER PRESSURE 1
Narcissism’s Impact on Performance Under Pressure
Christian Tovar-Vargas
Trinity University
Author Note
Christian Tovar-Vargas, Department of Psychology, Trinity University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christian Tovar-Vargas,
Department of Psychology, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX, 78212.
Email: ctovarva@trinity.edu

NARCISSISM’S IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE UNDER PRESSURE 2
Abstract
The current study attempts to quantify the effects of narcissism on performance patterns under
pressure. Participants were categorized as a low or high narcissist by their scores on the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Participants then played a
slider style game under the absence and presence of performance pressure. Given that narcissists
are more approach oriented (Foster & Trimm, 2008) and more likely to take risks (Foster,
Shenesey, & Goff, 2009) it was hypothesized that narcissists would overshoot more than low
narcissists. It was found that narcissists did not significantly overshoot more of their shots in
comparison to low narcissists. Future research is needed to find the exact method of how
narcissism facilitates performance under pressure.

Narcissism’s Impact on Performance Under Pressure
People are frequently placed in situations where they need to perform under pressure,
whether it’s through taking exams or giving a presentation under an audience. Although it seems
that some individuals are better able to perform under pressure than others. There is research that
attribute differences in personality to being better able to perform under pressure (Guekes,
Mesagno, Hanrahan, & Kellman, 2012). This study examines the possibility that narcissism
facilitates performance under pressure.
Empirical research on narcissism commonly uses the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
(NPI) (Raskin & Hall, 1979) to assess an individual’s level of narcissism (Wallace &
Baumeister, 2002). The terms high narcissists and narcissists are interchangeably used to
describe individuals that score relatively high on the NPI (Roberts, Woodman, Hardy, Davis &
Wallace, 2013). The term low narcissist is used to refer to individuals who score relatively low
on this self-report measure (Wallace & Baumeister, 2002). Research done on normal populations
using the NPI has revealed that narcissists have grandiose self-views and feelings of entitlement
(Roberts, et al., 2013). Narcissists also believe that they are more superior than other people and
have high levels of confidence (Campbell, Goodie, & Foster, 2004). Narcissism can also
categorized as having a consistent approach orientation since they are motivated to perform well
when there is an opportunity for self-enhancement, reward or some type of desirable outcome
(Foster & Trimm, 2008). Narcissists also have a low avoidance orientation since they are less
motivated to avoid undesired outcomes (Foster & Trimm, 2008). When in the pursuit of their
goals, narcissists have been found to be impulsive (Vazier & Funder, as cited in Foster & Trimm,
2008) and take more risks than other people (Foster, Shenessey, & Goff, 2009).

When narcissists are motivated to perform well, it seems likely that they feel heightened
performance pressure. Performance pressure is the degree to which individuals care about the
result of their performance and believe that their performance is critical in attaining a desired
goal (Wallace, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2005). High amounts of performance pressure can make a
person overcautious in the decisions they make during a performance, which can affect their
performance and lead to a negative performance outcome (Wallace et al., 2005). Although this
overcautiousness is more evident when a person is more avoidance oriented (Wallace et al.,
2005). Since narcissists are more approach oriented and less avoidance oriented, it seems likely
that they will not be overcautious in their performance and are more likely to perform better
under pressure.
Despite their high feelings of confidence and high approach orientation, narcissists have
not been found to perform any better than low narcissists (Roberts, Woodman, Hardy, Davis, &
Wallace, 2013). Gabriel (as cited in Wallace & Baumeister, 2002) found no relationship between
narcissism and performance on intelligence tests in a college sample, despite narcissists
believing that they performed very well. One notable exception to these non-significant findings
came from a set a studies conducted by Wallace and Baumeister (2002). Wallace and Baumeister
(2002) found that narcissists performed better under pressure when narcissists were given an
opportunity for self-enhancement or when an event was perceived as an opportunity for glory.
Although overall, there has not been a lot research done on the relationship between narcissism
and performance under pressure (Roberts, Woodman, Hardy, Davis, & Wallace, 2013).
Past research from this lab has looked at narcissism and performance patterns under
pressure by using a target shooting task and by measuring target shooting accuracy. Wallace,
Carey, & Hitti (2011) found that narcissists had a tendency to overshoot under pressure and

performed better overall on a slider style game in comparison to low narcissists. This result was
in line with research linking narcissists with high risk taking tendencies under pressure (Lakey,
Rose, Campbell, & Goodie, 2008; Foster, Shenesey, & Goff, 2009). In a follow-up study done by
Wallace, Ottoson & Byrne (2013), it was found that narcissists undershoot more under pressure
on a broomball task. It seems likely that the different tasks used had different difficulty levels,
which could have led to the contradictory results found in these studies.
Current Study
This present study is an extension of past research that has looked at narcissist’s
performance patterns under pressure through the use of a target shooting task. This present study
is distinct from other studies in this lab in that there are survey questions that will provide insight
into participant’s strategy when playing the slider game. This study is also distinct from other
studies in this lab in that there is a penalty given for overshooting past the target zones in the
slider game. This creates a risk-reward paradigm where participants must make a decision to
either take a risk to try to get the most points possible, or be conservative and not take the
punishment of overshooting.
Narcissists shooting tendencies were explored in the absence and presence of
performance pressure. In the non-pressure condition, participants will perform a round of the
slider game without the presence of the experimenter. In the performance pressure condition,
participants will be given an opportunity to assert their superiority over others. This will be done
through indication that their performance scores from both rounds were going to be compared to
see if the performance pressure applied had caused them to fail. The experimenter would also be
presented during this condition evaluating the participants score. Since narcissists are more

approach oriented (Foster and Trimm, 2008) and are overly confident (Lakey, Rose, Campbell &
Goodie, 2008) they would report to aiming towards higher targets, especially under performance
pressure. This increased risk taking was hypothesized to lead to an increased proportion of
overshooting by narcissists and a better overall performance in the slider game.
Method
Participants
Seventy-nine undergraduate students (46 Female), ages 18-21, were recruited from an
introductory psychology participant pool at Trinity University. Handedness consisted of 69 right-
handed, 8 left-handed and 2 ambidextrous participants. Ethnicities consisted of 11 Asian or
Pacific Islander, 2 Black not of Hispanic origin, 18 Hispanic, 43 White not of Hispanic origin
and 5 other. Participants received course credit for their participation in this experiment.
Designand Materials
The current study used 2 (Condition: Non-pressure vs. Pressure) x 2 (Narcissism: Low
vs. High) within-subjects design. A tabletop slider game was used to measure participants
shooting tendencies. The slider game table was split into eleven even target zones ranging from 0
to 10 and -5 and which were labeled on the playing tabletop and on the sides of the table. A
computer screen was used a survey that included the 40 item Narcissistic Personality Inventory
(NPI), pre-task questions and post-task questions.
Measures
Pre-task questions. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement to the
statement “I feel performance pressure”. Agreement ratings were on a 1-5 scale (5 being strongly

agree). This served as a manipulation check to see if performance pressure was successfully
manipulated. Participants were also asked to indicate a percentage ratio to the statement “I
expect to perform better than __% of past participants” to indicate their confidence before each
round of the slider game. Answers to this question were in ten percent ratios starting from 0-10%
and ending at 91-100%. In order to look at risk tendencies, participants were asked the question
“Which target zone do you plan to aim for” before each round of the slider game. Answers
ranged from 0 to 10 (with 10 being the highest target zone).
Post-task confidence. After each round of the slider game, participants were asked to
indicate a percentage ratio to the statement “I think I performed better than __% of participants”.
This question is meant to measure a participant’s confidence after each round of the slider game.
Answers to this question were in ten percent ratios starting from 0-10% and ending at 91-100%.
Slider game performance analysis. Participant’s proportion of shots that were overshot
and average performance score for each round was scored. Overshooting a shot was when
participant’s poker chip landed on the -5 target zone and participants were given a score -5 for
that shot. The proportion of overshots was calculated by dividing the total number of overshots
from the total amount of shots for each round of the slider game.
Procedure
Non-pressure Round. Upon arrival to the location of the study, all participants were
given a consent form to read and sign. Upon completion of the consent form, participants were
taken into an individual room where they were situated at a lab desk with a computer screen
where the first part of the survey was administered. The participant was told not to nervous since
their responses to the questions would only be associated with a participant ID. The experimenter

was never present during the answering of any the survey questions. Participants were instructed
to ring the bell after the completion of that part of the survey. Once the participant rang the bell,
the experimenter went back into experiment room. The experimenter then gave the participant
instructions of how to play the slider game. They were told that they would be sliding poker
chips down the table to towards the target zones. Participants were told that scores ranged from 0
to 10 and that a score of -5 was given for overshooting. Participants were informed that they
would have five practice shots that would be taken with the green chips and ten shots with the
red chips that would be scored. The experimenter then ran through a sequence of playing the
slider game to ensure that the participant understood how to play the slider game. The participant
was then informed that a camera would be placed on a ledge that would be turned on to record
the scores of each shot taken. Participants were told that they could start shooting after the
experimenter left the room and to ring the bell once they were done. Once the participant
understood the game rules, they completed the first set of pre-task questions. Once finished, the
experimenter was indicated to come back in with the ringing of the bell. The experimenter then
gave the participant a small bin with the poker chips and another bin that served as a discard bin.
In order to save time and prevent data loss from coding through video footage, the experimenter
coded the shots for this round while they were being taken in the next room over. This room had
a one-way mirror that was hidden by a peg board and the participants had no knowledge that
their shots were being scored while they were being taken in this condition. After all the shots
were taken and the bell was rung, the experimenter reentered the room and told the participant to
fill out a set of post-task questions and to ring the bell once they were done.
Pressure Round. Once finished, the experimenter informed the participant that the
purpose of the study was to look at whether people choke under pressure and that the

experimenter was going to apply performance pressure. Participants were also informed that
their performance scores from both rounds would be compared to see whether the pressure the
experimenter applied had caused them to fail. The participant was told that there would be an
additional camera turned directly in front of them to record any signs of choking during the
performance of this round of the slider game. Participants were also informed that the
experimenter would remain in the room evaluating the performance of the participant and would
indicate when to take each shot. Participants were told that their goal this round was to get as
many points as possible without overshooting. Participants were also informed that they had only
five shots to show that they had mastered the task and to take their time and to try not to choke.
Before the pressure round of the slider game was administered, the second set of pre-task
questions was administered on the computer screen while the experimenter waited outside. After
the completion of these questions, the pressure round of the slider game was administered. After
the pressure round of the slider game was completed, the participant was prompted to answer the
second set of post-task questions. After the completion of that set of questions, the participant
was debriefed and thanked for their participation.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Narcissism scores ranged from 4 to 33 (M = 15.36, SD = 7.11). A two-way median split
was run for narcissism (low and high narcissism). Low narcissism consisted of 41 participants
with scores ranging from 1 to 14. High narcissism consisted of 38 total participants with scores
ranging from 15 to 33. The median split measure was used in data analysis since it provided the
most accurate measure of variability in narcissism.

Pre-task Questions
Manipulation Check. A 2 (Condition: Non-pressure vs. Pressure) x 2 (Narcissism: Low
vs. High) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on agreement ratings to the statement “I
feel performance pressure”. Ratings to this question were on a 1-5 scale (5 being strongly agree).
This ANOVA only revealed a significant main effect of condition, F(1, 77) = 34.570, p < .001,
ηp
2 = .310. Participants overall felt more performance pressure in the pressure round (M = 3.18
SD = 1.07) in comparison to the non-pressure condition (M = 2.44 SD = 1.083; see Figure 1).
There was no main effect for level of narcissism or an interaction between pressure condition
and narcissism. The experimental manipulation of performance pressure managed to raise
performance pressure, but only to an average neutral rating for both low and high narcissists.
Pre-task confidence. A 2 (condition: Non-pressure vs. Pressure) x 2 (Narcissism: Low
NPI score vs. High NPI score) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on participants
percentage ratings on the statement “I expect to perform better than __% of past participants”.
This ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of condition, F(1, 77) = 56.848, p < .000, ηp
2 =
.425. The percentage ratings in the non-pressure condition were higher (M = 56.5 SD = 19.0)
than in the pressure condition (M = 45.6, SD = 19.98; see Figure 2). There was also a significant
main effect of narcissism, F(1, 77) = 14.449, p < .001, ηp
2 = .098. Narcissists gave higher ratings
across both experimental conditions (M= 56.97) than low narcissists (M= 45.49; see Figure 2).
The interaction between condition and narcissism was not significant. Thus, narcissists gave a
higher confidence rating than low narcissists before each condition and confidence ratings
overall were lower before the pressure condition of the slider game.

Participants aiming strategy. A 2 (condition: Non-pressure vs Pressure) x 2
(Narcissism: Low vs High) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on the response ratings
to the statement “Which target zone do you plan to aim for?” Answers to this question ranged
from 0 to 10. This ANOVA revealed only a significant main effect of condition, F(1, 77) =
25.927, p< .001, ηp
2 = .252. Low and high narcissists in the non-pressure condition planned to
aim higher (M= 7.94 SD= 1.35) in comparison to low and high narcissists in the pressure
condition (M = 7.34 SD = 1.42; see Figure 3). There was no was no significant main effect of
narcissism, or an interaction between narcissism and condition. There was no difference in
aiming strategy by narcissists and low narcissists across both experimental conditions. Both low
and high narcissists reported lower aiming strategies in the pressure condition.
Slider game performance patterns
Participants overshooting tendencies. A 2 (Condition: Non-pressure vs. Pressure) x 2
(Narcissism: Low vs. High) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on the participants
proportion of shots overshoot. This ANOVA didn’t not reveal any significant main effects of
condition or narcissism or an interaction between narcissism and condition Narcissists did
overshot more of their throughout both of the conditions but the difference in each condition was
very small (see Figure 4).
Average performance on task. A 2 (condition: Non-pressure vs. Pressure) x 2
(Narcissism: Low vs. High) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on overall performance
scores. This ANOVA revealed no significant main effects of condition or narcissism or an
interaction between condition and narcissism. Contrary to what was predicted, narcissists

performed slightly worse than low narcissists in both of the experimental conditions (see Figure
5).
Post-task confidence
A 2 (Condition: Non-pressure vs. Pressure) x 2 (NPI score: Low vs. High) repeated-
measures ANOVA was conducted on participant’s percentage ratings to the statement “I think I
performed better than __% of participants”. This ANOVA only revealed a significant interaction
between condition and narcissism F(1, 76) = 5.065, p = .027, ηp
2 = .062 (see Figure 6). There
were no significant main effects of narcissism or condition. This interaction was deconstructed
using simple main effects test. This simple main effect test only revealed a main effect of
narcissism on confidence ratings at the non-pressure condition. Narcissists gave high confidence
ratings (M = 45.0, SD = 18.7) in comparison to low narcissists (M = 37.0, SD = 16.5; see Figure
6) in the non-pressure condition. There was no significant main effect of narcissism on
confidence ratings in the pressure condition. Narcissists gave higher percentage ratings after the
non-pressure condition of the slider game. After the pressure condition of the slider game, low
and high narcissists gave near equal confidence ratings.
Discussion
No strong evidence was found that narcissists overshoot a larger proportion of their shots
in comparison to low narcissists overall and had a higher overall performance score than low
narcissists. Narcissists displayed only small differences overshooting in both conditions and were
found to have a slightly worse performance than low narcissists in each of the conditions.
Interestingly, it was found performance pressure was only raised to an average neutral rating in
the pressure condition for both low and high narcissists. Narcissists also reported higher pre-task

confidence than low narcissists in both conditions. Narcissists were found to have higher
confidence ratings than low narcissists after the non-pressure condition and but gave equal
ratings as low narcissists after the pressure condition. High and low narcissists were also not
different in their target zone aiming in each condition and both gave lower ratings in the pressure
condition in comparison to the non-pressure condition. The results reported in the current study
are only a subsection of all of the data that was collected. More data analysis could inform some
of the current results found. However, there are some possible limitations that could explain the
results in the current study.
One possible limitation could have been that the slider game was too difficult for
narcissists. This difficulty could have been perceived as a high challenge for narcissists
(Wallace, Ottoson & Byrne, 2013). Narcissists would have then sought to achieve the least
humiliating outcome since there was no opportunity to assert their superiority, which could have
led to more undershooting than overshooting (Wallace et al, 2013). Whether narcissists
undershot more or not cannot be concluded until further data analysis is conducted.
It is also possible that the slider game was not perceived as an opportunity for self-
enhancement by narcissists since was a novel motor task. Narcissists are able to recognize when
a task offers self-enhancement (Wallace & Baumeister, 2002). When it’s perceived that a task
does not have offer this opportunity, a narcissist’s motivation to perform a task is reduced
(Wallace and Baumeister, 2002). This reduction in motivation could have reduced the risk
tendencies of narcissists since they saw no benefit in taking a risk (Foster, Shenesey, & Goff,
2009). This reduced motivation can be connected with the performance pressure felt in the study.
In the present study, the manipulation of performance pressure only managed to raise perceived
performance pressure to an average neutral rating. This suggests that performance pressure on

average wasn’t felt and offers the possible limitation that participants didn’t care much about the
outcome in the slider game.
Improving performance pressure could have been done providing the potential for a
prized outcome in slider game, since narcissists are motivated to perform when there is a prized
outcome (Wallace, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2005). Wallace and Baumeister (2002) found that
narcissists performed better under pressure when they offered participants a monetary reward for
performing well in a dart throwing task. Wallace and Baumeister (2002) reported that this
increased the opportunity for self-enhancement, which is something that narcissists desire to be
motivated to perform well. Changing the task to be based on something that people base their
self-worth or self-esteem out of (Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, as cited in Nicholls &
Stukas, 2011) could have also increased performance pressure. For narcissists, it’s been found
that they base their self-esteem out of situations that require external validation, such as the
ability to compete successfully against others (Zeigler-Hill, Clark, & Pickard, as cited in Nicholls
& Stukas, 2011). If the task used in the current study was introduced as a difficult challenge that
people on average could not achieve, narcissists would have perceived this task as an opportunity
to assert their superiority over others and seen the opportunity for self-enhancement (Wallace &
Baumeister, 2002).
Another option would have been to include a socially evaluative situation where
narcissists were given a difficult challenge and were made to feel that they were going to
perform well. Socially evaluative situations are important to narcissists (Elliot & Thrash, as cited
in Guekes, Mesagno, Hanrahan, & Kellman, 2011) and increase the extent that achieving
performance success is glorifying(Wallace and Baumeister, 2002). Narcissists are found to excel
under these settings since they seek out these scenarios more and have more experience

performing in these scenarios (Guekes et al, 2011). Guekes et al., (2011) found that narcissists
performed better under performance pressure under a socially evaluative audience because they
anticipated positive evaluations and admiration from the audience. These situations can induce
higher performance pressure and can increase the degree to which narcissist cares about the
outcome of a performance (Wallace, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2005). This increased motivation
raises the likelihood that narcissists would take risks since they see the benefit in taking a risk
(Foster, Shenesey, & Goff, 2009). This increased risk taking could have then led to narcissists
aiming for higher targets and possibly receiving a higher score on the slider game.
People are frequently placed in situations where they need to perform under pressure,
whether giving a presentation under an audience or interviewing for a job. Researchers have
attributed differences in personality with having the ability to perform under pressure (Guekes,
Mesagno, Hanrahan, & Kellman, 2013). Narcissism has been thought to facilitate performance
under pressure due to a variety of characteristics that have been in normal populations (Wallace
and Baumeister, 2002). These include having a constant approach orientation instead of an
avoidance orientation (Foster & Trimm, 2008) and having high amount of self-confidence
(Campbell, Goodie, & Foster, 2004). When narcissists are given an opportunity for self-
enhancement (Wallace and Baumeister, 2002) or perform under a socially evaluative audience
(Guekes et al., 2013) they are found to perform better than low narcissists). More research is
needed to replicate these findings to allow for a better understanding of the relationship between
narcissism and performance under pressure.

References
Campbell, W. K., Goodie, A. S., & Foster, J. D., (2004). Narcissism, confidence, and risk
attitude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 297-311. doi: 10.1002/bdm.475
Foster, J. D. & Trimm, R.F. (2008). On being eager and uninhibited: narcissism and approach-
avoidance behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (7), 1004-1017. doi:
10.1177/0146167208316688
Foster, J. D., Shenesey, J. W., & Goff, J. S. (2009). Why do narcissists take more risks? Testing
the roles of perceived risks and benefits of risky behaviors. Personality and Individual
Differences, 47, 885-889. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.008
Guekes, K., Mesagno, C., Hanrahan, S. J., & Kellman, M. (2011). Testing an interactionist
perspective on the relationship between personality traits and performance under public
pressure. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13 (3), 243-250. doi:
10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.12.004
Lakey, C. D., Rose, P., Campbell, W. K., & Goodie, A. S., (2008). Probing the link between
narcissism and gambling: The mediating role of judgment and decision-making biases.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 113-137. doi: 10.1002/bdm.582
Nicholls, E., & Stukas, A. A. (2011). Narcissism and the self-evaluation maintenance model:
Effects of social comparison threats on relationship closeness. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 151 (2), 201-212. doi: 10.1080/00224540903510852
Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports,
45, 590.

Wallace H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). The performance of narcissists rises and falls with
perceived opportunity for glory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (3),
819-834. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.5.819
Wallace, H. M., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). Audience support and choking under
pressure: A home disadvantage? Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(4), 429-438. doi:
10.1080/02640410400021666
Wallace, H., Ottoson, P., & Byrne, K. (2013, January). Narcissism and target-shooting
performance patterns under pressure. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the
Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Wallace, H., Carey, R., & Hitti, E. (2011, May). Social anxiety predicts and narcissism prevents
coming up short (literally) under pressure. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for Psychological Science, Washington DC.

Figure 1. Average ratings of perceived performance pressure before each round of slider game
for low narcissists and high narcissists by experimental condition. Standard errors are
represented in the figure by the errors bars attached to each column.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Non pressure condition Pressure condition
AverageRating
Low NPI Score
High NPI Score

Figure 2: Average percentage ratings of confidence of low narcissists and high narcissists before
each round slider game by experimental condition. Standard errors are represented in the figure
by the errors bars attached to each column.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Non Pressure
Condition
Pressure
Condition
Percentage
Low NPI Score
High NPI Score

Figure 3: Average ratings of target zone low narcissists and high narcissists planned to aim for
by experimental condition. Standard errors are represented in the figure by the error bars
attached to each column.
6.4
6.6
6.8
7
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
Non Pressure
Condition
Pressure Condition
MeanTargetZone
Low NPI Scores
High NPI Scores

Figure 4. Average proportion of shots overshot by low and high narcissists in each experimental
condition of the slider game. Standard errors are represented in the figure by the errors bars
attached to each column.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Non Pressure Condition Pressure Condition
ProportionofShotsovershotoftotal
Low NPI Score
High NPI Score

Figure 5. Average performance scores for low narcissists and high narcissists in each
experimental condition. Standard errors are represented in the figure by the errors bars attached
to each column.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Non pressure
Condition
Pressure
condition
AverageScore
(outof10)
Low NPI Score
High NPI Score

Figure 6. Average confidence percentage ratings of low narcissists and high narcissists after each
round of the slider game by experimental condition. Standard errors are represented in the figure
by the errors bars attached to each column.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Non Pressure
Condition
Pressure Condition
PercentageRating
Low NPI Scores
High NPI Scores

Supervised Research Paper (1)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Supervised Research Paper (1)

Similar to Supervised Research Paper (1) (20)

Supervised Research Paper (1)