narcissistic injury

Self-cohesion and self-regard

Self-psychological accounts can frame vulnerability through failures of mirroring and effects on the sense of self; this is a theory-specific explanation, not an established history for every episode. [Narcissistic vulnerability and the fragile self](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3801340/).

1. Who defines this episode as narcissistic injury, and which theoretical account do they use? provenance
2. Does injury here mean wounded self-esteem, disrupted self-cohesion, frustrated grandiosity or another specified experience? definition

Limits of the label

Require independent support for any claim about personality disorder, enduring vulnerability or childhood origins; the episode label supplies none by itself.

1. Is the referent a particular episode, a recurrent pattern or a hypothesised developmental wound? definition
2. Which claims about diagnosis or developmental history require evidence beyond this episode? boundary

Precipitant is not injury

Record criticism, exclusion, failure or lost recognition as candidate triggers while preserving uncertainty about their subjective effect and the other party's intent.

1. What was said or done, by whom, and was it experienced directly, anticipated or remembered? provenance
2. What evidence shows whether the audience, relationship or public exposure mattered to the experience? measurement

Meaning of the blow

Record the person's account of what the event appeared to reveal or take away, distinguishing specific failure from global self-devaluation.

1. Which valued identity, expectation of recognition or belief about personal worth felt threatened? definition
2. What supports interpreting the experience as a blow to self-regard rather than disappointment about the practical outcome? boundary

Attribution with provenance

Attach each claim to its speaker, timing and evidence, retaining disagreement between the person's account and an observer's formulation.

1. Which elements are first-person reports, observable actions or inferred motives? provenance
2. What evidence would weaken or overturn the narcissistic-injury interpretation? boundary

Component measures

Record instruments and timing for distress, self-esteem, shame or anger when available; do not treat a component score or personality questionnaire as direct confirmation of an injury.

1. What operational definition identifies an episode, and what evidence supports using it in this setting? measurement
2. Were changes measured against the person's baseline, and which alternative explanations remain compatible with them? measurement

Rage is a possible response

Self-psychological literature proposes different relations among shame, depletion, fragmentation and rage; these proposed mechanisms should remain attributed rather than universalised. [Narcissism: shame, rage and addiction](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8165267/).

1. Which emotions were reported, and which actions were actually observed? measurement
2. Is rage being documented as a response, or incorrectly used as the sole evidence that an injury occurred? boundary

Recovery beyond outward calm

Assess subjective distress and functioning over time rather than equating silence, renewed confidence or reconciliation with recovery.

1. How long did the reported threat to self-regard persist, and what events reactivated it? measurement
2. What person-reported and behavioural evidence supports improvement or continuing impairment? measurement

Collaborative meaning check

Offer the interpretation tentatively, invite correction and identify the person's immediate needs before proposing repair or further assessment.

1. Does the person recognise the proposed meaning of the event, and what wording do they prefer? action
2. Would clarification, space, practical repair or professional assessment best address the expressed need and observed impact? action

Conduct remains independently assessable

Evaluate threats, coercion and boundary violations on their own evidence; a proposed injury neither excuses harmful conduct nor establishes that harm will occur.

1. Which concrete actions require a boundary or separate safety assessment regardless of the injury interpretation? action
2. Could applying this label obscure justified hurt, actual mistreatment or the other party's accountability? boundary

Check these first

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these check these first hold for the sense of narcissistic injury this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Real-world use

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of narcissistic injury this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Failure modes and hazards

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of narcissistic injury this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of narcissistic injury this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance