When Alexithymia Matters: Distinct Schema–Emotion Processing Profiles of Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry

Background/Objectives: Alexithymia may constrain emotion regulation, but its relevance may differ across personality configurations. This study examined whether narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry are embedded in distinct early maladaptive schema and alexithymia profiles. Methods: A non-clinical adult sample (N = 311) completed the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire, the Young Schema Questionnaire–Short Form 3, and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale–20. Analyses examined 18 schemas and three alexithymia components—Difficulty Identifying Feelings (DIF), Difficulty Describing Feelings (DDF), and Externally Oriented Thinking (EOT)—using zero-order correlations, within-domain regressions, hierarchical regressions, and structural equation models. Results: Admiration was associated mainly with Approval/Recognition Seeking and Unrelenting Standards and with lower Social Isolation/Alienation, Defectiveness/Shame, Failure, Subjugation, Emotional Inhibition, and Insufficient Self-Control. Rivalry showed a threat-related profile involving Defectiveness/Shame, Subjugation, Emotional Inhibition, Negativity/Pessimism, and Insufficient Self-Control. Entitlement/Grandiosity was positively associated with both dimensions and did not reliably differentiate them. Alexithymia was essentially unrelated to Admiration and did not improve its schema model. In contrast, adding DIF, DDF, and EOT increased explained variance in Rivalry by 5.5%, a small-to-moderate increment; DIF and EOT made independent contributions, whereas DDF did not. A parsimonious Rivalry structural model reproduced these associations but showed mixed global fit. Conclusions: These cross-sectional findings indicate a modest, dimension-specific contribution of alexithymic processing to Rivalry rather than a general association with narcissistic self-regulation. The EOT findings require particular caution because of the subscale’s limited reliability. Longitudinal and experimental studies are needed to test the proposed vulnerability–stress process.