The more maladaptive forms of narcissism (hypersensitivity, willfulness) declined across life & individual autonomy increased; later-born birth-cohorts were lower in hypersensitivity & higher in autonomy

Chopik, William J. 2019. “Longitudinal Changes and Historic Differences in Narcissism from Adolescence to Older Adulthood.” PsyArXiv. December 10. doi:10.31234/osf.io/bf7qv

Abstract: In the debate about whether or not narcissism has been increasing in recent history, there is a lack of basic information about how narcissism changes across the adult lifespan. Existing research relies on cross-sectional samples, purposely restricts samples to include only college students, or follows one group of individuals over a short period of time. In the current study, we addressed many of these limitations by examining how narcissism changed longitudinally in a sample of 747 participants (72.3% female) from age 13 to age 77 across six samples of participants born between 1923 and 1969. Narcissism was moderately stable across the lifespan (rs ranged from .37 to .52), to a comparable degree as other psychological characteristics. We found that more maladaptive forms of narcissism (e.g., hypersensitivity, willfulness) declined across life and individual autonomy increased across life. More later-born birth-cohorts were lower in hypersensitivity and higher in autonomy compared to earlier-born birth-cohorts; these differences were most apparent among those born after the 1930s. The results are discussed in the context of the mechanisms that drive both changes in narcissism across the lifespan and substantive differences in narcissism between historical periods.


Discussion

The current study examined changes in narcissism from age 13 to age 77 across six different studies of human development. Narcissism was moderately stable across the lifespan, to a comparable degree as other psychological characteristics (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). We found that more maladaptive forms of narcissism (e.g., hypersensitivity, willfulness) declined across life and autonomy increased across life. Later-born birth-cohorts were lower in hypersensitivity and higher in autonomy, which is consistent with one study on historical changes in narcissism (Wetzel et al., 2017) but also in strong contrast to studies suggesting that later-born birth-cohorts are higher in narcissism than earlier-born birth-cohorts (Twenge, 2006; Twenge et al., 2008). The current study is one of the most comprehensive examinations of narcissism changes ever conducted and included data from individuals born throughout a 46-year period (from 1923 to 1969).
The current findings are consistent with tenets of the social investment model of personality development (Roberts et al., 2005). Specifically, although narcissism may serve some protective role for well-being in emerging adulthood (Hill & Roberts, 2012), high levels of maladaptive forms of narcissism are incompatible with the age-graded social roles and expectations that individuals adopt throughout the lifespan. Psychological characteristics are thought to change in response to the complex interplay of individuals functioning within the demands and expectations of increased responsibility and maturity. As a result, maladaptive forms of narcissism that serve as a barrier to success in work, life, and love are abated throughout middle age and older adulthood. Forms of narcissism that enhance successes in these domains are likely to be cultivated. For these reasons, maladaptive forms of narcissism tend to decline across life and adaptive forms of narcissism tend to increase across life.

Birth-cohort Effects on Narcissism

That later-born birth-cohorts were lower in hypersensitivity and higher in autonomy was also perplexing as it goes against a narrative that recent birth-cohorts have experienced a monotonic rise in narcissistic traits across the past century (Twenge et al., 2012a, 2012b; Twenge et al., 2008). It is not necessarily surprising that maladaptive narcissism is declining while autonomy is increasing, as these two are inextricably linked (Deffler, Leary, & Hoyle, 2016). Although some research has found similar (decreasing) levels of maladaptive narcissism, the reasons behind such differences have not been thoroughly examined. There are many substantive and non-substantive differences between birth-cohorts and previous work has tried to identify a number of social indicators for why birth-cohorts might psychologically differ (e.g., technological changes, changes in parenting styles; Konrath et al., 2011). Exactly how these differences translate into mean differences in some forms of narcissism and not others is an exciting direction for future research. Of course, as with gender, the samples were not perfectly comparable with respect to ages distributed across the birth-cohorts. For example, some samples (e.g., the Radcliffe Sample) had only participants who were middle age and older. Other samples (the Block and Block Sample) had only participants who were young adults. Thus, sample/birth year and age are somewhat conflated in the current study. Thus, we interpret caution when drawing conclusions from the birth-cohort analyses.

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study had many strengths. We combined data from six distinct sources to model changes in narcissism over a 59-year period. Nevertheless, there are some limitations that are worth noting.
Why did people change in narcissism over time? Other than the sample imbalance with respect to age and gender (see above), we did not have a consistent set of predictors to model the mechanisms underlying lifespan changes and birth-cohort differences in narcissism over time. Like other traits that function within the social investment framework, there are likely both selection and socialization factors that drive the development of narcissism across the lifespan (Specht et al., 2014; Specht, Egloff, & Schmukle, 2011). For example, people high in autonomy might select environments that are conducive to cultivating their autonomous lifestyle (and avoid situations that dampen it). Likewise, once individuals have selected an environment, there are additional mechanisms that drive stability and change in narcissistic characteristics as these changes are socialized within individuals (Caspi & Roberts, 1999). What are the environments and life circumstances that initiate changes in narcissism? And which environments and life circumstances lead to sustainable changes in narcissism over long periods of time? Although there is a great deal of research highlighting narcissists’ resilience and resistance to critical feedback about themselves (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998), some studies show some promising signs that narcissists can change in response to life events (Grosz et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the mechanisms through which narcissists are able to reflect on their lives in an impartial way and consciously change their thoughts and actions are currently unknown, even though it appears that narcissists do have some accurate self-insight into their personalities (E. N. Carlson, 2013; E. N. Carlson, Vazire, & Oltmanns, 2011). Future research can more formally model individual differences in changes in narcissism and the conditions under which lifespan changes are largest.

* Why do birth-cohorts differ in narcissism over time? Likewise, it is worth noting that our study did find reliable differences in narcissism between birth-cohorts, but in the reverse direction than is typical seen (Wetzel et al., 2017). Just as it is important to examine predictors of lifespan changes in narcissism, it is also important to examine whether changes in narcissism can be attributable to changes in parenting behaviors, shifting demographics and the relative risk of exposure to life events, some broader cultural changes, or another explanation entirely (Konrath et al., 2011; Twenge et al., 2008). Because the studies did not have consistent or, in some cases, any variables to operationalize changes in these variables, we are left with merely descriptive data on how narcissism might change over historical time. We view this as a major limitation to the current report and hope that future researchers can more seriously conceptualize and test why birth-cohorts might be changing in narcissism. That two of the samples were comprised entirely of women is also a considerable limitation, particularly for the birth-cohort analyses. Worth noting, because of the gender differences found in narcissism facets, it is likely that the birth-cohort differences cannot be entirely attributable to the gender composition of the sample. In other words, samples comprising entirely of women were often still higher than samples containing both men and women. Of course, the differences we observed in the current study are likely the combination of substantive changes in psychological and demographic variables. Future research can have more balanced gender designs with respect to gender and other demographic characteristics.

* How do researchers measure narcissism changes in secondary data sources? In the current study, we relied on just one of many models of narcissism—Wink’s (1992a) conceptualization of hypersensitivity, willfulness, and autonomy. The operationalization and measurement history of narcissism is long and controversial, with several alternative models and measures portending to measure narcissism’s core features (Ackerman et al., 2011; Back et al., 2013; Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004; Glover, Miller, Lynam, Crego, & Widiger, 2012; Konrath, Meier, & Bushman, 2014; Pincus et al., 2009; Raskin & Terry, 1988; Wink, 1991). Our choice to use Wink’s conceptualization was primarily (and necessarily) driven by an effort to maximize the available data across the six studies.
However, in directly comparing the CAQ scales to more contemporary measures of narcissism (e.g., NPI, NARQ), we found that one facet in particular—autonomy—had relatively small overlap with other measures of narcissism (rs < |.28|). In previous research, the CAQ autonomy scale was often conceptualized as a form of adaptive narcissism (Cramer, 2011a; Wink, 1992a). However, in our very preliminary examinations, it appears that these items capture autonomy as a broader individual difference characteristic than a form of adaptive narcissism per se. Thus, our and others’ necessary reliance on using CAQ autonomy as a form of adaptive narcissism is likely misplaced. This limitation speaks to a larger concern for researchers who use secondary data to examine changes in characteristics that were not intended to be measured in the original data collection. Running additional studies to verify the convergent and criterion validity of researcher-generated scales in the context of secondary data analysis is not particularly expensive; the benefits of adopting such an approach are numerous though. The danger is in liberally using measures form secondary data sources without formally examining their conceptual meaning and empirical validity. Indeed, such ready adoption of measures is likely one of the contributing factors for why some concepts (e.g., adaptive narcissism) might become so broad as to assume related, but technically different concepts (e.g., autonomy)(Haslam, 2016). For hypersensitivity and willfulness, there was substantial overlap with other measures of narcissism, suggesting that these aspects of narcissism may be less problematic to continue using in future research. Nevertheless, more formal efforts to examine how the developmental trajectories of different narcissism inventories vary would be an exciting direction for future research.
Although our use of a quasi-accelerated longitudinal design had many strengths, including measuring changes in narcissism over a 64-year period and across multiple birth-cohorts, its use also presents several unique limitations. For example, no one person was followed from age 13 to age 77, severely limiting our ability to truly isolate lifespan changes in narcissism. Further, because the studies had large gaps in between assessment points, we were limited in our ability to assess more nuanced developmental changes.