Egos Inflating over Time: Rising Narcissism and its Implications for Self-Construal, Cognitive Style, and Behavior.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In four articles I examine changes in narcissism over time and the implications of those changes. First in the introduction I review research on the history of narcissism as a personality disorder and as a personality trait. In Article 1 my colleagues and I conduct a cross-temporal meta-analysis and find that scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Terry, 1988) have been rising since the 1980s in American college students. In the second article we present our theory that high self-focus in combination with low other-focus (i.e. social atomization) is related to a highly analytic cognitive style as measured by tests such as the Embedded Figures Test (Witkin et al, 1971). We review research in three separate areas of psychology in order to provide evidence for our theory: individualism/self-construal, narcissism, and autism. In two studies the third article shows that narcissism is related to an analytic cognitive style and lower self-reported holism. We also find that narcissism is related to higher independent and lower interdependent self-construal. In the final article we find that inducing a feeling of similarity between narcissists and potential targets of aggression leads to reduced aggression after an ego-threat.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".