The Role of Parenting Styles in Narcissism Development: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been considerable debate about whether contemporary Western societies are experiencing an increase in narcissistic tendencies, often referred to as a “narcissism epidemic”. This rise highlights the importance of understanding the origins of narcissism, particularly regarding its potential association with parenting styles. Such insights can inform treatment approaches and contribute to paradigm shifts in developmental psychology. This systematic review and meta-analysis examine how different parenting styles are associated with the development of narcissistic traits, using both partial and zero-order correlations as measures of effect. To ensure a consistent conceptualization of parenting styles, the results were evaluated using Baumrind’s parental styles typology. The review follows PRISMA guidelines and is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024516395). Studies published in English or Portuguese since 2000 were sourced from PubMed (1039 articles) and Scopus (2120 articles), resulting in a final sample of 53 studies across 38 articles. Data synthesis included assessment of statistical heterogeneity (I2 statistic), publication bias (funnel plots, Egger’s test, and the trim and fill method), and methodological quality (adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, NOS). Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of excluding studies scoring below eight on the NOS by comparing results from analyses with all studies versus high-quality studies only. Results indicate a significant, albeit weak, association between parenting styles and narcissistic traits, with notable variations between maternal and paternal influences. This analysis provides a comprehensive perspective on the interplay between parenting approaches and the emergence of narcissistic characteristics, underscoring the complexity of factors that contribute to narcissism in contemporary society.
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 | 0.027 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".