MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408117498 · doi:10.3390/appliedmath5010023

The Role of Parenting Styles in Narcissism Development: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4408117498 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAppliedMath · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisNarcissismPsychologySystematic reviewDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMedicineMEDLINEPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it