Cited by 11Personality Traits and PsychologyPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychological Testing and Assessment

Age Differences in the Desirability of Narcissism

Berenson, Kathy R., Ellison, William D., Clasing, Rachel·2017·Journal of Individual Differences

Abstract

Young adult narcissism has been the focus of much discussion in the personality literature and popular press. Yet no previous studies have addressed whether there are age differences in the relative desirability of narcissistic and non-narcissistic self-descriptions, such as those presented as answer choices on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979 ). In Study 1, younger age was associated with less negative evaluations of narcissistic (vs. non-narcissistic) statements in general, and more positive evaluations of narcissistic statements conveying leadership/authority. In Study 2, age was unrelated to perceiving a fictional target person as narcissistic, but younger age was associated with more positive connotations for targets described with narcissistic statements and less positive connotations for targets described with non-narcissistic statements, in terms of the inferences made about the target’s altruism, conscientiousness, social status, and self-esteem. In both studies, age differences in the relative desirability of narcissism remained statistically significant when adjusting for participants’ own narcissism, and the NPI showed measurement invariance across age. Despite perceiving narcissism similarly, adults of different ages view the desirability of NPI answer choices differently. These results are important when interpreting cross-generational differences in NPI scores, and can potentially facilitate cross-generational understanding.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/1614-0001/a000240

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A motivational shift from status to affiliation goals may explain why narcissism tends to be on average less and less desirable as adults grow older.

    “Such a motivational shift from status to affiliation goals may also explain why narcissism tends to be on average less and less desirable as adults grow older (Berenson, Ellison, & Clasing, 2017).”

    From The "Why" and "How" of Narcissism: A Process Model of Narcissistic Status Pursuit (2020) · cites this paper as Berenson, Ellison, & Clasing, 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berenson, K. R., Ellison, W. D., & Clasing, R.
Affiliations
  • Gettysburg College (US)
  • Trinity University (US)
Venue
Journal of Individual Differences
Published
2017-11
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
230-240
ISSN
  • 1614-0001 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-2299
OpenAlex
W2767310472
Cited by
11
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
  • The Cupola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College (Gettysburg College) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - Trinity University (Trinity University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
narcissism, age differences, Narcissistic Personality Inventory, measurement invariance, young adults, self-description, social status, self-esteem, altruism, conscientiousness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review