1.1 Does Narcissism in Adolescence and Emergent Adulthood have Preschool Antecedents?

Our first research question was whether narcissism in adolescence and emerging adulthood has personality antecedents stretching back all the way to preschool. In the personality development literature, there is increasing consensus that not only can children be reliably assessed as early as at age 3, but also that personality characteristics measured this early in life have long-term implications for future adaptation (Caspi, 2000). Furthermore, the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) proposed that, in general, personality disorders are relatively stable and their onset can be traced back to early childhood (Shiner, 2005). Of course, we do not argue that narcissism per se exists as a fully developed and distinct personality type in preschool. We only propose that knowledge of childhood antecedents may throw light on the early features of narcissism and how such features may over time culminate into a relatively stable narcissistic orientation.

Previous research has identified three core qualities of narcissism: an inflated self, interpersonal hostility, and impulsivity. The inflated self includes excessive self-esteem (e.g., Kernis, 2003), fragile and unstable self-esteem (e.g., Rhodewalt, Madrian, & Cheney, 1998), grandiosity (e.g., Raskin et. al., 1991), and defensive self-enhancement specifically related to egoistic concerns (e.g., Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002; John & Robins, 1994; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Furthermore, recent research suggests that the inflated self may not be reduced to self-enhancement alone; it also includes organizational features such as lack of self-integration. For example, emerging evidence suggests that such organizational components of the narcissistic self are perhaps more important than mere self-enhancement in explaining behavioral outcomes related to narcissism (Stucke & Sporer, 2002). Lack of self-integration is conceptually related to psychoanalytic views of narcissism and to the importance of defense mechanisms, such as splitting used to protect the vulnerable self-esteem of narcissism.

Antagonistic interpersonal behavior is another defining feature of narcissism (e.g., Raskin et. al., 1991; Warren, Burnette, South, Chauhan, Bale, & Friend, 2002). For example, hostility has been observed when the narcissist’s inflated self-view is challenged (e.g., Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Smalley & Stake, 1996; Twenge & Campbell, 2003). Recent research, however, suggests that hostility is not merely a result of challenged self-esteem but also reflects issues related to the narcissist’s fragmented sense of self (Stucke & Sporer, 2002).

Antagonistic interpersonal behaviors are likely to be maintained by the interpersonal consequences of these behaviors (Raskin, et al., 1991). Unfortunately, the everyday interpersonal relationships of narcissists, observed in natural daily settings outside of the laboratory, have rarely (if ever) been studied; thus the actual real-life manifestations of narcissism are not well understood. Theoretically, aggressive behavior that provokes emotional or submissive reactions might reinforce the inflated self. Such reactions might reaffirm the narcissists’ sense of superiority. For example, emotional reactions might reinforce narcissists’ view of others as emotional and therefore weak and vulnerable, whereas they see themselves as rational and logical. Thus, a vicious cycle is maintained across time and context. This cycle may promote the continuity of narcissism (Raskin, et al., 1991).

Impulsivity is the third main quality detected in narcissists. Based on their meta-analysis, Vazire and Funder (2006) argued convincingly that this characteristic has consistently been observed in studies using different measures of both narcissism and impulsivity. Impulsivity is likely to be more than just a correlate of narcissism; it might lie close to the conceptual core of narcissistic personality dynamics. Vazire and Funder (2006), furthermore, suggested that the centrality of impulsiveness in narcissists signifies the existence of non-deliberate and automatic processing of cognitive and affective actions. This lack of conscious reflection may be an important aspect of the inflated self as well as the defenses related to this self-view. As the automatic cognitive and affective processing seen in these defenses becomes more dominant in the narcissists’ life, their actions are likely to rely less on conscious deliberation (Diamond & Blatt, 1994).

Automatic processing may also be implicated in the hostile behaviors typical of narcissists. For example, aggressive behaviors during childhood have been linked to automatic processing of emotions and thoughts in the interpersonal domain (see Crick & Dodge, 1994, for a review). Impulsivity, constrained cognitive-evaluation, and the limited behavioral repertoire likely to characterize narcissists might explain their hostility–especially when their inflated-self is threatened and give rise to a host of undesired and non-integrated emotions that make deliberate processing even more difficult (Vazire & Funder, 2006).

Thus, the narcissistic defensiveness revolves around three inter-linked components: an inflated sense of self, hostility, and impulsivity. The dynamic interplay within this personality constellation might contribute to continuity over time. The emphasis on the core defensive nature of narcissism brings this concept back to its rich theoretical origins (see Morrison, 1986, for a collection of classic papers), and the implication of psychological defenses in the continuity of narcissistic traits over time. In view of the links between some of the preschool predictors described above, we expected the inter-item correlation to be moderately high.

1.2. Age-related Changes in Narcissism during Adolescence and Emergent Adulthood

Our second research question examined the degree of stability in mean narcissism scores from middle adolescence and into emerging adulthood. Recently, some researchers have argued that young adults have become more narcissistic than earlier generations (cf., Twenge, 2006). In support of this argument, Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, and Bushman (2008) reported that self-reported narcissism (using the NPI) has increased by 0.33 standard deviations since the 1980s. Trzesniewski and her colleagues (e.g., Trzesniewski, Donnellan, & Robins, 2008a & b) contested this conclusion and found no changes in self-enhancement in youth from the 1970s and into the present. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to review these competing arguments detail, the participants in our sample have most likely been exposed to the cultural and environmental factors cited as responsible for the proposed recent increase in narcissism, as outlined in the work of Twenge and her colleagues (e.g., Twenge, 2006; Twenge et al., 2008). Given Twenge’s (2006) arguments and the age of our sample, we tentatively hypothesize that mean-level of narcissism should increase from middle adolescence and into early adulthood.

Although it has been suggested that emerging adulthood might be characterized by narcissism in terms of being over-confident, selfish, yet being miserable and unfulfilled, Arnett (2007) argued that this position is a manifestation of the century-old myth of adolescence as a time of “storm and stress.” Few studies have examined age-related changes in narcissism. An exception is a recent cross-sectional study reporting that narcissism decreased with age in cross-national samples ranging in age from age 8 to 83 (Foster, Campbell, & Twenge, 2003). The authors, however, offered few theoretical explanations for this finding and noted that the effect size was rather weak. Furthermore, the sample sizes for extreme age groups (< 15 and > 34) were relatively small, compared to the adolescent and young adult samples, potentially leading to unstable estimates for these groups. In fact, the groups with larger sample sizes (age 15 through 34) showed relatively similar mean levels of narcissism. Hence, this reported age effect might be due to differing sample sizes and other artifacts related to cross-sectional methods and cohort effects. Therefore, a longitudinal study examining this age effect might be of interest, especially in view of the fact that detailed analyses of changes in mean values from middle adolescence and into emerging adulthood within the same longitudinal sample have not been reported. In sum, longitudinal studies examining age changes in narcissism are needed to complement existing cross-sectional studies.

3.2. Correlations among the Preschool Personality Narcissism Predictors

The correlations among the five preschool personality predictors of narcissism in adolescence and emerging adulthood, ranged from .49 to .69, averaging .59 (calculated using the r-z-r formula). Although these intercorrelations are relatively high, they are not high enough for multicollinatity to be a problem. The issue of multicollinearity emerges when variables in a correlation matrix are too highly correlated, especially at. 90 or above. As a rule of thumb, bivariate correlations of .70 or higher should be avoided. In this study, albeit the correlations among the predictor variables are moderately high, they do not appear to be high enough to raise the concern of redundancy or multicollinearity (for further discussion of this issue, see Tabachnick and Fidel, 1996, pp. 84–86).

3.4. Preschool Precursors of Age 23 Narcissism

First, we correlated the six preschool scales with narcissism scores at ages 14, 18, and 23. These correlations for age 23, presented in Table 2, were as follows: Impersonal Antagonism (r = .15, ns), Inadequate Impulse Control (r = .27, p < .01), Center of Attention (r = .22, p < .05), Activity Level (r = .28, p < .01), and Histrionic tendencies (r = .25, p < .05). The only unexpected finding was that preschool interpersonal antagonism did not relate significantly to narcissism at age 23, although the correlation was in the expected direction. Table 2 also includes the correlations between the six preschool scales and the narcissism measures at ages 14 and 18. The results for the three ages are mostly similar, although the adolescent correlations (age 14 and 18) were somewhat stronger than the age 23 correlations.

Table 2

Zero-order and Average Correlations Between Narcissism and its Preschool CCQ Scales

4.1. Inflated Self, Hostility, and Inadequate Impulse Regulation

The current study provided further evidence for the importance of the three core qualities (inflated self, hostility, and inadequate impulse regulation) in the development and maintenance of narcissism over the first two decades of life. As outlined in the introduction, these three qualities—observed in preschool—might mutually reinforce each other. These empirical findings are important because they highlight that such qualities (especially impulsivity and hostility) are not merely consequences of narcissistic processes but might also play an important role in the development and maintenance of narcissism over time. An inflated sense of self promotes and is reinforced by hostile behaviors (Raskin et al., 1991). Impulsivity helps in the production and eventual display of such hostility and perhaps also plays a central role in allowing the defensive narcissist to avoid too much self-reflection, thereby feeding the inflated sense of self even further. Impulsivity may also reflect the narcissist’s growing reliance on the automatic processing of affect and cognition in their daily lives. In sum, there seems to be a defensive core of dynamic and intertwined personality qualities underlying the course of narcissism over time. Consequently, we believe, that this dynamic core and the supportive processes of interactional and cumulative continuity might be responsible for the degree of differential continuity from preschool and through adolescence and emerging adulthood.

The concept of interactional continuity suggests that the narcissist’s antagonistic and exploitative interpersonal manner evokes particular reactions in others–behaviors likely to further reinforce the narcissist’s hostile approach to the world (see Caspi, 2000; Caspi & Roberts, 2001 for discussions of interactional continuity). Furthermore, narcissism may stabilize with age because people self-select and/or are channeled into situations that tend to sustain narcissistic behaviors. Narcissism may therefore be maintained by the accumulation of its own consequences –- a process known as cumulative continuity (Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 1987).

For example, narcissists may self-select relationships with weaker peers who will reinforce their grandiose self-view.ⁱⁱ Such behavior resembles the descriptions of Beta-level children (along with their Omega-level friends) in dominance hierarchy research on children’s and adolescent peer groups; such Beta-level children have been labeled “Bullies” (e.g., Savin-Williams, 1987). Links between socio-metric research and narcissism might be a fertile area of further investigation. In addition, children with narcissistic tendencies may also be channeled into classrooms and peer groups that potentially maintain and reward such tendencies (e.g., Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, & Gariépy, 1988). Thus, it is plausible that the behavioral manifestations of narcissists stabilize relatively early as their mannerisms can be expected to evoke negative reactions from others.

4.2. A Developmental View of Narcissism

Morf and Rhodewalt (2001) proposed that narcissism be considered a personality process, not a stable disposition or an individual difference variable. In their words: “The narcissistic self in constantly under construction” (p. 180). Although we do not disagree with this position, it might also be the case that at least some aspects of narcissism (e.g., an inflated self, hostility, and impulsivity) gradually solidify over time via processes such as interactional and cumulative continuity.

The early onset of narcissistic precursors raises the issue of automatic (and possibly defensive) processing for understanding the essence of narcissism. Preschool children are unlikely to deliberately contemplate strategies to defend their grandiose sense of self. Instead, from preschool, narcissistic individuals are described as compulsive attention-seekers, hostile, impulsive, suggesting a similar restricted behavioral flexibility as persons who tend to process affect and cognition automatically (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2006). The early emergence of antagonistic interpersonal behavior and its persistence in the life of the narcissist also speaks to the importance of automatic processing (see Crick & Dodge, 1994, for a review of the automatic processing related to persistent hostile child behavior).

While there is a growing consensus that automatic processing should be of interest to researchers of narcissism, it is debatable whether such automatic processing is merely a parallel system running concurrently with a more deliberate, conscious system (e.g., Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001), or whether automatic processing is a more primary and overarching influence on the behavior of narcissists across time and context (e.g., Vazire, & Funder, 2006). This debate should not be seen as an “either-or” choice as surely both perspectives have heuristic value in adding to our understanding of narcissism. Our results highlight the value of paying attention on automatic processes in future narcissism research.

Furthermore, we suggest that the defensive processes associated with narcissism may play a role in the continuity of the precursors seen in this study. Given the importance of defenses in the theoretical origins of narcissism (Howell, 2005), further investigation of defensive processes might help uncover the narcissistic paradox of vulnerability combined with grandiosity. In particular, increased attention to defenses can provide more information about the vulnerability side of this paradox, as the grandiosity aspect has already been widely researched (see Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001 for comments on this knowledge gap in the current state of narcissism research).

Narcissism researchers might benefit from methods used by attachment researchers to investigate defensive processes. For both adolescent and adult samples, interviews (e.g., Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985; Gjerde, Onishi, & Carlson, 2004) have been particularly useful in uncovering defensive processes, as have laboratory/experimental methods (e.g., Fraley, Garner, & Shaver, 2000; Mikulincer, 1995; Mikulincer, Florian, & Weller, 1993; Mikulincer, & Orbach, 1995). Data on defensiveness at early ages have been collected via a combination of observational (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) and physiological methods (Sroufe & Waters, 1977). In addition, interviews, self-reports, and play techniques with children as young as six years old have successfully revealed defensive processes (Cassidy, 1988).

Overall, a closer relation between attachment and narcissism research might hold promises. For example, Geiger and Crick (2001) suggested that children with insecure/avoidant attachments might be particularly likely to develop a narcissistic personality disorder. Fonagy (1999, p. 607), furthermore, not only argued that thick-skinned narcissist “deposits his or her own perceived inadequacies in others, whom he or she then can dismiss, denigrate, and devalue.” (p. 607), he also proposed that the “thick-skinned” narcissism was, in part, analogous to dismissive attachment, especially with regard to how dismissive individuals manifested denial of their caregivers. He further noted that Kohut’s view of narcissism has close links to attachment theory (Fonagy, 1999, pp. 611–612). ⁱⁱⁱ It is not our aim to review these relations in detail, but rather to highlight the many useful methodologies and theoretical work for potential use in future investigations of the defenses processes in narcissism.

4.3 Developmental Changes in Mean Narcissism Scores over Time

Our findings, furthermore, indicate that narcissism mean scores increased significantly from middle to late adolescence, followed by a trend toward a lower mean score from late adolescence into emerging adulthood. It merits attention that this finding might not indicate changes in narcissism per se, but might in addition reflect normative changes in development. For example, items related to impulsivity and concern about personal adequacy increased from middle to late adolescence, followed by a decline in emerging adulthood. This increase in impulsivity may be related to the developmentally appropriate risk-taking seen during adolescence (Arnett, 1999). Concern with one’s adequacy vis-à-vis one’s peers has also been noted as a normal developmental phenomenon during adolescence (e.g., Ryan & Kuczkowski, 1994). In addition, items related to assertiveness showed steady increase over development. These items may be related to self-sufficiency, which is a component in many narcissism measures. The increase in self-sufficiency may be viewed as a positive developmental change and might not necessarily reflect increased narcissism per se (Trzesniewski et al., 2008a). Hence, while overall narcissism scores increased during adolescence (and decreased slightly by early adulthood), interpreting these changes as reflecting increases in narcissistic personality during adolescence might be problematic. Narcissism researchers who utilize adolescent and early adult samples should take special care to distinguish compulsive impulsivity, self-focus, and antagonism characteristic of narcissism from normative increases in risk-taking, self-consciousness, and assertiveness during this age-period.

National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH 16080 supported this research. The data derive from the Block and Block Project. We thank Kimberly Cardilla, Daniel Cohen, Denise Su, and Kali Trzesniewski for their invaluable help in preparing this manuscript.