Age and gender differences in narcissism: A comprehensive study across eight measures and over 250,000 participants.

Age and gender differences in narcissism have been studied often. However, considering the rich history of narcissism research accompanied by its diverging conceptualizations, little is known about age and gender differences across various narcissism measures. The present study investigated age and gender differences and their interactions across eight widely used narcissism instruments (i.e., Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale, Dirty Dozen, Psychological Entitlement Scale, Narcissistic Personality Disorder Symptoms from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Version IV, Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire-Short Form, Single-Item Narcissism Scale, and brief version of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory). The findings of Study 1 (N = 5,736) revealed heterogeneity in how strongly the measures are correlated. Some instruments loaded clearly on one of the three factors proposed by previous research (i.e., Neuroticism, Extraversion, Antagonism), while others cross-loaded across factors and in distinct ways. Cross-sectional analyses using each measure and meta-analytic results across all measures (Study 2) with a total sample of 270,029 participants suggest consistent linear age effects (random effects meta-analytic effect of r = -.104), with narcissism being highest in young adulthood. Consistent gender differences also emerged (random effects meta-analytic effect was -.079), such that men scored higher in narcissism than women. Quadratic age effects and Age × Gender effects were generally very small and inconsistent. We conclude that despite the various conceptualizations of narcissism, age and gender differences are generalizable across the eight measures used in the present study. However, their size varied based on the instrument used. We discuss the sources of this heterogeneity and the potential mechanisms for age and gender differences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Validation of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire Short Scale (NARQ-S) in convenience and representative samples.

Due to increased empirical interest in narcissism across the social sciences, there is a need for inventories that can be administered quickly while also reliably measuring both the agentic and antagonistic aspects of grandiose narcissism. In this study, we sought to validate the factor structure, provide representative descriptive data and reliability estimates, assess the reliability across the trait spectrum, and examine the nomological network of the short version of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ-S; Back et al., 2013). We used data from a large convenience sample (total N = 11,937) as well as data from a large representative sample (total N = 4,433) that included responses to other narcissism measures as well as related constructs, including the other Dark Triad traits, Big Five personality traits, and self-esteem. Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory were used to validate the factor structure and estimate the reliability across the latent trait spectrum, respectively. Results suggest that the NARQ-S shows a robust factor structure and is a reliable and valid short measure of the agentic and antagonistic aspects of grandiose narcissism. We also discuss future directions and applications of the NARQ-S as a short and comprehensive measure of grandiose narcissism. (PsycINFO Database Record

Extending Structural Analyses of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale to Consider Criterion-Related Validity: Can Composite Self-Esteem Scores Be Good Enough?

Although the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) is the most widely used measure of global self-esteem in the literature, there are ongoing disagreements about its factor structure. This methodological debate informs how the measure should be used in substantive research. Using a sample of 1,127 college students, we test the overall fit of previously specified models for the RSES, including a newly proposed bifactor solution (McKay, Boduszek, & Harvey, 2014 ). We extend previous work by evaluating how various latent factors from these structural models are related to a set of criterion variables frequently studied in the self-esteem literature. A strict unidimensional model poorly fit the data, whereas models that accounted for correlations between negatively and positively keyed items tended to fit better. However, global factors from viable structural models had similar levels of association with criterion variables and with the pattern of results obtained with a composite global self-esteem variable calculated from observed scores. Thus, we did not find compelling evidence that different structural models had substantive implications, thereby reducing (but not eliminating) concerns about the integrity of the self-esteem literature based on overall composite scores for the RSES.