Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The present study examined stability and change in narcissism during adolescence and emerging adulthood, a time of turbulent transitions and shifting social roles. Using data from a longitudinal study of 674 Mexican-origin youth, we investigated rank-order stability and mean-level change in narcissistic grandiosity from age 14 to 26 and narcissistic vulnerability from age 19 to 26. Grandiosity and vulnerability showed moderate-to-high stability across 2- to 3-year intervals (rs = .43–.75) and across the full study period. On average, grandiosity increased from age 14 to 26 and vulnerability increased from age 19 to 26. However, these overall trends obscured significant individual-level changes, with about one third of the sample declining or showing no change in narcissism. Thus, although most individuals become more narcissistic from adolescence to emerging adulthood, many do not, and future research should identify factors that explain why some people increase and others decrease during the critical transition into adulthood.

Keywords

personality adolescent personality development longitudinal methodology structural equation modeling

Current research characterizes narcissistic individuals as having inflated self-worth, a need for attention and admiration, and a tendency to engage in interpersonally manipulative behaviors that contribute to both positive and negative consequences for psychological functioning (Brunell et al., 2008; Kjærvik & Bushman, 2021; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006; van Geel et al., 2017; Wetzel et al., 2020). Individuals high in narcissism aim to enhance their grandiose self-views, achieve recognition and admiration, and exploit others to achieve these goals (grandiosity); however, the fragility of their self-esteem often betrays an underlying sense of shame and hypersensitivity (vulnerability). Grandiosity and vulnerability have traditionally been conceptualized as components of a unitary construct (i.e., narcissism), but these dimensions are weakly correlated and are better studied as distinct traits. Little is known about how stable narcissistic traits are over time, especially during adolescence and emerging adulthood. The present study seeks to characterize stability and change in narcissism from adolescence to emerging adulthood. Although the two-dimensional model of narcissism has been extended to a three-dimensional conceptualization that differentiates grandiosity into agentic and antagonistic/entitled components (Grosz et al., 2019), we use data from a long-term longitudinal study that captured a two-dimensional conceptualization. Specifically, we examined rank-order stability and mean-level change in grandiosity from age 14 to 26 and vulnerability from age 19 to 26. Although there is an emerging body of research examining stability and change in narcissism, this literature has significant limitations and gaps, as discussed below.

Stability and Change in Narcissism

Table 1 summarizes the findings of prior studies investigating rank-order stability and mean-level change in narcissism, ordered by the age of the sample. Rank-order stability is the degree to which individuals maintain their ordering on a trait dimension relative to others over time. The rank-order stability of narcissism may be influenced by several processes: long-term developmental factors, person–environment transactions, and stochastic-developmental processes (Bühler & Orth, 2022; Fraley & Roberts, 2005). Long-term developmental factors, including genetically based tendencies toward antagonism and impulsivity and early childhood rearing experiences that engender grandiose self-views, likely provide a source of continuity in the rank-ordering of narcissism (Fraley & Roberts, 2005). Similarly, person–environment transactions, such as individuals’ selection into environments that reinforce their sense of entitlement and self-aggrandizement, may fortify the rank-ordering of narcissism, especially during the emerging adulthood when individuals select into a variety of adult social roles. In contrast, stochastic-contextual processes, or chance experiences and events randomly distributed across a person’s lifetime, may lower rank-order stability (Fraley & Roberts, 2005). For example, if people stumble into jobs or relationships that are incongruent with their pre-existing narcissistic tendencies, this would reduce rank-order stability.

Table 1.

Longitudinal Studies of Rank-Order Stability and Mean-Level Change in Narcissism

Study	Measure of narcissism	Facet(s) of narcissism	Study (sample size)	Sex, race/ethnicity	Age at each assessment of narcissism	Statistical models	Summary of findings for mean-level (ML) change and rank-order (RO) stability
De Clercq et al. (2017)	DIPSI (informant report), Short Dark Triad (self-report)	None	Flemish Personality and Affect Longitudinal Study (N = 302)	60% female (predominantly White)	11, 12, 13, 16, 21	Latent growth curve models	ML: No significant change from age 11 to 21 RO: Not examined
Farrell and Vaillancourt (2020, 2021)	NPQ-R (self-report)	None	McMaster Teen Study (N = 617)	54% female (predominantly White)	13 to 19 annually	Latent class growth analysis	ML: Not examined, but found three latent classes: moderately stable (56.3%), high increasing (~21%), low decreasing (~21%) suggesting no overall change RO: Not examined
Wetzel and Robins (2016)	NPQC-R (self-report)	Exploitativeness, superiority	California Families Project (N = 674)	50% female (100% Mexican origin)	14, 16	Latent cross-lagged panel models	ML: No significant change from age 14 to 16 RO: Moderately high stability across 2 years for overall narcissism (r = .58), superiority (r = .61), and exploitativeness (r = .46)
Carlson and Gjerde (2009)	CAQ-set^a (observer report)	None	Block and Block Longitudinal Study (N = 103)	50% female (predominantly White, 25% African American, 8% Asian)	14, 18, 23	T-tests	ML: Narcissism increased from age 14 to 18 (d = .58); no significant change from 18 to 23 RO: Not examined
Chopik and Grimm (2019) ^b	CAQ-set (self- and observer reports)	Hypersensitivity, willfulness, autonomy	a. Block and Block Longitudinal Study (N = 107) b. IHD Intergenerational Studies (Oakland Growth Study, Berkeley Growth Study, Berkeley Guidance Study) (N = 361) c. Mills Longitudinal Study (N = 112 women) d. Radcliffe College Class of 1964 (N = 167 women) (total N across all studies = 747)	70% female (predominantly White)	a. 14, 18, 23 b. 13 to 77 c. 21, 43 d. 43, 53, 62, 72	Growth curve analysis, test–retest correlations	ML: Hypersensitivity (b = −.13) and willfulness (b = −.03) declined, autonomy increased (b = .29) RO: Moderately high stability for hypersensitivity (r = .37), willfulness (r = .39), and autonomy (r = .52) across all intervals
Wetzel et al. (2020)	NPI (self-report)	Leadership, vanity, entitlement	Berkeley Longitudinal Study (N = 237)	56% female (41% Asian, 35% White, 13% Latino, 6% Black, 1% Native American, 4% did not report ethnicity)	18, 41	Latent change models, latent correlations	ML: Narcissism (d = −.79), leadership (d = −.67), entitlement (d = −.82), and vanity (d = −.46) all decreased from age 18 to 41 RO: Moderate to high stability of narcissism (r = .69), leadership (r = .67), entitlement (r = .85), and vanity (r = .61) across 23 years
Grosz et al. (2019)	Abbreviated version of the NPI (self-report)	Admiration	a. TOSCA-2006 (N = 4,962) b. TOSCA-2002 (N = 2,572)	Sex not specified (predominantly White, German nationality)	a. 19, 21, 23, 25 b. 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29	True individual change models	ML: No mean-level change in admiration RO: Moderate to high stability of admiration across 6 to 10 years (r ranging from .55 to .72)
Orth and Luciano (2015)	NPI (self-report)	None	Your Personality (N = 328)	50% female (predominantly White)	21, 22, 23 Four assessments at 6-month intervals	Test–retest correlations	ML: Not examined RO: High stability over 1.5 years (r = .81)
Wille et al. (2019)	NEO-PI-R^c (self-report)	None	Personality and Career Panel (N = 933)	47% female (predominantly White, Belgian nationality)	22, 37, 44	Latent difference score models	ML: No significant change from age 22 to 44 RO: not examined
Zettler et al. (2021)	Short Dark Triad (self-report)	None	Online German Panel Study (N = 509)	52% male (predominantly White, German nationality)	Average age at T1 = 41.8 Average age at T2 = 49.4 Two assessments over 4 years	Confirmatory factor analysis	ML: Narcissism decreased over 4 years ( $α$ = −.20) RO: High stability (r = .77) over 4 years
Edelstein et al. (2012)	CAQ-set (self-report)	Hypersensitivity, willfulness, autonomy	Radcliffe College Class of 1964 (N = 70)	100% female (predominantly White)	43, 53	ANOVA, test–retest correlations	ML: Hypersensitivity (d = −.96) and autonomy (d = −.81) decreased, willfulness increased (d = .46) from age 43 to 53 RO: Moderately high stability across 10 years for hypersensitivity (r = .68), autonomy (r = .49), and willfulness (r = .40)
Jung et al. (2024)	a. German adaptation of NPI (self-report) b. NARQ-S (self-report)	a. None b. Agentic admiration, antagonistic rivalry	a. Self-Evaluations Across Life (N = 1,254) b. German Panel Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family Dynamics (N = 10,235)	a. 68% female (predominantly White, German nationality) b. 53% female (predominantly White, German nationality)	a. Average age at T1 = 47.0 Assessed 4 and 6 years later b. Average age at T1 = 34.6 Assessed 2 years later	True intraindividual change models	ML: No significant change in narcissism RO: High stability for overall narcissism (r = .85) across 6 years, high stability for agentic admiration (r = .72) and antagonistic rivalry (r = .73) across 2 years

Note. CAQ = California Adult Q-Sort; NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; NPQ-R/NPQC-R = Narcissistic Personality Questionnaire (for Children)—Revised; CNS = Childhood Narcissism Scale; DIPSI = Dimensional Personality Symptom Item pool; NARQ-S = Narcissistic Admiration Rivalry Questionnaire—Short Scale. ^a Narcissism was measured using a composite of the 10 California Adult Q-set items most strongly correlated with NPI scores. ^b We did not include in the table another published article on narcissism (Cramer, 2011) because it used the same longitudinal data (IHD Intergenerational Studies) as Chopik and Grimm (2019), and therefore, the results are not independent. Carlson and Gjerde (2009) also used the same data (Block and Block Longitudinal Study) as Chopik and Grimm, but they examined stability and change in overall narcissism whereas Chopik and Grimm focused on three facets of narcissism (hypersensitivity, willfulness, autonomy). ^c Narcissism was assessed by a linear composite of the 13 NEO-PI-R facets that are most conceptually related to narcissism.

As Table 1 shows, eight of the 12 longitudinal studies examined rank-order stability. These studies found moderate to high stability, ranging from .55 to .85 corrected for measurement error (Grosz et al., 2019; Jung et al., 2022; Orth & Luciano, 2015; Wetzel et al., 2020; Wetzel & Robins, 2016; Zettler et al., 2021) and from .37 to .68 uncorrected for measurement error (Chopik & Grimm, 2019; Edelstein et al., 2012). These effect sizes are comparable with the average rank-order stability (r = .60) of the Big Five domains over similar periods (Bleidorn et al., 2022).

It is difficult to draw conclusions about developmental patterns of rank-order stability because of differences across studies in the age of participants, time interval between assessments, and the constructs assessed. Moreover, measurement issues plague the field (Weidmann et al., 2023); some studies used broad-based personality measures that were not designed to assess narcissism (e.g., NEO Personality Inventory [NEO-PI], California Adult Q-Sort [CAQ]-set), while other studies only assessed global narcissism or assessed facets of narcissism but not vulnerability.¹ Thus, prior research suggests we might find moderately high rank-order stability of grandiosity but does not provide clear predictions about vulnerability.

Mean-level change refers to the extent to which a group of individuals increase, decrease, or show no absolute change, on average, over time. Mean-level changes in a population may be driven by maturational processes (e.g., hormonal changes associated with puberty) or social-contextual factors, such as the transition into adult social roles. For instance, grandiosity may adaptive during adolescence, when a focus on the self and feelings of invulnerability can promote exploration of different identities and experiences (Erikson, 1968; Quadrel et al., 1993). In contrast, life transitions that occur in emerging adulthood (entering the workforce, committing to a long-term relationship partner, becoming a parent) tend to promote personality maturation (e.g., higher responsibility and greater concern for others), and consequently should lead to decreases in narcissism, given that being self-aggrandizing, entitled, and exploitative is the antithesis of maturity.

Despite theoretical reasons to expect a decline in narcissism from adolescence to emerging adulthood, prior studies have reported no mean-level change from age 14 to 16 (Wetzel & Robins, 2016), 11 to 21 (De Clercq et al., 2017), 14 to 23 (Carlson & Gjerde, 2009), or 19 to 29 (Grosz et al., 2019). Beyond emerging adulthood, studies have found declining levels of narcissism (Chopik & Grimm, 2019; Edelstein et al., 2012; Wetzel et al., 2020) or no significant change (Jung et al., 2024; Wille et al., 2019) across early to late adulthood. Consequently, we do not expect to find mean-level change in grandiosity, and it is difficult to make predictions about vulnerability given the dearth of relevant research.

Rank-order stability and mean-level change provide important information about narcissism development at the aggregate level, but not about how specific individuals change over time. For example, despite not finding mean-level change, De Clercq et al. (2017) found significant individual differences in intraindividual change from age 11 to 21, suggesting that increases and decreases in narcissism at the individual level were canceled out at the aggregate level. Thus, the present study will identify the proportion of participants who increased, decreased, or showed little change in narcissism, to determine whether the mean-level trends are masking important patterns of individual-level change.

The Present Study

The present study used data from a longitudinal study of 674 Mexican-origin youth to examine trajectories of narcissism from adolescence (age 14) to emerging adulthood (age 26). Specifically, the present study addressed four research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What is the rank-order stability of grandiose narcissism (and its facets, superiority and exploitativeness) and vulnerable narcissism from adolescence to emerging adulthood?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): What are the mean-level trajectories of grandiose narcissism (and its facets) and vulnerable narcissism from adolescence to emerging adulthood?

Research Question 3 (RQ3): What percentage of individuals increased, decreased, or stayed the same in grandiose and vulnerable narcissism?

Research Question 4 (RQ4): Does the level of stability and change in grandiose and vulnerable narcissism generalize across gender and nativity?

Given the dearth of longitudinal research on vulnerable narcissism, we only made predictions about grandiose narcissism. For RQ1, we expected to find moderate to high rank-order stability of grandiose narcissism. For RQ2, theoretical perspectives suggest decreases in narcissism following the transition to adulthood, but previous longitudinal studies have failed to support these perspectives; consequently, we did not expect to find mean-level change in grandiose narcissism. For RQ3, we expected that a non-trivial subset of individuals would show significant increases or decreases in grandiosity and vulnerability. For RQ4, we predicted that boys would have higher initial levels of grandiose narcissism than girls, based on prior research (Grijalva et al., 2015), but did not have hypotheses about differences in their slopes. We did not have hypotheses about how the findings will vary by nativity; these analyses are exploratory, providing insight into the generalizability of the findings across first-generation versus U.S. born youth.

The present study extends previous research in several ways. First, we examined individual-level change in narcissism, as well as rank-order stability mean-level change, from adolescence to emerging adulthood. Second, we tested different growth curve models (no growth, linear growth, latent basis) to determine the precise shape of the narcissism trajectories. Third, we examined vulnerable narcissism, a core component of narcissism that has rarely been studied in longitudinal research, and two facets of grandiose narcissism (superiority, exploitativeness). Fourth, we used well-validated measures of narcissism, whereas several prior longitudinal studies used measures (e.g., CAQ, NEO-PI) that were not designed to assess narcissism. Fifth, we tested whether stability and change in narcissism generalized across gender and nativity. Finally, we focused on a minoritized population that has been historically underrepresented in psychological research, especially research on narcissism; to our knowledge, no prior research has examined the development of narcissism in Mexican-origin or Latinx participants.

Method

Open code, materials, and preregistration are available on the Open Science Framework https://osf.io/n9zw8/?view_only=527d76503fff4236965e4d0cf9b6f148.

Participants

We used data from the California Families Project, an ongoing longitudinal study of 674 Mexican-origin children (50% female) and their parents living in the United States. The children were drawn at random from student rosters provided by schools in Sacramento and Woodland, California, with the following criteria: the child had to be in fifth grade, of Mexican origin, and living with their biological mother. Wave 1 occurred in 2006, when the children were 10.8 (SD = 0.50) years old. The interviews were conducted at the participants’ homes in either Spanish or in English, depending on the preference of the participant.

The present study used data collected at age 14 (N = 605), 16 (N = 600), 19 (N = 589), 21 (N = 542), 23 (N = 548), and 26 (N = 507) when narcissism was assessed. Attrition analyses for all study variables indicated that males were less likely than females to have more than one wave of data for vulnerability, χ²(1) = 4.89, p < .05, and those with higher scores of superiority were less likely to have more than one wave of data for this facet, t(5) = 2.68, p < .05.

Measures

Narcissism

Grandiose narcissism was assessed six times from age 14 to 26 using the Narcissistic Personality Questionnaire for Children–Revised (NPQC-R; Ang & Raine, 2009), a self-report questionnaire designed for children and adolescents.² The NPQC-R measures two facets of narcissism, superiority and exploitativeness, each assessed with six items. Superiority captures aspects of grandiose narcissism, such as vanity and inflated self-views (e.g., “I am going to be a great person.”). Exploitativeness captures interpersonally toxic aspects of narcissism, including exploitativeness, feelings of entitlement, and manipulativeness (e.g., “I am good at getting people to do things my way.”). Participants responded to all items on a rating scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (completely like me). One superiority item (“You think your body looks good”) and one exploitativeness item (“You would do almost anything if someone dared you”) were dropped after the age 19 assessment due to their weak conceptual connection to superiority and exploitativeness, respectively; consequently, these items were excluded from all analyses.

Vulnerable narcissism was assessed at ages 19, 21, 23, and 26 using the six-item vulnerability subscale of the Super Brief Pathological Narcissism Inventory (SB-PNI; Schoenleber et al., 2015, Supplementary Table S15). This scale includes items related to three facets of vulnerability: Contingent Self-Esteem (“It’s hard to feel good about yourself unless you know other people admire you”), Hiding the Self (“When others realize how needy you are, you feel anxious and ashamed”), and Devaluing (“Sometimes you avoid people because you’re concerned that they will disappoint you”). We supplemented the six-item SB-PNI vulnerability scale with a seventh PNI item (“You will never be satisfied until you get all that you deserve”) that assesses a fourth facet of vulnerability, entitlement. All items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (completely like me).

Gender

Child gender was coded as 1 = girl, 2 = boy.

Nativity Status

Nativity was coded as 1 = born in Mexico, 2 = born in the United States.

Data Analysis Plan

All data cleaning and analyses were conducted in R using the lavaan package. Full information maximum likelihood (FIML) was used to address missing data. An alpha level of .05 (two-tailed) was used for all significance tests.

We computed latent factors for each narcissism dimension using item parcels as indicators (Supplementary Table S16). We used parcels (instead of items) because they produce more stable solutions, are less likely to share specific sources of variance, and reduce the likelihood of spurious correlations (Little et al., 2002).

We examined longitudinal measurement invariance by comparing configural, weak, and strong models. We assessed adequate model fit by changes in chi-square and degrees of freedom, comparative fit index (CFI) less than or equal to .01, and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) less than or equal to .01 (Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Meade et al., 2008), and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) values less than or equal to .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1998, 1999). We aimed to identify a measurement model that fits the data well and shows strong or partial strong invariance for all narcissism scales, which would allow us to draw inferences regarding mean-level change.

After establishing measurement invariance, we z-scored narcissism measures at each timepoint using baseline means and standard deviations, and then estimated univariate latent growth curve models separately for each measure. We compared three models: (1) no growth (slope fixed to zero), (2) linear growth (slope reflects linear change in years from baseline [0, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11 for grandiosity; 0, 2, 4, 6 for vulnerability]), and (3) latent basis (first and last loadings fixed at 0 and 11 or 6 and other loadings are freed). We assessed differences in model fit using Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC). We considered model fit and parsimony when selecting the best fitting model.

To examine rank-order stability, we estimated latent test–retest correlations between adjacent measurement occasions and between the first (age 14 for grandiosity; age 19 for vulnerability) and last (age 26) measurement occasion.

To examine whether rank-order stability varied by gender and nativity, we compared a multigroup structural equation model that allowed the test–retest correlations to be freely estimated across groups to a model that constrained the test–retest correlations to be equal across groups. To examine whether the mean-level trajectory varied by gender and nativity, we compared the fit of a model in which the intercepts and slopes were freely estimated to a model that separately constrained the intercepts and slopes, respectively, to be equal across groups. If the constrained model did not fit significantly worse than the freely estimated model, then we concluded that the findings were the same across groups.

To examine individual differences in change, we computed bootstrapped confidence intervals for the individual-level, reliability-adjusted slopes; 95% confidence intervals that did not overlap with 0 indicated statistically significant increases or decreases.

Results

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for all narcissism measures are shown in Supplementary Tables S1 to S3. Zero-order correlations among the latent variables at each age are shown in Supplementary Table S4.

Constraining the factor loadings and intercepts yielded changes in CFI and TLI of less than .01 and RMSEA values of less than .06 for all narcissism measures (Supplementary Table S5), indicating strong longitudinal measurement invariance for grandiose and vulnerable narcissism.

Rank-Order Stability of Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissism

As Table 2 shows, the rank-order stabilities for all narcissism scales were moderate to high (r = .44–.75) between adjacent measurement occasions [2- or 3-year time intervals]). The 11-year stability coefficients ranged from .43 to .69 for grandiosity, and the 7-year stability coefficient was .50 for vulnerability. To directly compare the long-term stability of grandiosity and vulnerability, Table 2 also shows the 7-year (age 19–26) stability coefficients for grandiosity, which are similar to the 7-year stability of vulnerability. To test for age differences, we compared a model that constrained the stabilities to be equal across all adjacent age intervals to a model that freely estimated the stabilities across adjacent intervals. The model with freely estimated stabilities did not fit significantly better than the constrained model, indicating that the stability coefficients do not vary from adolescence to emerging adulthood for grandiosity or vulnerability (Supplementary Table S8).

Table 2.

Rank-Order Stability of All Narcissism Measures

Facet	Age 14–16	Age 16–19	Age 19–21	Age 21–23	Age 23–26	Age 14–26	Age 19–26
Facet	r [CI]	r [CI]	r [CI]	r [CI]	r [CI]	r [CI]	r [CI]
Grandiosity	.61 [.54, .68]	.55 [.48, .62]	.56 [.49, .63]	.67 [.60, .74]	.69 [.63, .76]	.43 [.34, .53]	.45 [.37, .54]
Superiority	.62 [.55, .69]	.56 [.49, .65]	.57 [.49, .65]	.67 [.59, .74]	.75 [.68, .82]	.40 [.30, .49]	.54 [.45, .62]
Exploitativeness	.72 [.63, .81]	.63 [.55, .71]	.60 [.51, .69]	.71 [.63, .79]	.75 [.68, .83]	.59 [.48, .68]	.53 [.44, .63]
Vulnerability	—	—	.46 [.39, .53]	.45 [.38, .52]	.50 [.42, .61]	—	.50 [.42, .57]

Note. Values in the table are standardized regression coefficients [with 95% confidence intervals] between latent variables assessed at adjacent waves.

All ps < .001.

Mean-Level Trajectory of Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissism

We examined mean-level change in grandiose and vulnerable narcissism by comparing three growth models—no growth, linear growth, and latent basis. For all measures, we retained a linear growth model due to model fit and parsimony (Supplementary Table S6). On average, individuals exhibited small linear increases in grandiosity ( $β$ = .36, 95% CI = [.21, .50]), superiority ( $β$ = .33, 95% CI = [.18, .48]), exploitativeness ( $β$ = .21, 95% CI = [.00, .41]), and vulnerability³ ( $β$ =.48, 95% CI = [.18, .78]) from age 14 (or 19) to 26 (Figure 1 and Supplementary Table S7).

Figure 1

Trajectories of All Narcissism Measures Over Time

Although the slope values indicate average increases in all narcissism scales, we found significant variance in the slopes, which indicates systematic variability in how youth’s narcissism levels changed over time. Thus, we examined the proportion of individuals who significantly increased, decreased, or showed no change in narcissism (Table 3). A majority of youth (54.7%–67.1%) increased in all components of narcissism, consistent with the aggregate trends, but one quarter to one third (25.9%–32.2%) declined in narcissism across the 12- or 7-year period. A small percentage (7.0%–13.0%) showed no statistically significant change.

Table 3

Estimates of Individual Differences in Change From Bootstrapped Latent Growth Models

Facet	Increased (%)	Decreased (%)	Stayed the same (%)
Grandiosity	67.1	25.9	7.0
Superiority	64.7	26.8	8.5
Exploitativeness	54.7	32.2	13.0
Vulnerability	61.6	28.5	9.8

Note. Participants were classified as having increased, decreased, or stayed the same by comparing their individual slope values to bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. Slopes were estimated from age 14 to 26 for grandiosity, superiority, and exploitativeness, and from age 19 to 26 for vulnerability.

Generalizability Across Gender and Nativity

Finally, we tested whether the findings differed by gender, nativity, or gender × nativity (Supplementary Tables S9–S14). We did not find significant differences in rank-order stability for grandiosity and its facets. For vulnerable narcissism, girls (r_girls = .57) showed higher rank-order stability than boys (r_boys = .40) across the 6-year span. No significant nativity differences were found for any narcissism measures. Thus, except for the gender difference in vulnerability, the stability of narcissism was similar for boys and girls and for youth born in the United States and Mexico.

With regard to mean-level change, we did not find significant gender differences in the intercepts for grandiosity or its facets, but we did find differences in the slopes; boys exhibited larger increases than girls in grandiosity ( $β$ = .52 for boys vs. $β$ = .20 for girls) and exploitativeness ( $β$ = .42 for boys vs. $β$ = .05 for girls). For vulnerability, we found a significant gender difference in the intercepts and slopes; boys had lower initial levels of vulnerability and exhibited smaller increases ( $β$ = .14) than girls ( $β$ = .61).

There were no significant nativity differences in either the levels or slopes of any of the narcissism trajectories, suggesting that youth born in the United States and Mexico show similar patterns of narcissism development.

Discussion

This study examined rank-order stability and mean-level change in grandiose and vulnerable narcissism from adolescence to emerging adulthood, as well as individual differences in change.

Do Narcissistic Adolescents Remain Narcissistic in Emerging Adulthood?

We found moderate to high rank-order stabilities of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. The level of stability is comparable with the stability of self-esteem (Trzesniewski et al., 2003) and the Big Five personality traits (Bleidorn et al., 2022), suggesting that narcissism is a relatively stable and enduring characteristic during adolescence and emerging adulthood. Exploitativeness was particularly consistent over time, perhaps indicating that this facet is less reactive to normative life transitions, or that exploitative individuals are more successful at selecting themselves into environments that allow them to engage in manipulative behaviors. In comparison, the densely packed transitions to adult social roles may have a stronger impact on the degree to which an individual experiences vulnerability and fragility in their self-views.

Although the rank-order stability of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism was high over relatively short (2 to 3 years) periods, it was somewhat attenuated across the full 7- or 12-year period, as is generally observed for psychological traits (Fraley & Roberts, 2005). These results, coupled with individual differences in the trajectories, suggest that individuals are shifting in their levels of narcissism relative to others, and that this reshuffling becomes more pronounced over longer intervals, highlighting the cumulative impact of time on the relative ordering of people. The decreased rank-order stability of narcissism across the entire study period might reflect a diminishing effect of long-term developmental factors (e.g., genetic predispositions) or the accumulating effects of stochastic processes beyond the individual’s control. The fact that rank-order stabilities did not approach zero even over a relatively longer time interval (i.e., 12 years) suggests that there may be time-invariant influences on narcissistic traits (Fraley & Roberts, 2005). Future research should identify specific factors that increase or reduce the rank-order stability of narcissism across adolescence and the transition to emerging adulthood. In summary, adolescents who are relatively high in narcissism tend to remain more narcissistic than others in emerging adulthood, but this becomes less true across longer periods of time.

Do People Become More or Less Narcissistic as They Transition From Adolescence Into Emerging Adulthood?

We found mean-level increases in all facets of narcissism. Specifically, individuals became more grandiose, superior, and exploitative from age 14 to 26 and more vulnerable from age 19 to 26. These findings are counter to theories of personality development. For example, Social Investment Theory suggests that transitions to adult social roles and other life experiences that occur during adulthood would lead to lower levels of narcissism, since adult roles typically entail more responsibility toward and consideration of others (Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007). It is possible that increases in narcissism may be adaptive in emerging adulthood, providing some benefit as one navigates a tumultuous world of changing identities and increased autonomy. For example, a belief in one’s superiority and a willingness to exploit others for personal gain may protect the self from inevitable setbacks and failures experienced during times of transition into new social roles, before declining later in adulthood when it is no longer adaptive for sustaining one’s position in the social hierarchy, forming close relationships with romantic partners, or finding purpose and meaning in life (Chopik & Grimm, 2019; Wetzel et al., 2020). This demonstrates the need to understand lifespan patterns of person–situation transactions, given that narcissism may offer greater benefits for the success and well-being of emerging adults as opposed to later in adulthood (Hill & Roberts, 2012).

The observed increase in narcissism is also counter to cross-sectional research showing that narcissism is lower in emerging adulthood than in adolescence (Foster et al., 2003), and longitudinal studies that found null or mixed results during this developmental period (Carlson & Gjerde, 2009; De Clercq et al., 2017; Farrell & Vaillancourt, 2021; Grosz et al., 2019). The inconsistent findings across studies may be due to the considerable individual variability in the slopes that often result in little change on average. In the present study, we found that slightly less than two thirds of the youth in our sample significantly increased in narcissism, consistent with the overall trend. However, one quarter to one third of participants significantly decreased in all components of narcissism, contrary to the overall trend. Such variability highlights the need for greater attention to narcissistic etiology and provides opportunities to identify developmental antecedents of who increases and decreases in narcissism over time. In summary, although most people become more narcissistic after transitioning into adulthood, many do not and some even decline significantly.

These findings should be considered in the context of our Mexican-origin sample. Both theory and research suggest that overall levels of narcissism should decline or remain the same during the transition into emerging adulthood. It is possible that being a member of a socioeconomically disadvantaged minoritized ethnic group—one that is subject to systemic and structural barriers, such as discrimination that contribute to reduced opportunities and resources—necessitates a boost in narcissistic tendencies to successfully adapt to adult social roles. In other words, minoritized individuals may not have the luxury of letting go of their narcissistic tendencies when they transition into emerging adulthood because they will get pushed down by the majority if they do not stand up for themselves. In addition, culture-specific expectations and scripts about when and how normative transitions into adult social roles occur may impact patterns of change. Specifically, Mexican-origin youth tend to hit key milestones (e.g., entering the workforce, starting a family) at an earlier age than national norms due to cultural values and expectations about the importance of providing financial support for one’s family (Schaeffer & Aragão, 2023). Yet, the paucity of research on the development of narcissism among Latinx youth and other minoritized communities makes it difficult to draw conclusions. Future research on narcissism should use more diverse samples and consider whether findings based on WEIRD samples—and the associated theories—generalize to understudied populations.

Another factor to consider is the potential overlap of grandiosity and vulnerability with other personality constructs, such as the Big Five domains. It is possible that short-term fluctuations in personality states might magnify individual differences in long-term changes in narcissism (Grosz et al., 2019). Narcissism can be viewed as a conglomerate of high extraversion, low agreeableness (high antagonism), and high neuroticism (high vulnerability). Using the same data set, Ringwald et al. (2024) found that agreeableness increased and neuroticism decreased from age 14 to 23, which would imply a decline in grandiosity and vulnerability whereas we found increases in these traits. Thus, changes in grandiosity and vulnerability are not fully captured by the Big Five trajectories.

Do the Findings Generalize Across Gender and Nativity?

We also examined whether our findings generalized across gender and nativity. Rank-order stability generally did not differ for boys and girls or for youth born in the United States versus Mexico, with one exception. Vulnerable narcissism was more stable among girls than boys, suggesting that boys experience greater individual differences in change in vulnerability. The transitions into adult social roles may have a less normative impact on boys compared with girls; future research should examine both the long-term and stochastic-developmental life events that impact the degree to which girls increase or decrease in characteristics, such as entitlement, contingent self-esteem, devaluing others, and feelings of shame.

With regard to the narcissism trajectories, boys and girls did not differ in their initial levels of grandiosity, contrary to meta-analytic findings that men score higher than women in grandiose narcissism and that this gender differences holds from childhood to old age. However, girls were higher in vulnerable narcissism, with a larger gender gap (d = .47) than that reported by Grijalva et al. (d = .04). This may be due, in part, to the overlap between vulnerable narcissism and neuroticism (Miller et al., 2018), as girls are more susceptible to mood disorders compared with boys (Li & Graham, 2017; Seney & Sibille, 2014). We found that boys showed larger increases in grandiose narcissism than girls, which may reflect gender differences in societal norms and expectancies about what it means to be a mature adult and how narcissistic traits are perceived in men and women. That is, because of gender-stereotyped social roles (i.e., women are socialized to “get along” whereas men are socialized to “get ahead”), grandiosity in women may come at greater cost in work and family contexts, because grandiose women place agentic needs ahead of communal needs and thus violate traditional gender role attitudes that are prominent in traditional Mexican culture (Knight et al., 2016); in contrast, grandiosity may have some adaptive advantages for men, who are following normative gender and cultural expectations by placing agentic needs ahead of communal needs. Thus, to the extent that grandiose narcissism is viewed as more socially desirable for men, and perhaps even confers benefits for men, it seems reasonable that men would devote greater effort toward cultivating their grandiosity whereas women would go to greater lengths to suppress theirs.

Limitations and Conclusion

The present study has several strengths, including the measurement of change at the aggregate and individual level, the assessment of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, the breakdown of grandiosity into two facets, the use of well-validated measures of narcissism, and the examination of narcissism development in an understudied ethnic minority sample whose trajectories may reflect, in part, culture-specific processes that have yet to be explored.

However, the present study also has limitations. First, vulnerable narcissism was first measured at age 19, whereas grandiose narcissism, superiority, and exploitativeness were first measured at age 14. Age 14 is clearly within the adolescent period whereas age 19 is on the border between adolescence and emerging adulthood, so the two starting points span different developmental windows. Second, we were not able to examine vulnerability at the facet level due to a lack of items. Third, our measures did not allow us to distinguish between agentic and antagonistic facets of grandiosity, which may show different patterns of stability and change over time. Fourth, it is possible that short-term fluctuations in personality states might magnify individual differences in long-term changes in narcissism (Grosz et al., 2019). Finally, although our study provides insight into the development of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism from adolescence to emerging adulthood, future research should aim to identify the developmental antecedents and processes that explain why some individuals increase in their narcissistic tendencies while others decrease during this developmental period.

The present study presents a picture of stability and change in narcissism across adolescence and emerging adulthood. People largely maintained their rank-ordering of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, and although most individuals increased during this period, there was significant variability in the magnitude and direction of change.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506241280324 – Supplemental material for Stability and Change in Narcissism From Adolescence to Emerging Adulthood: Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Mexican-Origin Youth

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506241280324 for Stability and Change in Narcissism From Adolescence to Emerging Adulthood: Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Mexican-Origin Youth by Winkie Ma, Emorie D. Beck and Richard W. Robins in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Footnotes

Handling Editor: Park Lora

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Winkie Ma and Richard W. Robins were supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse Grant (R01DA017902) and the National Institute of Mental Health Grant (R01MH123530).

ORCID iD

Winkie Ma

Data Availability

Open code and materials are available on the Open Science Framework ().

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Winkie Ma is a graduate student at University of California, Davis. Her research focuses on the structure, dynamics, changes, antecedents, and consequences of narcissism and self-esteem in various sociocultural contexts using both nomothetic and idiographic methods.

Emorie D. Beck is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at University of California, Davis. Her research focuses on how to understand the personality of an individual relative to only themself, relative to some others, and relative to all others using a mix of methods, including experience sampling methods, passive sensing, survey data, cognitive tests, and more measured across time intervals from moments to years.

Richard W. Robins is a Professor of Psychology at University of California, Davis. His research focuses on the development of personality and its consequences for important life outcomes, the nature and development of self-esteem and narcissism, the regulation and expression of social/self-conscious emotions (pride, shame, guilt, contempt), and the development of Mexican-origin youth.

References

Ang

R. P.

Raine

(2009). Reliability, validity and invariance of the Narcissistic Personality Questionnaire for Children-Revised (NPQC-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-008-9112-2

Bleidorn

Schwaba

Zheng

Hopwood

C. J.

Sosa

Roberts

Briley

(2022). Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 148(7–8), 588–619. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/eq5d6

Brunell

A. B.

Gentry

W. A.

Campbell

W. K.

Hoffman

B. J.

Kuhnert

K. W.

Demarree

K. G.

(2008). Leader emergence: the case of the narcissistic leader. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1663–1676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208324101

Bühler

J. L.

Orth

(2022). Rank-order stability of relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(5), 1138–1165. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000430

Carlson

K. S.

Gjerde

P. F.

(2009). Preschool personality antecedents of narcissism in adolescence and young adulthood: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.03.003

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Chopik

W. J.

Grimm

K. J.

(2019). Longitudinal changes and historic differences in narcissism from adolescence to older adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 34, 1109–1123. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000379

Cramer

(2011). Narcissism through the ages: What happens when narcissists grow older? Journal of Research in Personality, 45(5), 479–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.003

10.

De Clercq

Hofmans

Vergauwe

De Fruyt

Sharp

(2017). Developmental pathways of childhood dark traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(7), 843–858. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000303

11.

Edelstein

R. S.

Newton

N. J.

Stewart

A. J.

(2012). Narcissism in midlife: Longitudinal changes in and correlates of women’s narcissistic personality traits. Journal of Personality, 80(5), 1179–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00755.x

12.

Erikson

E. H.

(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton & Co.

13.

Farrell

A. H.

Vaillancourt

(2020). Bullying perpetration and narcissistic personality traits across adolescence: Joint trajectories and childhood risk factors. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, Article 483229. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.483229/full

14.

Farrell

A. H.

Vaillancourt

. (2021). Joint trajectories of adolescent narcissism and self-esteem predict interpersonal features in young adulthood. Journal of Research in Personality, 93, 104127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2021.104127

15.

Foster

J. D.

Keith Campbell

Twenge

J. M.

(2003). Individual differences in narcissism: Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00026-6

16.

Fraley

Roberts

(2005). Patterns of continuity: A dynamic model for conceptualizing the stability of individual differences in psychological constructs across the life course. Psychological Review, 112, 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.60

17.

Grijalva

Newman

D. A.

Tay

Donnellan

M. B.

Harms

P. D.

Robins

R. W.

Yan

(2015). Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 261–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038231

18.

Grosz

M. P.

Göllner

Rose

Spengler

Trautwein

Rauthmann

Wetzel

Roberts

(2019). The development of narcissistic admiration and machiavellianism in early adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000174

19.

Hill

P. L.

Roberts

B. W.

(2012). Narcissism, well-being, and observer-rated personality across the lifespan. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611415867

20.

Bentler

P. M.

(1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424

21.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

22.

Jung

Rentzsch

Schröder-Abé

(2024). The development and correlated change of narcissism and self-esteem in adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 38(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070221134410

23.

Kjærvik

S. L.

Bushman

B. J.

(2021). The link between narcissism and aggression: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 147, 477–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000323

24.

Knight

G. P.

Carlo

Mahrer

N. E.

Davis

A. N.

(2016). The socialization of culturally related values and prosocial tendencies among Mexican-American adolescents. Child Development, 87(6), 1758–1771. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12634

25.

S. H.

Graham

B. M.

(2017). Why are women so vulnerable to anxiety, trauma-related and stress-related disorders? The potential role of sex hormones. The Lancet Psychiatry, 4(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30358-3

26.

Little

T. D.

Cunningham

W. A.

Shahar

Widaman

K. F.

(2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1

27.

Lodi-Smith

Roberts

B. W.

(2007). Social investment and personality: A meta-analysis of the relationship of personality traits to investment in work, family, religion, and volunteerism. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 11(1), 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294590

28.

Meade

A. W.

Johnson

E. C.

Braddy

P. W.

(2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 568–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568

29.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

Vize

Crowe

Sleep

Maples-Keller

J. L.

Few

L. R.

Campbell

W. K.

(2018). Vulnerable narcissism is (mostly) a disorder of neuroticism. Journal of Personality, 86(2), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12303

30.

Orth

Luciano

E. C.

(2015). Self-esteem, narcissism, and stressful life events: Testing for selection and socialization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(4), 707–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000049

31.

Quadrel

M. J.

Fischhoff

Davis

(1993). Adolescent (in)vulnerability. American Psychologist, 48(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.102

32.

Ringwald

W. R.

Kaurin

Lawson

K. M.

Wright

A. G. C.

Robins

R. W.

(2024). The development of personality—From metatraits to facets—Across adolescence and into adulthood in a sample of Mexican-origin youth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(6), 1140–1160. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000487

33.

Rosenthal

S. A.

Pittinsky

T. L.

(2006). Narcissistic leadership. The leadership quarterly, 17(6), 617–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.005

34.

Schaeffer

Aragão

(2023, May 9). Key facts about moms in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/09/facts-about-u-s-mothers/

35.

Schoenleber

Roche

M. J.

Wetzel

Pincus

A. L.

Roberts

B. W.

(2015). Development of a brief version of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1520–1526. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000158

36.

Seney

M. L.

Sibille

(2014). Sex differences in mood disorders: Perspectives from humans and rodent models. Biology of Sex Differences, 5(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-014-0017-3

37.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Donnellan

M. B.

Robins

R. W.

(2003). Stability of self-esteem across the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.205

38.

van Geel

Toprak

Goemans

Zwaanswijk

Vedder

(2017). Are youth psychopathic traits related to bullying? Meta-analyses on callous-unemotional traits, narcissism, and impulsivity. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 48(5), 768–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-016-0701-0

39.

Weidmann

Chopik

W. J.

Ackerman

R. A.

Allroggen

Bianchi

E. C.

Brecheen

Campbell

W. K.

Gerlach

T. M.

Geukes

Grijalva

Grossmann

Hopwood

C. J.

Hutteman

Konrath

Küfner

A. C. P.

Leckelt

Miller

J. D.

Penke

Pincus

A. L.

. . . Back

M. D.

(2023). Age and gender differences in narcissism: A comprehensive study across eight measures and over 250,000 participants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(6), 1277–1298. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000463

40.

Wetzel

Grijalva

Robins

R. W.

Roberts

B. W.

(2020). You’re still so vain: Changes in narcissism from young adulthood to middle age. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(2), 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000266

41.

Wetzel

Robins

R. W.

(2016). Are parenting practices associated with the development of narcissism? Findings from a longitudinal study of Mexican-origin youth. Journal of Research in Personality, 63, 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.05.005

42.

Wille

Hofmans

Lievens

Back

M. D.

De Fruyt

(2019). Climbing the corporate ladder and within-person changes in narcissism: Reciprocal relationships over two decades. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, 103341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103341

43.

Zettler

Moshagen

Hilbig

B. E.

(2021). Stability and change: The Dark Factor of Personality shapes dark traits. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(6), 974–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620953288

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB