New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

TV, TV on the Wall

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

People have been fascinated with the figure of the narcissistic star at least since Norma Desmond announced that she was ready for her close-up in the 1950 film Sunset Boulevard. Norma is not alone—new research shows that celebrities of all types are significantly more vain than other people.

Two University of Southern California researchers conducted the study. One of them, Drew Pinsky, appears on a syndicated radio show called Loveline, in which visiting celebrities give relationship advice to callers. Together with his colleague S. Mark Young, Pinsky recruited 200 of his guests to fill out personality assessments.

These famous subjects scored about 15 percent higher for narcissism than the general population>—they were more conceited, had a greater sense of entitlement and superiority, and were more exhibitionistic. Ironically, the “ordinary people” who have become well known through reality TV shows scored the highest in overall narcissism, followed by comedians, actors and finally musicians, who scored only a little higher than nonfamous people.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


It could be that celebrity turns people into narcissists, but Young thinks it is the other way around, because narcissism was not affected by how long the celebrities had been famous. “What they hope is that they will get noticed and stroked,” he says. “What better place to get that than the entertainment industry?”

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe