Two Narcissists Are Better Than One (or Three)

Self-obsessed individuals are not more creative in general, but they may impress when competing with a like mind

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.


For many years psychologists have explored whether narcissism and creativity are linked, and some studies have suggested that the self-obsessed may, in fact, be more creative than the rest of us. But new research from Cornell University argues otherwise.

Two hundred and forty-four under­graduates completed a test that measures narcissism (with questions such as, “I enjoy being the center of attention”). Participants then paired up and “pitched” movie ideas to one another, with one playing the role of pitcher and the other evaluator. Nar­cissistic participants’ pitches were consistently rated as especially cre­ative by evaluators, but when indepen­dent evaluators—unaware of which participants were self-obsessed—reviewed transcripts of the pitches, the narcissists’ pitches were not rated as more creative. This result suggests that charisma influences how egotists’ ideas are received, but the ideas themselves are no more creative than average.

Researchers then paired 292 un­der­grads (all of whom completed the narcissism test) into 73 four-person groups. The groups were given the task of proposing creative ways for a company to improve its performance. The experimenters found that having two narcissists in a group produced more creative results than a group with none, because their competitiveness sparked more brainstorming. But when more than two narcissists were in a group, the opposite happened—hyper­competitiveness scuttled the group’s productivity. 

SA Mind Vol 22 Issue 1This article was published with the title “Two Narcissists Are Better Than One (or Three)” in SA Mind Vol. 22 No. 1 (), p. 11
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0311-11b

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe