Narcissists Self-Involved Enough to Recognize Their Narcissism
The simple question “To what extent do you agree with this statement: I am a narcissist” is about as good at identifying narcissists as a 40-question clinical assessment. Erika Beras reports
By Erika Beras
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
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.
Here’s an easy way to find out if someone is a narcissist. Just ask them. That’s according to a study in the journal PLoS One. [Sara Konrath et al: Development and Validation of the Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS)]
Researchers posed the following question to more than two thousand people: “To what extent do you agree with this statement: I am a narcissist.”
The researchers also provided participants with a definition of narcissist: egotistical, self-focused and vain. Not traits most people would want to be associated with—unless of course you’re a narcissist.
A small percentage of the study subjects said they were. Most said they were not.
Then, researchers had the volunteers fill out a lengthy narcissism clinical assessment. Those who had rated themselves high on the narcissism scale also scored high on the assessment.
After eleven rounds of tests, the researchers concluded that when the full 40-question clinical questionnaire could not be done, the Single Item Narcissism Scale, or SINS, “To what extent do you agree with this statement: I am a narcissist,” was a valuable tool.
Seems that there isn’t much mystery when narcissists themselves are asked to self-identify. Yes, they may be narcissists—but they aren’t clueless.
—Erika Beras
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
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
