Research Proposal

Are Parenting Practices Associated with the Development of Narcissism? Findings from a Longitudinal Study of Mexican- origin Youth

Eunike Wetzel1,2 and Richard W. Robins2

1Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz

2Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis

Abstract

Narcissism is an important and consequential aspect of personality, yet we know little about its

developmental origins. Using data from a longitudinal study of 674 Mexican-origin families, we

examined cross-lagged relations between parenting behaviors (warmth, hostility, monitoring) and

narcissism (superiority, exploitativeness). Parental hostility at age 12 was associated with higher

levels of exploitativeness at age 14, whereas parental monitoring at age 12 was associated with

lower levels of exploitativeness at age 14. These effects replicated across three different parenting

measures: child reports, spouse reports, and behavioral coding of parent-child interactions. None

of the parenting dimensions was related to superiority, suggesting that parenting practices are more

strongly related to the maladaptive than the adaptive component of narcissism.

Keywords

narcissism; exploitativeness; superiority; parental warmth; parental hostility; parental monitoring

Narcissism encompasses a wide range of characteristics, including feelings of superiority, a

sense of grandiosity, exhibitionism, exploitative behaviors in the interpersonal domain,

feelings of entitlement, fantasies of unlimited power, success, or beauty, and a lack of

empathy. Despite the abiding, and even growing, interest in narcissism, we know little about

its developmental origins and childhood correlates. Given the link between narcissism and

adjustment problems during childhood and adolescence (Barry, Frick, Adler, & Grafeman,

2007; Barry, Frick, & Killian, 2003; Washburn, McMahon, King, Reinecke, & Silver, 2004),

it is important to understand the socialization processes that contribute to the development of

narcissism. A large body of theoretical and empirical work suggests that parent socialization

practices play a central role in shaping children’s developmental trajectories (Bornstein,

2006; Parke & Buriel, 2006).

Corresponding Author: Eunike Wetzel, Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, 78457 Konstanz, Germany, eunike.wetzel@uni-konstanz.de.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

HHS Public Access Author manuscript J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

Published in final edited form as: J Res Pers. 2016 August ; 63: 84–94. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2016.05.005.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

The present study uses longitudinal data from 674 Mexican-origin families to examine

prospective effects of parenting on the development of narcissism. There are strong

theoretical reasons to expect that parenting practices play an important role in shaping

narcissistic tendencies. The first influential theory linking parenting to narcissism is based

on psychodynamic theory and was articulated by Kohut (1971, 1977) and Kernberg (1975),

although it can be traced back to Freud (1914). According to Kohut and Kernberg, parental

hostility and excessive criticism, along with a lack of warmth and responsiveness, lead to

feelings of inadequacy in children and impede the development of positive self-regard.

Children try to compensate for these feelings of inadequacy by inflating their self-worth and

constantly seeking approval and admiration from others. Narcissism can thus be seen as a

defensive reaction to parenting behaviors that convey disapproval and lack of acceptance and

support. The second influential theory, social learning theory, also posits that parenting

practices shape the development of child narcissism. In contrast to psychodynamic theory,

this perspective based on work by Millon (1969, 1981) posits that extremely permissive

parenting behavior, and in particular excessive parental indulgence and approval, are

responsible for the development of narcissistic tendencies. According to social learning

theory, children directly learn the behavior modeled by their parents and internalize their

parents’ beliefs that they are superior to others and entitled to special treatment and therefore

develop increased narcissism.

Despite the rich theoretical literature on parenting and narcissism, we know of only two

longitudinal studies on the topic. Cramer (2011) showed that children raised by authoritative and permissive parents (high responsiveness) exhibited more adaptive narcissistic tendencies, such as superiority and grandiosity, whereas children raised by authoritarian parents (low responsiveness) were less likely to exhibit such traits. In contrast, Cramer did

not find any main effects of parenting on the more maladaptive components of narcissism,

such as exploitativeness and entitlement. However, this study relied on self-reports of

parenting and involved a very small sample (e.g., 89 mothers reported on their parenting).

In a more recent longitudinal study, Brummelman et al. (2015) examined the influence of

parental indulgence (termed “parental overvaluation” in their study) and parental warmth on

the development of narcissism in late childhood. Parental indulgence (assessed via parent

self-report) predicted increases in narcissism from age 10 to 12, whereas parental warmth

(assessed via child-report and parent self-report) was not related to narcissism. No reciprocal

effects of child narcissism on parenting were found, suggesting the association is

unidirectional, going from parenting to narcissism rather than vice versa. Note, however, that

Brummelman et al. examined overall narcissism levels and did not differentiate between

facets of narcissism. An emerging body of research suggests that different facets of

narcissism have highly divergent antecedents and consequences. Facets encompassing

feelings of superiority and having a grandiose self-concept appear to be at least partially

adaptive since they have been linked to positive outcomes such as high self-esteem and

emotional stability and low loneliness and depression (Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995; Sedikides,

Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004; Trzesniewski, Donnellan, & Robins, 2008). In

contrast, facets encompassing a sense of entitlement and exploitativeness appear to be

maladaptive since they have been linked to negative outcomes such as trait anger,

aggression, counterproductive work behaviors, and dysfunctional interpersonal relationships

Wetzel and Robins Page 2

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

(Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Campbell & Campbell, 2009; Campbell, Foster, & Finkel,

2002; Miller et al., 2009). These findings highlight the need to distinguish the facets of

narcissism.

In addition to examining facets of narcissism, it is also important to consider self-esteem

when studying narcissism. Narcissism and self-esteem are conceptually related but distinct

traits. Although both entail a positive evaluation of the self, individuals with high self-

esteem are assumed to generally like and accept themselves, whereas narcissists are assumed

to have inflated views of their worth, and a compulsive need to be better than others,

presumably as a defense against underlying feelings of inadequacy. Consequently, whereas

high self-esteem involves seeing oneself as “a person of worth, at least on an equal basis

with others” (sample item from the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale; Rosenberg, 1979),

narcissism involves feeling superior to others, and carries with it a pattern of interpersonally

toxic tendencies such as exploitativeness and contempt toward others. Not surprisingly,

although measures of the two constructs tend to be moderately correlated (e.g., Brown &

Zeigler-Hill, 2004; Paulhus, Robins, Trzesniewski, & Tracy, 2004), they have quite different

relations with other constructs; for example, antisocial behavior, aggression, and hostility are

positively related to narcissism, but negatively related to self-esteem (Tracy, Cheng, Robins,

& Trzesniewski, 2009). The conceptual and empirical overlap between narcissism and self-

esteem raises the possibility that prior findings concerning the association between parenting

and narcissism may have been confounded by self-esteem. Neither Cramer (2011) nor

Brummelman et al. (2015) controlled for self-esteem when they examined associations

between parenting and narcissism, raising the possibility that their findings were driven by

the variance in narcissism that reflects genuine self-esteem rather than narcissistic

tendencies1. Narcissism with self-esteem partialed out can be conceptualized as a more pure

measure of narcissistic tendencies, with any aspects of genuine self-esteem removed. Thus,

in our models investigating parenting practices and narcissism, we will include self-esteem

as a control variable. By doing so, we will ensure that any observed associations with

narcissism are due to narcissism itself, and not its overlap with self-esteem.

The present study extends previous research on the development of narcissism by

investigating longitudinal relations between parenting practices and narcissism, using data

from a sample of 674 Mexican-origin youth followed from age 12 to 16. We extend previous

research in several important ways. First, we examined a more comprehensive set of

parenting dimensions, including the three most commonly studied components of parenting

(hostility, warmth, monitoring). Second, we assessed parenting using three different

methods: child report, spouse report, and behavioral coding of parent-child interactions.

Third, we examined effects separately for two important components of narcissism,

exploitativeness and superiority, as well as for overall narcissism levels. Fourth, we analyzed

data collected in a cohort-sequential longitudinal design with three waves of data spanning

five years. Fifth, we applied latent variable modeling techniques to investigate reciprocal

relations between parenting practices and narcissism, thereby controlling for measurement

1Although Brummelman et al. (2015) did not control for self-esteem when they examined the association between parenting and narcissism, they did examine relations between parenting and self-esteem, and found that child-reported (but not parent-reported) parental warmth was reciprocally related to self-esteem.

Wetzel and Robins Page 3

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

error. Sixth, we examined the effects of narcissism while controlling for its overlap with

self-esteem. Finally, we investigated the association between parenting and narcissism in an

important but understudied ethnic minority group, Mexican-origin families.

Hypotheses

We hypothesized that higher levels of parental hostility would be related to higher levels of

narcissism in adolescents, based on psychodynamic theories about the origins of narcissism

(Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1977). Although we know no empirical studies (longitudinal or

cross-sectional) that have investigated the effects of parental hostility, a study on parental

coldness, which is conceptually similar to parental hostility, found a positive association

with narcissism (Otway & Vignoles, 2006). Note, however, that if parental hostility is

assumed to be simply the converse of overvaluing a child, then we might expect hostility to

be related to lower levels of narcissism, based on Brummelman et al.’s (2015) finding that

overvaluation is related to higher narcissism. This is a situation where the social learning

perspective conflicts with the psychodynamic perspective. The former assumes a relatively

direct translation of feedback from one’s parents (“my parents think I’m perfect therefore I

think I’m perfect”; “my parents think I’m terrible therefore I think I’m terrible”), whereas

the latter assumes a defensive reaction (“my parents think I’m terrible, and that makes me

feel worthless so I am going to try to convince myself and others that I’m perfect”). Thus,

our hypothesis of a positive relationship between parental hostility and narcissism is derived

from psychodynamic perspective.

We also hypothesized that higher levels of parental monitoring would be related to lower

levels of narcissism. This hypothesis is based on concurrent studies documenting this

association (Barry et al., 2007; Horton, Bleau, & Drwecki, 2006; Miller & Campbell, 2008).

Furthermore, a lack of monitoring can be understood as part of a permissive, indulgent

parenting style (Horton, 2011). Thus, a negative relationship between parental monitoring

and narcissism can also be predicted from social learning theory and Brummelman et al.’s

finding that parental indulgence is positively associated with narcissism. A large body of

research has demonstrated that parental monitoring decreases risk for a wide range of

negative adolescent outcomes, and thus we would expect it to impede the development of

narcissistic tendencies (Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994; Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Pettit,

Laird, Dodge, Bates, & Criss, 2001), at least the maladaptive component. Finally, we did not

expect to find a relation between parental warmth and narcissism, based on Brummelman et

al.

In sum, we hypothesized:

H1: Parental hostility at age 12 and 14 will be positively related to narcissism

at age 14 and 16, even after controlling for prior levels of narcissism and

concurrent associations with parental hostility.

H2: Parental monitoring at age 12 and 14 will be negatively related to

narcissism at age 14 and 16, even after controlling for prior levels of

narcissism and concurrent associations with parental monitoring.

Wetzel and Robins Page 4

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

H3: The effects specified in Hypotheses 1 and 2 will hold after controlling for

self-esteem and gender.

We did not make separate predictions for the exploitativeness and superiority facets because

prior research and theory concerning the effects of parenting has focused on the overall

narcissistic profile. Note that these hypotheses are based on the assumption that narcissism is

still undergoing development during adolescence. If narcissism emerges and stabilizes

earlier than the time period examined in the present study, we would not expect any of the

parenting measures to predict narcissism. However, it seems likely that the socialization

processes specified by both social learning theory and psychodynamic theory continue into

adolescence. For example, the socialization processes described by social learning theory

imply that narcissistic tendencies are likely to continue to develop across the lifespan, and

certainly within the late childhood to adolescence period covered by the present study.

Although classic psychodynamic theories imply that narcissism first emerges earlier, the

defensive processes that theoretically give rise to narcissistic tendencies are likely to be

particularly relevant during and following the transition into adolescence (the time period

covered by the present study), when youth face considerable socioemotional difficulties that

often trigger feelings of insecurity and inadequacy.

Method

Sample

Data come from the California Families Project, an ongoing longitudinal study of 674

Mexican-origin children (50% female) and their families. The children were drawn at

random from student rosters provided by two school districts in metropolitan areas of

Northern California. The focal child had to be in the 5th grade, of Mexican origin, and living

with his or her biological mother. Of the eligible families, 73% agreed to participate. The

sample has been assessed annually since 2006, when the children were 10.8 (SD = .61) years of age on average. Trained interviewers visited the participants at home. The interviews were

conducted either in Spanish or in English, depending on the preference of the participant.

The present study used data collected when the children were 12, 14, and 16 years old, when

most of the key measures were available. The retention rate in the age 16 assessment was

90% (relative to the original sample of 674). Attrition analyses showed that families who

participated in the age 16 assessment did not differ significantly from nonparticipating

families in child gender, parent education, and family income, all ps > .05, or on any of the constructs investigated in this study, namely narcissism (overall and facet-level), parental

warmth, parental hostility, parental monitoring, and self-esteem (all ps > .05).

Measures

Descriptive statistics and alpha reliability coefficients for all measures are shown in Table 1.

All measures were available at ages 12, 14, and 16, except for the narcissism scale, which

was available at ages 14 and 16, and the observational assessments of parenting, which were

available at age 12.

Wetzel and Robins Page 5

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Narcissistic Personality Questionnaire for Children – Revised (NPQC-R)—The NPQC-R (Ang & Raine, 2008) is a self-report instrument designed to assess narcissism in

children and adolescents. It includes two subscales, Superiority and Exploitativeness, which

are assessed with six items each. Superiority captures the grandiose aspects of narcissism

including feelings of superiority, vanity, and inflated self-views. A sample item on the

superiority scale is “I am going to be a great person.” Exploitativeness captures the

interpersonally maladaptive aspects of narcissism including interpersonal exploitativeness,

feelings of entitlement, and manipulativeness. A sample item on the exploitativeness scale is

“I am good at getting people to do things my way.” Participants responded on a five-point

rating scale ranging from not at all like me (1) to completely like me (5).

Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSE)—The RSE (Rosenberg, 1965, 1979) consists of 10 items assessing global self-esteem such as “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”.

Participants rated how well the items described them on a scale ranging from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (4).

Behavioral Affect Rating Scale (BARS)—The BARS (Conger, 1989a) assesses parental warmth (9 items) and parental hostility (13 items). The parental warmth scale reflects how often the parent displayed warmth toward the child, for example by listening

carefully to the child’s point of view. The parental hostility scale reflects the frequency of hostile behavior toward the child, for example by ignoring the child when the child tries to

talk to the parent. Responses to the BARS items were collected from two informants: the

child and the spouse. That is, the mother’s parenting behaviors were rated by the child and

father whereas the father’s parenting behaviors were rated by the child and mother. The

ratings were made with respect to behavior displayed during the past three months on a

response scale from almost never or never (1) to almost always or always (4).

Iowa Parenting Scale (IPS)—The IPS (Conger, 1989b) assesses parenting practices mainly with respect to discipline. Parental warmth (9 items) was assessed by combining items related to positive reinforcement (e.g., “When you have done something your mom

likes or approves of, how often does she let you know she is pleased about it?”) and

inductive reasoning(e.g., “How often does your mom give you reasons for her decisions?”).

The rating scale was the same as the BARS rating scale. As with the BARS, ratings by the

child and the spouse were collected. For the child-report data, the correlation of IPS

maternal (paternal) warmth with BARS maternal (paternal) warmth ranged from .72 to .75 (.

79 to .80) across assessments. For the parent-reports, the correlation of IPS maternal

(paternal) warmth with BARS maternal (paternal) warmth ranged from .65 to .76 (.78 to .81)

across assessments.

Parental Monitoring of Child (PMC)—The PMC (Small & Kerns, 1993) assesses the extent to which the parents are informed about how and with whom their child spends their

time (e.g., “Your mom knew who your friends were.”, “Your mom knew where you were

and what you were doing.”). For 9 out of the 14 items, a four-point rating scale ranging from

almost never or never to almost always or always was used. For five items addressing the parent’s monitoring of social plans such as “If you were going to get home late, you were

Wetzel and Robins Page 6

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

expected to call her”, a fifth response category was introduced to reflect that the child was

not allowed to show the described behavior (e.g., not allowed to stay out late). Parental

monitoring was assessed with respect to the past three months via child-report, parent self-

report, and spouse-report.

Observational assessments of parenting—During the interviewer visits, structured interaction tasks (mother-child, father-child) were videotaped in the families’ homes and

later rated by trained coders on a wide range of behavioral dimensions adapted from the

Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Melby et al., 1998). Different coders rated each

parent’s behavior.

To parallel the BARS, IPS, and PMC scales, we used the observational data to assess

parenting behaviors related to hostility, warmth, and monitoring. Hostility reflects the degree to which the focal parent displayed hostile, angry, critical, or disapproving behavior toward

the child during the interaction. Warmth reflects the degree to which the focal parent

expressed liking, appreciation, praise, care, concern, or support for the child. Monitoring

reflects the degree to which the parent displayed knowledge of and pursued information

about the child’s life and daily activities during the interaction.

All scales were rated on a nine-point scale ranging from not at all characteristic (1) to mainly characteristic (9). Most interactions were rated by a single coder. For a random selection of 25% of the interaction tasks, ratings from two coders were available in which

case the averaged score across raters was analyzed. The intraclass correlation between

coders was .86 (.85) for maternal (paternal) hostility, .80 (.66) for maternal (paternal)

warmth, and .68 (.67) for maternal (paternal) monitoring.

Analyses

Overview—We first tested for longitudinal measurement invariance and then estimated latent cross-lagged panel models to investigate reciprocal relations between narcissism (total

score, superiority, exploitativeness) and parenting practices. All analyses were conducted in

Mplus (Version 7.11; Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2014) using maximum likelihood estimation

robust to non-normality (denoted MLR in Mplus). To deal with missing data, we used full

information maximum likelihood estimation to fit models directly to the raw data (Schafer &

Graham, 2002). Model fit was evaluated by the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990),

the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973), and the root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990). Good fit is indicated by values above .95 for the

CFI and TLI, and values below .05 for the RMSEA (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Longitudinal measurement invariance—Measurement invariance was evaluated following the procedure outlined in Meredith (1993) and Widaman and Reise (1997). That

is, starting with a baseline model of configural invariance where all parameters were free to

vary across waves of assessment, we first constrained the factor loadings to be equal across

ages (metric invariance) and then additionally constrained the indicator intercepts to be

equal across ages (scalar invariance). These nested models were tested using a χ2 difference test based on rescaled log-likelihood values (due to the MLR estimator) and the difference in

CFI between models (ΔCFI). If the χ2 difference test indicated that the more restrictive

Wetzel and Robins Page 7

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

model fit significantly worse than the less restrictive model at α = .01 and ΔCFI was > .002 (Meade, Johnson, & Braddy, 2008), one parameter at a time was freed based on the

modification indices and the χ2 difference test and check of ΔCFI were repeated until both criteria were fulfilled.

With respect to child-report data, full scalar invariance held for overall narcissism,

superiority, exploitativeness, BARS maternal warmth, BARS maternal hostility, BARS

paternal warmth, BARS paternal hostility, and maternal monitoring. Partial scalar invariance

held for self-esteem, IPS maternal warmth, IPS paternal warmth, and paternal monitoring.

With respect to the parent-report data, mother-report of paternal monitoring showed full

scalar invariance and all other constructs (BARS, IPS, and PMC parenting scales) showed

partial scalar invariance. Thus, overall, the same constructs were being measured over time,

although for some constructs one or two of the indicators were not fully invariant across

waves.

Latent cross-lagged panel models (LCLP)—Figure 1 shows the basic structure of the models to be tested. Each model includes one of the three parenting dimensions at age 12,

14, and 16 and either overall narcissism or the two narcissism facets at age 14 and 16.

Three parcels consisting of two to five items (depending on the length of the scale) were

used as indicators for each latent variable. The items were randomly assigned to parcels.

Indicators based on the same items were correlated across waves (e.g., indicator 1 for

exploitativeness at age 14 was correlated with indicator 1 for exploitativeness at age 16).

First-order and second-order stability paths were included (e.g., maternal warmth at age 12

predicted maternal warmth at age 14 and maternal warmth at age 16). First-order cross-

lagged regression paths were modeled between constructs, for example narcissism at age 16

was regressed on maternal warmth at age 14 and maternal warmth at age 16 was regressed

on narcissism at age 14. Different constructs within a wave were correlated (e.g., narcissism

at age 14 with maternal warmth at age 14). The regression paths were allowed to vary over

time because model comparisons showed that the constraint of time-invariant paths

deteriorated model fit.

The analyses were conducted separately for child-report and parent-report of BARS, IPS,

and PMC scales as well as for observational assessments of parental warmth, parental

hostility, and parental monitoring. Gender and self-esteem were included as covariates in all

models. Latent variables for self-esteem at age 12, age 14, and age 16 were included in the

latent cross-lagged panel models. Thus, self-esteem is a time varying covariate.

Results

Gender Differences and Stability over Time

Narcissism did not show any gender differences, either at the overall or facet level. At all

ages, girls reported higher paternal warmth than boys on the BARS (but not IPS) scale and

higher maternal warmth on the IPS (but not BARS) scale; however, neither gender difference

held for parent reported warmth. Girls reported higher maternal monitoring than boys at all

ages and higher paternal monitoring at ages 14 and 16. For the mothers’ self-report of their

Wetzel and Robins Page 8

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

monitoring of the child, monitoring scores were also higher for girls at age 14 and 16. No

significant gender differences were found for mothers reporting on paternal monitoring or

fathers reporting on their own monitoring and maternal monitoring. Boys reported higher

self-esteem than girls at age 14 (t = −2.87, p = .004), but not at age 12 or at age 16.

Overall narcissism and the superiority facet were moderately stable from age 14 to 16, with

average stability coefficients of .58 (range .57 – .59) for the total scale and .61 (range .61 – .

62) for the superiority facet. In contrast, the exploitativeness facet was less stable with an

average stability coefficient of .46 (range .46 – .47). The first-order (age 12 to 14 and 14 to

16) stability coefficients for the parenting dimensions ranged (across waves and child- and

parent-reports) from .44 to .75 for paternal hostility, .31 to .63 for maternal hostility, .45 to .

75 for paternal warmth, .42 to .53 for maternal warmth, .46 to .72 for paternal monitoring,

and .41 to .63 for maternal monitoring. The second-order stability coefficients, spanning age

12 to 16, were, as expected given that they control for the 1st order stabilities, much lower,

with an average of .20 for parental hostility, .24 for parental warmth, and .19 for parental

monitoring.

Reciprocal Relations between Parenting and Narcissism

As shown in Table 2, the overall fit of all models tested was good (CFI ≥ .96, TLI ≥ .95,

RMSEA ≤ .04). Standardized regression coefficients for cross-lagged effects from all

models are depicted in Tables 3–5. Below we organize the results by parenting dimension;

within each section, we describe the results separately for the narcissism total score,

exploitativeness, and superiority.

Parental hostility—Parental hostility at age 12 predicted narcissism at age 14 for both mothers and fathers. Importantly, this effect was consistent across child- and parent-report as

well as observational data, although in the observational data the effect was only significant

for maternal hostility. Thus, higher parental hostility at age 12 was associated with children

reporting higher narcissism at age 14. Thus, H1 was partly confirmed since this relationship

held for age 12 to age 14, but not age 14 to age 16. Furthermore, H3 was confirmed since

this effect was significant with both gender and self-esteem entered as control variables.

Facet-level analyses revealed that this effect was mainly attributable to the exploitativeness

facet of narcissism: Consistently a cross-lagged effect between parental hostility at age 12

and exploitativeness at age 14 appeared in models differentiating the two narcissism facets

(see Table 3). Thus, for both mothers and fathers, a higher degree of hostility towards their

child at age 12 was related to their child reporting being more exploitative at age 14. As for

overall narcissism, this finding held not only across maternal and paternal hostility, but also

across different informants on the BARS (child and spouse) as well as for the observational

data, though the effect was only marginally significant for observational data on paternal

hostility (β = .10, p = .12). For example, for maternal hostility, the child-report BARS yielded a beta of .29, the parent-report BARS yielded a beta of .18 and the observational

rating yielded a beta of .17. Parental hostility at age 14 did not significantly predict

exploitativeness or overall narcissism at age 16. Furthermore, the cross-lagged regressions

between parental hostility and superiority were non-significant in all cases. There were no

notable differences, in either effect sizes or significance levels, between the models

Wetzel and Robins Page 9

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

including self-esteem as a control variable and the models not including self-esteem as a

control variable.

Parental warmth—Parental warmth was not related to overall narcissism, as expected. At the facet-level, there were also no consistent cross-lagged effects on either exploitativeness

or superiority. One effect that replicated across the BARS and IPS scales was a negative

relationship between paternal warmth at age 12 and exploitativeness at age 14 (β = −.12, p = .015 for BARS and β = −.11, p = .036 for IPS). However, this effect was only significant for the spouse-report of paternal warmth and not for the child-report and it was also not

found in the observational data. Parental warmth at age 12 predicted superiority at age 14 for

IPS maternal warmth (β = .14, p = .035), for IPS paternal warmth (β = .19, p = .001), and for BARS paternal warmth (β = .12, p = .031). However, in this case, the effect was only present for child-report data and not for parent-report data and it was also not present in the

observational ratings of parental warmth (see Table 4). In some (but not all) of the models

without self-esteem as a control variable, parental warmth at age 12 positively predicted

superiority at age 14 (e.g., β = .15, p = .019 for BARS maternal warmth in the spouse-report data).

Parental monitoring—Our prediction (H2) that parental monitoring would be associated with overall narcissism levels was not confirmed. However, when narcissism was

differentiated into the two facets exploitativeness and superiority, we found that both

maternal and paternal monitoring at age 12 were negatively related to exploitativeness at age

14. For example, the standardized regression coefficient for the child-report of parental

monitoring was −.16 for paternal monitoring and −.14 for maternal monitoring. In the

models without self-esteem as a control variable, the effect was slightly smaller for maternal

monitoring (β = −.10) and did not reach significance (p = .072). This result also held for parent-report data (e.g., β = −.10, p = .049 for mother-report of paternal monitoring), although not all effects were large enough to reach significance (e.g., β = −.07, p = .28 for father-report of maternal monitoring). For the data from observational assessments this

effect was confirmed for paternal monitoring, but not maternal monitoring (see Table 5). The

superiority facet was not related to parental monitoring in models including self-esteem. In

models without self-esteem, a positive association between superiority and parental

monitoring was found when monitoring was assessed via parent and child reports (e.g., β = . 15, p = .006 for mother-report of paternal monitoring), but not using the observational data. Thus, it appears that adolescents who were monitored less closely at age 12 tended to have

higher exploitativeness levels over time compared to adolescents who were monitored more

closely at age 12.

Supplemental Analyses

In supplemental analyses, we examined reciprocal cross-lagged relations between the

narcissism facets and self-esteem. Higher self-esteem at age 12 was related to higher

superiority at age 14 (β = .43, p < .001), whereas superiority at age 12 was not related to self-esteem at age 14. Exploitativeness and self-esteem were not related. These effects

consistently held when each of the parenting dimensions was added to the model. We also

tested whether the parenting dimensions had interactive effects on narcissism. We found that

Wetzel and Robins Page 10

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

the association between paternal hostility and exploitativeness was stronger for higher levels

of monitoring (interaction effect b = .17, p<.001) and for higher levels of warmth (interaction effect b = .14, p < .001). In addition, we found that the association between paternal hostility and superiority was stronger for higher levels of monitoring, (interaction

effect, b = .10, p = .041). Thus, it appears that monitoring tends to magnify the effects of parenting on narcissism, at least for fathers.

Lastly, we tested whether nativity (born in Mexico vs. the U.S.) moderated the relations

between parenting and narcissism. We found two significant effects: nativity moderated the

association between observed maternal hostility and superiority and between observed

maternal warmth and exploitativeness. However, we do not believe these interaction effects

merit interpretation because: (a) we conducted a total of 72 interactions tests and two

significant effects is less than would be expected by chance; (b) the interaction effects held

only for observational assessments of parenting and did not replicate for either child or

parent reports, and (c) the effects did not replicate for any measure of paternal hostility and

warmth. Overall, then, the results suggest that our basic findings hold for youth who were

born in Mexico as well as those born in the United States. Moreover, all of the significant

findings remained significant after controlling for nativity; that is, after nativity was entered

as a covariate in the models.

Discussion

The present study investigated the association between parenting practices and the

development of narcissism using data from a large longitudinal study of Mexican-origin

children and their parents. The two most robust predictors were parental hostility and

parental monitoring, with hostility associated with higher exploitativeness from age 12 to 14

and parental monitoring associated with lower exploitativeness from age 12 to 14. These

effects replicated across three different parenting measures (child reports, spouse reports,

and behavioral coding of parent-child interactions), and held for youth born in Mexico and

the United States. Surprisingly, none of the parenting dimensions was related to superiority,

suggesting that parenting practices are more strongly related to the maladaptive than the

adaptive component of narcissism. Below we discuss the implications of the findings for

theory, research, and practice.

The tendency for youth raised by hostile parents to develop higher levels of exploitativeness

is consistent with psychodynamic theory. Specifically, psychodynamic theory posits that

children exposed to hostile and overly critical parents will develop feelings of inadequacy

that they will try to compensate for by exploiting and seeking admiration from others

(Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1977). However, psychodynamic theory also posits that a lack of

parental warmth plays an important role in the development of narcissism. This prediction

was not confirmed in our study since we found no relationship between parental warmth and

narcissism, neither at the level of overall narcissism nor at the level of the exploitativeness

and superiority facets. Interestingly, when we explored interactions among the parenting

dimensions, we found that the effect of paternal hostility on exploitativeness was stronger

for higher levels of warmth, as well as for higher levels of monitoring. Especially the

interaction between parental hostility and parental warmth is consistent with the idea

Wetzel and Robins Page 11

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

grounded in psychodynamic theory that parental behavior characterized by first elevating

children with love and support and then tearing them down with excessive criticism fosters

the development of narcissism. Although these results should be interpreted with caution,

since neither effect replicated for parent-report or observational assessments of parenting,

they do suggest that the association between parenting practices and narcissism is likely to

be more complex than what can be captured by unidimensional measures of parenting.

Finally, it is important to note that most theories of the origins of narcissism do not specify

distinct developmental pathways to the specific facets of narcissism. The moderate stability

coefficients at the level of overall narcissism and at the facet level indicate that narcissism

and in particular the exploitativeness facet have not fully stabilized by adolescence. It is

mainly the maladaptive components of narcissism such as exploitativeness that are related to

a number of adjustment problems in adolescence (e.g., Washburn et al., 2004). Thus, more

conceptual work is needed to extend current theories to the development of the maladaptive

and adaptive components of narcissism, taking into account different developmental periods

from childhood to adolescence.

Most of our findings are consistent with prior research. For example, our finding that overall

narcissism was not related to parental warmth is consistent with Brummelman et al. (2015).

In some of our models without self-esteem as a control variable, parental warmth was related

to the adaptive superiority facet. This is in line with Cramer (2011) who found that parenting

styles characterized by high responsiveness (an aspect of warmth) were related to higher

levels of adaptive narcissistic traits, although we did not find this relationship when we

controlled for self-esteem. We found that high parental monitoring was related to lower

levels of exploitativeness, but not to higher levels of superiority. This is consistent with

cross-sectional research showing a negative relationship between parental monitoring and

overall narcissism (Barry et al., 2007; Horton et al., 2006; Miller & Campbell, 2008). The

convergence of our results with previous research suggests that the relationship between

parenting behaviors and narcissism is similar across different cultural contexts, such as

Mexican-origin and European background youth living in the United States and Dutch

youth. This is substantiated by our finding that nativity did not influence the relations

between parenting and narcissism. Nevertheless, the degree to which the cultural context

plays a role in the developmental processes involved in narcissism is an empirical question

that merits further research.

Controlling for self-esteem was an important extension of the analyses conducted in

previous studies. Superiority and self-esteem were positively related, with self-esteem at age

12 predicting superiority at age 14. This overlap between superiority and self-esteem

produced differences between the effects found in models that controlled vs. did not control

for self-esteem. For example, in models investigating the narcissism facets and parental

monitoring without controlling for self-esteem, parental monitoring at age 12 predicted

superiority at age 14. When self-esteem was added to the model, this relationship was

diminished greatly and no longer statistically significant, illustrating that the initial effect

was only due to the confounding of superiority and self-esteem. The same pattern occurred

in some models examining the association between parental warmth and superiority. Thus,

relationships between positive parenting dimensions and superiority appear to be attributable

to the shared variance between superiority and self-esteem; when the variance associated

Wetzel and Robins Page 12

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

with self-esteem is statistically removed, the resulting more pure measure of narcissistic

self-aggrandizement is not related to the positive parenting dimensions of warmth and

monitoring. This finding highlights the importance of controlling for self-esteem when

examining the effects of narcissism, and vice versa. Note that as exploitativeness was not

correlated with self-esteem, all observed associations between parenting and exploitativeness

were robust across models that included or did not include self-esteem as a control.

The present study also extended previous research by investigating the codevelopment of the

two facets of narcissism. With regard to general patterns of change, both facets showed

virtually no mean-level change from age 14 to 16 and moderately high rank-order stability,

with superiority showing somewhat higher stability than exploitativeness. Interestingly,

when we examined prospective cross-lagged associations between the two facets, we found

that superiority at age 14 predicted exploitativeness at age 16, but exploitativeness at age 14

did not predict superiority at age 16. It is possible that a certain degree of superiority is

needed in order to exhibit exploitative behaviors; that is, a sense of superiority can engender

feelings of entitlement and help rationalize exploiting others. Thus, superiority may be a

developmental precursor of exploitativeness, with both facets merging into a coherent

narcissistic style later in development. In line with this possibility, the concurrent correlation

between the two facets of narcissism was significantly higher at age 16 (latent r = .55) compared to age 14 (latent r = .38), implying that superiority and exploitativeness levels were more aligned at age 16 than at age 14. In general, the divergent pattern of findings for

superiority and exploitativeness, and the fact that superiority is prospectively associated with

exploitativeness, illustrate the importance of investigating narcissism at the facet level.

The present findings have important practical implications. In particular, they highlight two

promising targets of intervention: parental hostility and monitoring. Specifically, parenting

interventions that reduce hostility and improve monitoring could potentially disrupt the

developmental pathways that lead to exploitativeness, a maladaptive component of

narcissism that has been linked to adjustment and behavioral problems in childhood and

adolescence (Barry et al., 2007; Barry et al., 2003; Washburn et al., 2004).

Limitations of the Study

Several limitations merit attention. First, narcissism was assessed on two occasions during

adolescence. Both narcissism facets showed moderate rank-order stability during this time

period, raising the possibility that some of the processes that contribute to the development

of narcissism have already unfolded by adolescence. Stronger links to parenting practices

could be expected earlier in development when narcissism levels are presumably undergoing

greater change. Nevertheless, our results indicate that the socialization processes involved in

the development of narcissism continue into adolescence. That is, an adolescent

experiencing hostile feedback from his/her parents is likely to exhibit the same feelings of

inadequacy, and compensate for these feelings by inflating his/her self-worth, in the same

way as a child receiving such feedback, and consequently the socialization processes

through which hostile parenting influences narcissism are likely to persist across

adolescence. Similarly, from a social learning perspective, it seems likely that the relatively

straightforward process of learning about oneself via feedback from parents is likely to

Wetzel and Robins Page 13

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

persist across adolescence. It would be important to investigate the effects of parenting on

narcissism in a longitudinal study where both constructs are assessed at younger ages,

preferably using informant assessments of narcissism given the problems with self-reports

by young children. Even if parent socialization processes persist into adolescence, as we

believe they do, they may be more consequential earlier in development; that is, there may

be a sensitive period in the development of narcissism.

Second, the study design does not allow for strong conclusions regarding the causal effect of

parenting on narcissism. As in all passive observational designs, effects between factors may

be caused by third variables that were not assessed (Finkel, 1995). Nevertheless, longitudinal

analyses are useful because they can indicate whether the data are consistent with a causal

model of the relation between the variables.

Third, the results do not allow for firm conclusions with regard to the clinical category of

narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). The narcissism measure used in the present research

was designed to assess individual differences in the normal range of narcissistic tendencies,

but conclusions about the antecedents of NPD should be based on diagnoses from clinical

interviews. Moreover, our analyses are based on a nonclinical sample, which do not allow

for valid conclusions about narcissistic tendencies in clinical populations.

Conclusion

Considering the detrimental effects of narcissism in the interpersonal domain, investigating

the development of narcissism is an important endeavor. Our study showed that parental

hostility and parental monitoring were related to adolescents’ exploitativeness two years

later, indicating that parenting practices play a central role in the development of narcissism

during adolescence. Nevertheless, there are many open questions, including identifying the

developmental precursors of the superiority facet of narcissism and understanding how

parenting practices shape the development of narcissism in younger children.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a post-doc fellowship awarded to Eunike Wetzel by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (DA017902) to Richard W. Robins and Rand D. Conger. We thank the participating families, staff, and research assistants who took part in this study.

References

Ang RP, Raine A. Reliability, validity and invariance of the Narcissistic Personality Questionnaire for Children-Revised (NPQC-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2008; 31:143–151.

Barber BK, Olsen JE, Shagle SC. Associations between parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Development. 1994; 65(4):1120–1136. [PubMed: 7956469]

Barry CT, Frick PJ, Adler KK, Grafeman SJ. The Predictive Utility of Narcissism among Children and Adolescents: Evidence for a Distinction between Adaptive and Maladaptive Narcissism. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2007; 16(4):508–521.

Wetzel and Robins Page 14

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Barry CT, Frick PJ, Killian AL. The relation of narcissism and self-esteem to conduct problems in children: a preliminary investigation. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2003; 32(1):139–152. [PubMed: 12573939]

Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin. 1990; 107(2):238– 246. [PubMed: 2320703]

Bornstein, MH. Parenting science and practice. In: Renninger, KA., editor. Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 4. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2006. p. 893-949.

Brown RP, Zeigler-Hill V. Narcissism and the non-equivalence of self-esteem measures: A matter of dominance? Journal of Research in Personality. 2004; 38(6):585–592.

Bushman BJ, Baumeister RF. Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998; 75(1):219–229. [PubMed: 9686460]

Campbell WK, Campbell SM. On the self-regulatory dynamics created by the peculiar benefits and costs of narcissism: A contextual reinforcement model and examination of leadership. Self and Identity. 2009; 8(2–3):214–232.

Campbell WK, Foster CA, Finkel EJ. Does self-love lead to love for others? A story of narcissistic game playing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002; 83(2):340–354. [PubMed: 12150232]

Conger, RD. Behavioral Affect Rating Scale (BARS). Ames, IA: Iowa State University; 1989a.

Conger, RD. Iowa Parenting Scale. Ames, IA: Iowa State University; 1989b.

Cramer P. Young adult narcissism: A 20 year longitudinal study of the contribution of parenting styles, preschool precursors of narcissism, and denial. Journal of Research in Personality. 2011; 45(1):19– 28.

Dishion TJ, McMahon RJ. Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review. 1998; 1(1):61–75.

Finkel, SE. Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995.

Freud, S. On narcissism: An introduction. In: Strachey, J., editor. Standard edition. Vol. 14. London, England: Hogarth Press; 1914.

Horton, RS. Parenting as a cause of narcissism: Empirical support for psychodynamic and social learning theories. In: Campbell, WK.; Miller, JD., editors. The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2011. p. 181-190.

Horton RS, Bleau G, Drwecki B. Parenting narcissus: What are the links between parenting and narcissism? Journal of Personality. 2006; 74(2):345–376. [PubMed: 16529580]

Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999; 6(1):1–55.

Kernberg, OF. Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson; 1975.

Kohut, H. The analysis of the self: A systematic approach to the psychoanalytic treatment of narcisstic personality disorders. New York: International Universities Press; 1971.

Kohut, H. The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press; 1977.

Meade AW, Johnson EC, Braddy PW. Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008; 93(3):568–592. [PubMed: 18457487]

Melby J, Conger RD, Book R, Rueter M, Lucy L, Repinski D, Scaramella L. The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales. 1998 Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/66440091/The-Iowa- Family-Interaction-Rating-Scales.

Meredith W. Measurement invariance, factor-analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika. 1993; 58(4):525–543.

Miller JD, Campbell WK. Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality. 2008; 76(3):449–476. [PubMed: 18399956]

Wetzel and Robins Page 15

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Miller JD, Campbell WK, Young DL, Lakey CE, Reidy DE, Zeichner A, Goodie AS. Examining the relations among narcissism, impulsivity, and self-defeating behaviors. Journal of Personality. 2009; 77(3):761–794. [PubMed: 20078737]

Millon, T. Modern psychopathology: A biosocial approach to maladaptive learning and functioning. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 1969.

Millon, T. Disorders of personality. New York: Wiley; 1981.

Muthén, LK.; Muthén, BO. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2014. Mplus [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com

Otway LJ, Vignoles VL. Narcissism and childhood recollections: A quantitative test of psychoanalytic predictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2006; 32(1):104–116. [PubMed: 16317192]

Parke, RD.; Buriel, R. Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological perspectives. In: Eisenberg, N., editor. Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol. 3. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2006. p. 429-504.

Paulhus DL, Robins RW, Trzesniewski KH, Tracy JL. Two replicable suppressor situations in personality research. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2004; 39(2):303–328. [PubMed: 26804578]

Pettit GS, Laird RD, Dodge KA, Bates JE, Criss MM. Antecedents and behavior-problem outcomes of parental monitoring and psychological control in early adolescence. Child Development. 2001; 72(2):583–598. [PubMed: 11333086]

Rhodewalt F, Morf CC. Self and interpersonal correlates of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory - A review and new findings. Journal of Research in Personality. 1995; 29(1):1–23.

Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Universiy Press; 1965.

Rosenberg, M. Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books; 1979.

Sedikides C, Rudich EA, Gregg AP, Kumashiro M, Rusbult C. Are normal narcissists psychologically healthy?: Self-esteem matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2004; 87(3):400–416. [PubMed: 15382988]

Small SA, Kerns D. Unwanted sexual activity among peers during early and middle adolescence - Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1993; 55(4):941–952.

Steiger JH. Structural model evaluation and modification - an interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1990; 25(2):173–180. [PubMed: 26794479]

Tracy JL, Cheng JT, Robins RW, Trzesniewski KH. Authentic and hubristic pride: The affective core of self-esteem and narcissism. Self and Identity. 2009; 8(2–3):196–213.

Trzesniewski KH, Donnellan MB, Robins RW. Is "Generation Me" Really More Narcissistic Than Previous Generations? Journal of Personality. 2008; 76(4):903–918.

Tucker LR, Lewis C. Reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor-analysis. Psychometrika. 1973; 38(1):1–10.

Washburn JJ, McMahon SD, King CA, Reinecke MA, Silver C. Narcissistic features in young adolescents: Relations to aggression and internalizing symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2004; 33(3):247–260.

Widaman KF, Reise SP. Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research. 1997:281–324.

Wetzel and Robins Page 16

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Highlights

- We investigated the longitudinal relations between parenting and narcissism.

- Data from a sample of Mexican-origin youth spanning ages 12 to 16 were analyzed.

- Parental hostility was associated with higher levels of exploitativeness at age 14.

- Parental monitoring was associated with lower levels of exploitativeness at age 14.

- None of the parenting dimensions was related to superiority.

- Findings replicated across child-report, spouse-report, and behavioral codings

Wetzel and Robins Page 17

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Figure 1. Latent cross-lagged panel model with narcissism and a parenting scale (parental hostility,

parental warmth, or parental monitoring). In the facet-level analyses, the overall narcissism

construct was replaced by exploitativeness and superiority.

Wetzel and Robins Page 18

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Wetzel and Robins Page 19

Ta b

le 1

D es

cr ip

ti ve

S ta

ti st

ic s

fo r

al l

S tu

dy V

ar ia

bl es

A ge

1 2

A ge

1 4

A ge

1 6

C on

st ru

ct R

ep or

t M

( S

D )

α M

( S

D )

α M

( S

D )

α

N ar

ci ss

is m

T ot

al C

hi ld

- -

2. 88

( .5

7) .7

8 2.

87 (

.6 2)

.8 3

E xp

lo it

at iv

en es

s C

hi ld

- -

2. 42

( .7

2) .7

4 2.

42 (

.7 6)

.7 8

S up

er io

ri ty

C hi

ld -

- 3.

36 (

.7 1)

.7 7

3. 33

( .7

1) .8

0

H os

ti li

ty

B A

R S

m at

er na

l C

hi ld

1. 41

( .3

1) .7

7 1.

51 (

.4 1)

.8 6

1. 53

( .3

9) .8

6

B A

R S

m at

er na

l P

ar en

t 1.

54 (

.3 1)

.7 5

1. 54

( .2

9) .7

3 1.

55 (

.2 9)

.7 1

M at

er na

l O

bs er

va ti

on al

2. 18

( 1.

47 )

B A

R S

p at

er na

l C

hi ld

1. 35

( .3

2) .8

1 1.

53 (

.3 5)

.8 0

1. 56

( .3

9) .8

3

B A

R S

p at

er na

l P

ar en

t 1.

53 (

.3 3)

.7 7

1. 64

( .3

2) .8

1 1.

59 (

.3 0)

.8 0

P at

er na

l O

bs er

va ti

on al

1. 75

( 1.

21 )

W ar

m th

B A

R S

m at

er na

l C

hi ld

3. 12

( .5

9) .8

8 3.

02 (

.6 5)

.9 1

2. 89

( .6

6) .9

1

B A

R S

m at

er na

l P

ar en

t 3.

36 (

.4 8)

.8 5

3. 27

( .5

0) .8

6 3.

17 (

.5 5)

.8 7

I P

S m

at er

na l

C hi

ld 2.

70 (

.6 3)

.8 7

2. 56

( .6

2) .8

6 2.

48 (

.6 2)

.8 8

I P

S m

at er

na l

P ar

en t

3. 03

( .5

1) .8

0 3.

00 (

.5 4)

.8 4

2. 90

( .5

7) .8

5

O bs

er va

ti on

al m

at er

na l

ob se

rv at

io na

l 3.

58 (

1. 45

)

B A

R S

p at

er na

l ch

il d

3. 01

( .7

2) .9

2 2.

77 (

.7 4)

.9 1

2. 61

( .7

5) .9

2

B A

R S

p at

er na

l pa

re nt

3. 10

( .6

6) .9

1 2.

97 (

.6 8)

.9 0

2. 88

( .6

8) .9

1

I P

S p

at er

na l

ch il

d 2.

60 (

.6 8)

.8 9

2. 39

( .6

6) .8

8 2.

26 (

.6 6)

.8 9

I P

S p

at er

na l

pa re

nt 2.

71 (

.6 6)

.8 8

2. 65

( .6

8) .8

8 2.

60 (

.6 6)

.8 8

O bs

er va

ti on

al p

at er

na l

ob se

rv at

io na

l 3.

25 (

1. 27

)

M on

it or

in g

P M

C m

at er

na l

ch il

d 3.

32 (

.5 7)

.9 1

3. 22

( .6

0) .9

2 3.

11 (

.6 2)

.9 2

P M

C m

at er

na l

fa th

er 3.

68 (

.4 3)

.8 7

3. 52

( .5

0) .8

9 3.

38 (

.6 0)

.9 2

P M

C m

at er

na l

m ot

he r

3. 70

( .4

3) .8

5 3.

68 (

.4 6)

.8 7

3. 58

( .5

3) .9

1

O bs

er va

ti on

al m

at er

na l

ob se

rv at

io na

l 5.

20 (

1. 14

)

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Wetzel and Robins Page 20

A ge

1 2

A ge

1 4

A ge

1 6

C on

st ru

ct R

ep or

t M

( S

D )

α M

( S

D )

α M

( S

D )

α

P M

C p

at er

na l

ch il

d 3.

09 (

.7 5)

.9 4

2. 85

( .7

8) .9

5 2.

73 (

.8 1)

.9 5

P M

C p

at er

na l

fa th

er 3.

51 (

.4 9)

.8 5

3. 46

( .5

4) .9

0 3.

35 (

.5 7)

.9 1

P M

C p

at er

na l

m ot

he r

3. 34

( .7

4) .9

2 3.

23 (

.8 1)

.9 4

3. 17

( .7

8) .9

4

O bs

er va

ti on

al p

at er

na l

ob se

rv at

io na

l 4.

77 (

1. 10

)

S el

f- es

te em

ch il

d 3.

19 (

.4 2)

.7 8

3. 13

( .4

2) .8

5 3.

11 (

.4 3)

.8 5

N ot

e. B

A R

S =

B eh

av io

ra l

A ff

ec t

R at

in g

S ca

le , I

P S

= I

ow a

P ar

en ti

ng S

ca le

, P M

C =

P ar

en ta

l M

on it

or in

g of

C hi

ld .

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Wetzel and Robins Page 21

Ta b

le 2

F it

I nd

ic es

f or

L at

en t

C ro

ss -l

ag ge

d P

an el

M od

el s

F it

i n

d ic

es

M od

el R

e- p

or t

χ 2

D f

C F

I T

L I

R M

S E

A 90

% C

I

O ve

ra ll

n ar

ci ss

is m

H os

ti li

ty

M at

er na

l ch

il d

33 5.

36 24

6 0.

99 0.

98 .0

2 [.

02 , .

03 ]

M at

er na

l pa

re nt

32 2.

24 24

4 0.

99 0.

98 .0

2 [.

02 , .

03 ]

M at

er na

l ob

s 17

6. 89

10 4

0. 98

0. 98

.0 3

[. 03

, . 04

]

P at

er na

l ch

il d

29 5.

78 24

6 0.

99 0.

99 .0

2 [.

01 , .

03 ]

P at

er na

l pa

re nt

34 7.

66 24

5 0.

98 0.

98 .0

3 [.

02 , .

03 ]

P at

er na

l ob

s 16

8. 52

10 4

0. 98

0. 98

.0 3

[. 02

, . 04

]

W ar

m th

B A

R S

m at

er na

l ch

il d

37 5.

19 24

6 0.

98 0.

98 .0

3 [.

02 , .

03 ]

B A

R S

m at

er na

l pa

re nt

33 2.

63 24

5 0.

99 0.

98 .0

2 [.

02 , .

03 ]

I P

S m

at er

na l

ch il

d 32

6. 44

24 5

0. 99

0. 99

.0 2

[. 02

, . 03

]

I P

S m

at er

na l

pa re

nt 30

5. 75

24 5

0. 99

0. 99

.0 2

[. 01

, . 03

]

m at

er na

l ob

s 16

8. 65

10 4

0. 98

0. 98

.0 3

[. 02

, . 04

]

B A

R S

p at

er na

l ch

il d

33 9.

13 24

6 0.

99 0.

99 .0

2 [.

02 , .

03 ]

B A

R S

p at

er na

l pa

re nt

30 6.

29 24

5 0.

99 0.

99 .0

2 [.

01 , .

03 ]

I P

S p

at er

na l

ch il

d 31

4. 71

24 4

0. 99

0. 99

.0 2

[. 01

, . 03

]

I P

S p

at er

na l

pa re

nt 34

8. 10

24 5

0. 99

0. 98

.0 3

[. 02

, . 03

]

p at

er na

l ob

s 16

2. 57

10 4

0. 99

0. 98

.0 3

[. 02

, . 04

]

M on

it or

in g

M at

er na

l ch

il d

37 4.

28 24

6 0.

98 0.

98 0.

03 [.

02 , .

03 ]

M at

er na

l m

ot he

r 33

9. 81

24 4

0. 99

0. 98

0. 03

[. 02

, . 03

]

M at

er na

l fa

th er

32 1.

51 24

6 0.

99 0.

99 0.

02 [.

02 , .

03 ]

M at

er na

l ob

s 16

6. 33

10 4

0. 98

0. 98

0. 03

[. 02

, . 04

]

P at

er na

l ch

il d

36 0.

52 24

4 0.

99 0.

98 0.

03 [.

02 , .

03 ]

P at

er na

l m

ot h

34 5.

46 24

6 0.

99 0.

99 0.

03 [.

02 , .

03 ]

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Wetzel and Robins Page 22

F it

i n

d ic

es

M od

el R

e- p

or t

χ 2

D f

C F

I T

L I

R M

S E

A 90

% C

I

P at

er na

l fa

th er

32 9.

51 24

5 0.

99 0.

98 0.

02 [.

02 , .

03 ]

P at

er na

l ob

s 17

6. 30

10 4

0. 98

0. 98

0. 03

[. 02

, . 04

]

F ac

et s

H os

ti li

ty

M at

er na

l ch

il d

62 0.

52 39

0 0.

97 0.

97 .0

3 [.

03 , .

04 ]

M at

er na

l pa

re nt

61 7.

56 38

8 0.

97 0.

96 .0

3 [.

03 , .

04 ]

M at

er na

l ob

s 40

9. 84

20 4

0. 96

0. 95

.0 4

[. 03

, . 05

]

P at

er na

l ch

il d

59 8.

75 39

0 0.

97 0.

97 .0

3 [.

02 , .

03 ]

P at

er na

l pa

re nt

62 6.

09 38

9 0.

97 0.

96 .0

3 [.

03 , .

04 ]

P at

er na

l ob

s 40

1. 76

20 4

0. 96

0. 95

.0 4

[. 03

, . 05

]

W ar

m th

B A

R S

m at

er na

l ch

il d

66 0.

50 39

0 0.

97 0.

97 .0

3 [.

03 , .

04 ]

B A

R S

m at

er na

l pa

re nt

60 4.

96 38

9 0.

97 0.

96 .0

3 [.

03 , .

03 ]

I P

S m

at er

na l

ch il

d 61

1. 22

38 9

0. 97

0. 97

.0 3

[. 03

, . 03

]

I P

S m

at er

na l

pa re

nt 58

4. 96

38 9

0. 97

0. 97

.0 3

[. 02

, . 03

]

M at

er na

l ob

s 39

9. 92

20 4

0. 96

0. 95

.0 4

[. 03

, . 04

]

B A

R S

p at

er na

l ch

il d

62 4.

78 39

0 0.

98 0.

97 .0

3 [.

03 , .

04 ]

B A

R S

p at

er na

l pa

re nt

59 0.

63 38

9 0.

98 0.

97 .0

3 [.

02 , .

03 ]

I P

S p

at er

na l

ch il

d 60

8. 68

38 8

0. 98

0. 97

.0 3

[. 03

, . 03

]

I P

S p

at er

na l

pa re

nt 64

3. 11

38 9

0. 97

0. 97

.0 3

[. 03

, . 04

]

P at

er na

l ob

s 39

8. 17

20 4

0. 96

0. 95

.0 4

[. 03

, . 04

]

M on

it or

in g

M at

er na

l ch

il d

65 0.

38 39

0 0.

97 0.

97 0.

03 [.

03 , .

04 ]

M at

er na

l m

ot he

r 64

1. 22

38 8

0. 97

0. 97

0. 03

[. 03

, . 04

]

M at

er na

l fa

th er

60 9.

93 39

0 0.

97 0.

97 0.

03 [.

03 , .

03 ]

M at

er na

l ob

s 40

0. 90

20 4

0. 96

0. 95

0. 04

[. 03

, . 05

]

P at

er na

l ch

il d

62 4.

79 38

8 0.

98 0.

97 0.

03 [.

03 , .

04 ]

P at

er na

l m

ot he

r 61

4. 67

39 0

0. 98

0. 97

0. 03

[. 03

, . 04

]

P at

er na

l fa

th er

61 3.

88 38

9 0.

97 0.

97 0.

03 [.

03 , .

04 ]

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Wetzel and Robins Page 23

F it

i n

d ic

es

M od

el R

e- p

or t

χ 2

D f

C F

I T

L I

R M

S E

A 90

% C

I

P at

er na

l ob

s 41

5. 46

20 4

0. 96

0. 95

0. 04

[. 04

, . 05

]

N ot

e. B

A R

S =

B eh

av io

ra l

A ff

ec t

R at

in g

S ca

le , I

P S

= I

ow a

P ar

en ti

ng S

ca le

, o bs

= o

bs er

ve ra

ti on

al , C

F I

= c

om pa

ra ti

ve f

it i

nd ex

, T L

I =

T uc

ke r-

L ew

is i

nd ex

, R M

S E

A =

r oo

t m

ea n

sq ua

re e

rr or

o f

ap pr

ox im

at io

n. D

if fe

ri ng

n um

be rs

o f

de gr

ee s

of f

re ed

om f

or m

od el

s w

it h

sa m

e da

ta s

tr uc

tu re

a re

d ue

t o

pa ra

m et

er s

fr ee

d to

a cc

ou nt

f or

p ar

ti al

s ca

la r

in va

ri an

ce i

n so

m e

co ns

tr uc

ts . M

od el

s in

t he

u pp

er h

al f

of t

he t

ab le

c on

ta in

o ve

ra ll

n ar

ci ss

is m

, s el

f- es

te em

a nd

o ne

p ar

en ti

ng s

ca le

. M od

el s

in t

he l

ow er

h al

f of

t he

t ab

le c

on ta

in e

xp lo

it at

iv en

es s,

s up

er io

ri ty

, s el

f- es

te em

, a nd

o ne

p ar

en ti

ng s

ca le

.

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Wetzel and Robins Page 24

Ta b

le 3

P ar

am et

er E

st im

at es

f or

L at

en t

C ro

ss -l

ag ge

d P

an el

M od

el s

In vo

lv in

g P

ar en

ta l

H os

ti li

ty

M od

el R

ep or

t S

ta n

d ar

d iz

ed r

eg re

ss io

n c

oe ff

ic ie

n ts

O ve

ra ll

n ar

ci ss

is m

H os

t1 2 →

N ar

c1 4

H os

t1 4 →

N ar

c1 6

N ar

c1 4 →

H os

t1 6

M at

er n

al h

os ti

li ty

ch il

d .2

4 .0

2 .0

1

M at

er n

al h

os ti

li ty

pa re

nt .1

3 .0

2 .0

8

M at

er n

al h

os ti

li ty

ob s

.1 2

- -

P at

er n

al h

os ti

li ty

ch il

d .1

4 −

.0 2

− .0

2

P at

er n

al h

os ti

li ty

pa re

nt .1

4 −

.0 6

.0 4

P at

er n

al h

os ti

li ty

ob s

.0 7

- -

N ar

ci ss

is m

f ac

et s

H os

t1 2 →

E xp

14 H

os t1

4 →

E xp

16 E

xp 14

→ H

os t1

6 H

os t1

2 →

S up

14 H

os t1

4 →

S up

16 S

up 14

→ H

os t1

6

M at

er n

al h

os ti

li ty

ch il

d .2

9 .0

2 .0

4 .0

8 .0

5 −

.0 3

M at

er n

al h

os ti

li ty

pa re

nt .1

8 .0

3 .0

1 .0

4 .0

2 .1

1

M at

er n

al h

os ti

li ty

ob s

.1 7

- -

.0 3

- -

P at

er n

al h

os ti

li ty

ch il

d .2

1 .0

1 .0

4 .0

2 −

.0 1

− .0

8

P at

er n

al h

os ti

li ty

pa re

nt .1

9 −

.0 7

.0 9

.0 4

− .0

1 −

.0 6

P at

er n

al h

os ti

li ty

ob s

.1 0

- -

.0 2

- -

N ot

e. H

os t

= h

os ti

li ty

, n ar

c =

n ar

ci ss

is m

, e xp

= e

xp lo

it at

iv en

es s,

o bs

= o

bs er

va ti

on al

, s up

= s

up er

io ri

ty . O

nl y

st an

da rd

iz ed

r eg

re ss

io n

co ef

fi ci

en ts

f ro

m c

ro ss

-l ag

ge d

pa th

s ar

e de

pi ct

ed . F

or s

ta bi

li ty

e st

im at

es

se e

te xt

. B et

a co

ef fi

ci en

ts s

ig ni

fi ca

nt a

t α

= .0

5 ar

e de

pi ct

ed i

n bo

ld a

nd i

ta li

cs . A

ll m

od el

s in

cl ud

e se

lf -e

st ee

m a

nd g

en de

r as

c ov

ar ia

te s.

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Wetzel and Robins Page 25

Ta b

le 4

P ar

am et

er E

st im

at es

f or

L at

en t

C ro

ss -l

ag ge

d P

an el

M od

el s

In vo

lv in

g P

ar en

ta l

W ar

m th

M od

el R

ep or

t S

ta n

d ar

d iz

ed r

eg re

ss io

n c

oe ff

ic ie

n ts

O ve

ra ll

n ar

ci ss

is m

W ar

m 12

→ N

ar c1

4 W

ar m

14 →

N ar

c1 6

N ar

c1 4 →

W ar

m 16

B A

R S

m at

er n

al w

ar m

th ch

il d

.0 3

.0 1

.0 2

B A

R S

m at

er n

al w

ar m

th pa

re nt

.0 8

.0 3

.0 5

IP S

m at

er n

al w

ar m

th ch

il d

.0 6

.0 7

.0 2

IP S

m at

er n

al w

ar m

th pa

re nt

.0 6

.0 3

.0 9

M at

er n

al w

ar m

th ob

s .0

1 -

-

B A

R S

p at

er n

al w

ar m

th ch

il d

.0 2

.0 1

.0 6

B A

R S

p at

er n

al w

ar m

th pa

re nt

− .0

4 .0

3 −

.0 7

IP S

p at

er n

al w

ar m

th ch

il d

.0 9

.0 5

.0 5

IP S

p at

er n

al w

ar m

th pa

re nt

− .0

6 .0

4 −

.0 7

P at

er n

al w

ar m

th ob

s −

.0 0

- -

N ar

ci ss

is m

f ac

et s

W ar

m 12

→ E

xp 14

W ar

m 14

→ E

xp 16

E xp

14 →

W ar

m 16

W ar

m 12

→ S

up 14

W ar

m 14

→ S

up 16

S up

14 →

W ar

m 16

B A

R S

m at

er n

al w

ar m

th ch

il d

− .0

5 −

.0 4

− .0

4 .0

9 .0

1 .0

8

B A

R S

m at

er n

al w

ar m

th pa

re nt

.0 3

.0 7

− .0

6 .0

8 −

.0 1

.1 6

IP S

m at

er n

al w

ar m

th ch

il d

− .0

5 .0

3 −

.0 2

.1 4

.0 7

.0 4

IP S

m at

er n

al w

ar m

th pa

re nt

.0 3

.0 4

− .0

4 .0

7 −

.0 0

.1 7

M at

er n

al w

ar m

th ob

s .0

1 -

- .0

2 -

-

B A

R S

p at

er n

al w

ar m

th ch

il d

− .0

8 −

.0 4

− .0

5 .1

2 −

.0 0

.1 4

B A

R S

p at

er n

al w

ar m

th pa

re nt

− .1

2 .0

2 −

.0 9

.0 6

− .0

1 .0

1

IP S

p at

er n

al w

ar m

th ch

il d

− .0

4 −

.0 1

− .0

4 .1

9 .0

6 .1

2

IP S

p at

er n

al w

ar m

th pa

re nt

− .1

1 .0

2 −

.1 2

.0 1

.0 3

.0 6

P at

er n

al w

ar m

th ob

s −

.0 2

- -

.0 1

- -

N ot

e. W

ar m

= w

ar m

th , n

ar c

= n

ar ci

ss is

m , e

xp =

e xp

lo it

at iv

en es

s, o

bs =

o bs

er va

ti on

al , s

up =

s up

er io

ri ty

. O nl

y st

an da

rd iz

ed r

eg re

ss io

n co

ef fi

ci en

ts f

ro m

c ro

ss -l

ag ge

d pa

th s

ar e

de pi

ct ed

. F or

s ta

bi li

ty

es ti

m at

es s

ee t

ex t.

B et

a co

ef fi

ci en

ts s

ig ni

fi ca

nt a

t α

= .0

5 ar

e de

pi ct

ed i

n bo

ld a

nd i

ta li

cs . A

ll m

od el

s in

cl ud

e se

lf -e

st ee

m a

nd g

en de

r as

c ov

ar ia

te s.

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Wetzel and Robins Page 26

Ta b

le 5

P ar

am et

er E

st im

at es

f or

L at

en t

C ro

ss -l

ag ge

d P

an el

M od

el s

In vo

lv in

g P

ar en

ta l

M on

it or

in g

M od

el R

ep or

t S

ta n

d ar

d iz

ed r

eg re

ss io

n c

oe ff

ic ie

n ts

O ve

ra ll

n ar

ci ss

is m

M on

12 →

N ar

c1 4

M on

14 →

N ar

c1 6

N ar

c1 4 →

M on

16

M at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g ch

il d

− .0

3 .0

0 −

.0 3

M at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g m

ot h

.0 0

.0 5

− .0

1

M at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g fa

th er

− .0

2 .0

2 −

.0 0

M at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g ob

s −

.0 1

- -

P at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g ch

il d

− .0

4 .0

2 .0

4

P at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g m

ot h

− .0

2 .0

3 −

.0 9

P at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g fa

th er

− .0

1 .0

4 .0

3

P at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g ob

s −

.0 3

- -

N ar

ci ss

is m

f ac

et s

M on

12 →

E xp

14 M

on 14

→ E

xp 16

E xp

14 →

M on

16 M

on 12

→ S

up 14

M on

14 →

S up

16 S

up 14

→ M

on 16

M at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g ch

il d

− .1

4 −

.0 8

− .0

5 .0

8 .0

2 .0

2

M at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g m

ot h

− .0

4 .0

3 −

.1 0

.0 4

.0 4

.1 2

M at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g fa

th er

− .0

7 −

.0 0

− .0

8 .0

4 .0

2 .0

9

M at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g ob

s .0

2 -

- −

.0 3

- -

P at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g ch

il d

− .1

6 −

.0 4

− .0

6 .0

9 .0

5 .1

3

P at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g m

ot h

− .1

0 .0

3 −

.0 9

.0 7

.0 0

− .0

0

P at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g fa

th er

− .0

6 .0

5 −

.1 0

.0 6

.0 0

.1 6

P at

er n

al m

on it

or in

g ob

s −

.0 8

- -

.0 3

- -

N ot

e. M

on =

m on

it or

in g,

n ar

c =

n ar

ci ss

is m

, e xp

= e

xp lo

it at

iv en

es s,

o bs

= o

bs er

va ti

on al

, s up

= s

up er

io ri

ty , m

ot h

= m

ot he

r. O

nl y

st an

da rd

iz ed

r eg

re ss

io n

co ef

fi ci

en ts

f ro

m c

ro ss

-l ag

ge d

pa th

s ar

e de

pi ct

ed .

F or

s ta

bi li

ty e

st im

at es

s ee

t ex

t. B

et a

co ef

fi ci

en ts

s ig

ni fi

ca nt

a t α

= .0

5 ar

e de

pi ct

ed i

n bo

ld a

nd i

ta li

cs . A

ll m

od el

s in

cl ud

e se

lf -e

st ee

m a

nd g

en de

r as

c ov

ar ia

te s.

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 01.