Birth Cohort Increases in Narcissistic Personality Traits Among American College Students, 1982–2009

Previous research produced conflicting results on whether narcissistic personality traits have increased among American college students over the generations. Confounding by campus may explain the discrepancy. Study 1 updates a nationwide meta-analysis of college students' scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) and controls for campus ( k = 107; N = 49,818). In Study 2, the authors examine NPI scores among the students on one university campus, the University of South Alabama, between 1994 and 2009 ( N = 4,152). Both studies demonstrate significant increases in narcissism over time (Study 1  d = .37, 1982–2008, when campus is controlled; Study 2  d = .37, 1994–2009). These results support a generational differences model of individual personality traits reflecting changes in culture.

Birth Cohort Differences in the Monitoring the Future Dataset and Elsewhere: Further Evidence for Generation Me-Commentary on Trzesniewski & Donnellan (2010)

A substantial majority of published studies have reported increases of individualism and materialism and declines in mental health and interpersonal trust over generations. The data Trzesniewski and Donnellan (2010, this issue) present from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey of high-school students is almost entirely consistent with these previous findings, showing decreases in civic interest and trust and increases in high expectations, materialism, and self-satisfaction. Problems with measurement and variable labeling explain the few seeming discrepancies. They analyze only 15% of the variables in MTF, ignoring many others that also demonstrate increases in individualistic traits. Ecological correlations are not an issue in previous studies as the individual-level standard deviation is used to compute effect sizes. Increases in narcissism are clear when important moderator variables (e.g., campus) are controlled. The real puzzle is why these authors' conclusions fall so far from the data.

Fitting In or Standing Out: Trends in American Parents' Choices for Children’s Names, 1880–2007

In an analysis of the first names of 325 million American babies born 1880 to 2007, parents have increasingly given their children less common names, suggesting a growing interest in uniqueness and individualism. The data are from the Social Security Administration’s database of names, a complete survey of Americans with social security cards. Common names decreased in use from 1880 to 1919 and increased slightly from 1920 to 1949 before becoming steadily less popular from 1950 to 2007, with an unremitting decrease after 1983 and the greatest rate of change during the 1990s. The results are similar when controlled for immigration rate and when examined within the six U.S. states with the lowest population percentage of Hispanics. This behavioral evidence of growing individualism complements previous research finding generational increases in individualistic traits on self-report measures.

Increases in positive self-views among high school students: birth-cohort changes in anticipated performance, self-satisfaction, self-liking, and self-competence

Previous research has produced contradictory findings on generational change in positive self-views. We examined 13 items measuring self-views in the Monitoring the Future study, a large national study of high school students conducted between 1975 and 2006 (in this analysis, ns between 4,698 and 29,673). Relative to high school students in the 1970s, those in 2006 were more likely to predict that they would be "very good" spouses, parents, and workers; were more satisfied with themselves; and scored higher on self-esteem items measuring self-liking. The 2006 students also reported earning higher grades and being more intelligent. However, 2006 students scored lower on two self-esteem items measuring self-competence than did students in 1975. These results suggest that there has been a small increase in positive self-views across the generations, but that it has not been accompanied by an increase in general self-competence.

Generational changes and their impact in the classroom: teaching Generation Me

CONTEXT

Many faculty members believe that students today differ from those in the past. This paper reviews the empirical evidence for generational changes among students and makes recommendations for classroom teaching based on these changes. Generational changes are rooted in shifts in culture and should be viewed as reflections of changes in society.

METHODS

This paper reviews findings from a number of studies, most of which rely on over-time meta-analyses of students' (primarily undergraduates') responses to psychological questionnaires measuring IQ, personality traits, attitudes, reading preferences and expectations. Others are time-lag studies of nationally representative samples of high school students.

RESULTS

Today's students (Generation Me) score higher on assertiveness, self-liking, narcissistic traits, high expectations, and some measures of stress, anxiety and poor mental health, and lower on self-reliance. Most of these changes are linear; thus the year in which someone was born is more relevant than a broad generational label. Moreover, these findings represent average changes and exceptions certainly occur.

DISCUSSION

These characteristics suggest that Generation Me would benefit from a more structured but also more interactive learning experience, and that the overconfidence of this group may need to be tempered. Faculty and staff should give very specific instructions and frequent feedback, and should explain the relevance of the material. Rules should be strictly followed to prevent entitled students from unfairly working the system. Generation Me students have high IQs, but little desire to read long texts. Instruction may need to be delivered in shorter segments and perhaps incorporate more material delivered in media such as videos and an interactive format. Given their heightened desire for leisure, today's students may grow into professionals who demand lighter work schedules, thereby creating conflict within the profession.

Change over time in obedience: The jury's still out, but it might be decreasing

Jerry M. Burger's partial replication of Stanley Milgram's (1974) obedience study shows both the influence of culture and generations on behavior and the power of the situation. In Burger's data, disobedience has nearly doubled among male participants since the 1960s, a shift just as large as the increase in Americans' body mass index that has been labeled the "obesity epidemic." Differences in the ethnic composition of the two studies' samples, particularly the large numbers of Asian Americans in Burger's sample, may have suppressed what might have been an even larger increase in disobedience. Halting the experiment at 150 volts may also have suppressed change. Nevertheless, situations have a strong influence on behavior; thus generational shifts would not be expected to completely eliminate the effect. Burger's results are consistent with documented changes in personality traits over the generations, including increases in nonconformist traits such as assertiveness, self-esteem, and narcissism.

It's the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion

Prior research has confirmed a casual path between social rejection and aggression, but there has been no clear explanation of why social rejection causes aggression. A series of experiments tested the hypothesis that social exclusion increases the inclination to perceive neutral information as hostile, which has implications for aggression. Compared to accepted and control participants, socially excluded participants were more likely to rate aggressive and ambiguous words as similar (Experiment 1a), to complete word fragments with aggressive words (Experiment 1b), and to rate the ambiguous actions of another person as hostile (Experiments 2-4). This hostile cognitive bias among excluded people was related to their aggressive treatment of others who were not involved in the exclusion experience (Experiments 2 and 3) and others with whom participants had no previous contact (Experiment 4). These findings provide a first step in resolving the mystery of why social exclusion produces aggression.

Gender Differences in Domain-Specific Self-Esteem: A Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis examines gender differences in 10 specific domains of self-esteem across 115 studies, including 428 effect sizes and 32,486 individuals. In a mixed-effects analysis, men scored significantly higher than women on physical appearance ( d = 0.35), athletic ( d = 0.41), personal self ( d = 0.28), and self-satisfaction self-esteem ( d = 0.33). Women scored higher than men on behavioral conduct ( d = −0.17) and moral–ethical self-esteem ( d = −0.38). The gender difference in physical appearance self-esteem was significant only after 1980 and was largest among adults. No significant gender differences appeared in academic, social acceptance, family, and affect self-esteem. The results demonstrate the influence of reflected appraisals on self-esteem.

It's the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion

Prior research has confirmed a casual path between social rejection and aggression, but there has been no clear explanation of why social rejection causes aggression. A series of experiments tested the hypothesis that social exclusion increases the inclination to perceive neutral information as hostile, which has implications for aggression. Compared to accepted and control participants, socially excluded participants were more likely to rate aggressive and ambiguous words as similar (Experiment 1a), to complete word fragments with aggressive words (Experiment 1b), and to rate the ambiguous actions of another person as hostile (Experiments 2-4). This hostile cognitive bias among excluded people was related to their aggressive treatment of others who were not involved in the exclusion experience (Experiments 2 and 3) and others with whom participants had no previous contact (Experiment 4). These findings provide a first step in resolving the mystery of why social exclusion produces aggression.

A magnetoencephalography investigation of neural correlates for social exclusion and self-control

Past research indicates that social exclusion leads to self-control failure. The present research examined the neural substrates of this effect. Participants were randomly assigned to either a social exclusion (n=15) or control (n=15) condition. Self-control was assessed by having participants solve 180 moderately difficult math problems while measuring how quickly they identified a supplied answer as correct or incorrect. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) was used to assess neural activity during this task. Socially excluded participants showed lesser activity in occipital and parietal cortex from 100-350 ms after the presentation of the math problems. When presented with the answers, socially excluded participants showed lesser activity in several regions, including occipital, parietal, and right prefrontal cortex from 100-300 ms post-stimulus. Furthermore, activation in the parietal and right prefrontal cortex mediated exclusion-control performance differences on math problems. The findings suggest that social exclusion interferes with the executive control of attention, and this effect is manifest in specific aspects of cognitive performance and brain function.

Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: a limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative

The current research tested the hypothesis that making many choices impairs subsequent self-control. Drawing from a limited-resource model of self-regulation and executive function, the authors hypothesized that decision making depletes the same resource used for self-control and active responding. In 4 laboratory studies, some participants made choices among consumer goods or college course options, whereas others thought about the same options without making choices. Making choices led to reduced self-control (i.e., less physical stamina, reduced persistence in the face of failure, more procrastination, and less quality and quantity of arithmetic calculations). A field study then found that reduced self-control was predicted by shoppers' self-reported degree of previous active decision making. Further studies suggested that choosing is more depleting than merely deliberating and forming preferences about options and more depleting than implementing choices made by someone else and that anticipating the choice task as enjoyable can reduce the depleting effect for the first choices but not for many choices.

Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior

In 7 experiments, the authors manipulated social exclusion by telling people that they would end up alone later in life or that other participants had rejected them. Social exclusion caused a substantial reduction in prosocial behavior. Socially excluded people donated less money to a student fund, were unwilling to volunteer for further lab experiments, were less helpful after a mishap, and cooperated less in a mixed-motive game with another student. The results did not vary by cost to the self or by recipient of the help, and results remained significant when the experimenter was unaware of condition. The effect was mediated by feelings of empathy for another person but was not mediated by mood, state self-esteem, belongingness, trust, control, or self-awareness. The implication is that rejection temporarily interferes with emotional responses, thereby impairing the capacity for empathic understanding of others, and as a result, any inclination to help or cooperate with them is undermined.

Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior

In 7 experiments, the authors manipulated social exclusion by telling people that they would end up alone later in life or that other participants had rejected them. Social exclusion caused a substantial reduction in prosocial behavior. Socially excluded people donated less money to a student fund, were unwilling to volunteer for further lab experiments, were less helpful after a mishap, and cooperated less in a mixed-motive game with another student. The results did not vary by cost to the self or by recipient of the help, and results remained significant when the experimenter was unaware of condition. The effect was mediated by feelings of empathy for another person but was not mediated by mood, state self-esteem, belongingness, trust, control, or self-awareness. The implication is that rejection temporarily interferes with emotional responses, thereby impairing the capacity for empathic understanding of others, and as a result, any inclination to help or cooperate with them is undermined.

Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior

In 7 experiments, the authors manipulated social exclusion by telling people that they would end up alone later in life or that other participants had rejected them. Social exclusion caused a substantial reduction in prosocial behavior. Socially excluded people donated less money to a student fund, were unwilling to volunteer for further lab experiments, were less helpful after a mishap, and cooperated less in a mixed-motive game with another student. The results did not vary by cost to the self or by recipient of the help, and results remained significant when the experimenter was unaware of condition. The effect was mediated by feelings of empathy for another person but was not mediated by mood, state self-esteem, belongingness, trust, control, or self-awareness. The implication is that rejection temporarily interferes with emotional responses, thereby impairing the capacity for empathic understanding of others, and as a result, any inclination to help or cooperate with them is undermined.

Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression

This article reviews the literature on the relationship between interpersonal rejection and aggression. Four bodies of research are summarized: laboratory experiments that manipulate rejection, rejection among adults in everyday life, rejection in childhood, and individual differences that may moderate the relationship. The theoretical mechanisms behind the effect are then explored. Possible explanations for why rejection leads to anger and aggression include: rejection as a source of pain, rejection as a source of frustration, rejection as a threat to self-esteem, mood improvement following aggression, aggression as social influence, aggression as a means of reestablishing control, retribution, disinhibition, and loss of self-control.

Changes in Young People's Sexual Behavior and Attitudes, 1943–1999: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis

A cross-temporal meta-analysis of 530 studies ( N = 269,649) showed that young people's sexual attitudes and behavior changed substantially between 1943 and 1999, with the largest shifts occurring among girls and young women. Both young men and women became more sexually active over time, as measured by age at first intercourse (decreasing from 19 to 15 years among young women) and percentage sexually active (increasing from 13% to 47% among young women). Attitudes toward premarital intercourse became more lenient, with approval increasing from 12% to 73% among young women and from 40% to 79% among young men. Feelings of sexual guilt decreased. The correlation between attitudes and behaviors was stronger among young women. These data support theories positing that culture has a larger effect on women's sexuality.

Social exclusion impairs self-regulation

Six experiments showed that being excluded or rejected caused decrements in self-regulation. In Experiment 1, participants who were led to anticipate a lonely future life were less able to make themselves consume a healthy but bad-tasting beverage. In Experiment 2, some participants were told that no one else in their group wanted to work with them, and these participants later ate more cookies than other participants. In Experiment 3, excluded participants quit sooner on a frustrating task. In Experiments 4-6, exclusion led to impairment of attention regulation as measured with a dichotic listening task. Experiments 5 and 6 further showed that decrements in self-regulation can be eliminated by offering a cash incentive or increasing self-awareness. Thus, rejected people are capable of self-regulation but are normally disinclined to make the effort.