Section 1: Summary of the Media Article
This section provided a high-level overview of the study, as Morling (2018) suggested. Summarizing the key elements aids comprehension; Morling notes that understanding the “big picture” promotes interpreting details. The media article provided a detailed overview of the research study conducted by Trzesniewski et al. It began by explaining the background and motivation for the study, noting that some social commentators and researchers have claimed that today’s young people are more narcissistic and self-centered than previous generations due to cultural shifts emphasizing individualism and self-worth (Trzesniewski et al., 2008). The article then described the study’s objective to examine claims of increasing narcissism and self-enhancement over time by analyzing trends in scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) and measures of self-enhancement among large samples of college and high school students assessed from the 1970s through 2000s (Trzesniewski et al., 2008). It outlined the specific samples and periods analyzed. The key findings presented by the media article were that the study found no evidence of rising narcissism as measured by NPI scores in college students from the 1980s to 2000s, nor any increase in self-enhancement based on discrepancies between self-rated intelligence and objective academic measures in college and high school samples over recent decades. In summary, the media report provided a thorough yet concise overview of the research study’s background, methodology, and main conclusions (Trzesniewski et al., 2008).
Section 2: Summary and Critical Analysis of the Journal Article
This concisely reviewed the purpose, methodology, and findings Morling (2018) recommended to grasp a study . The research article aimed to investigate claims about increasing narcissism in recent youth by examining secular trends in narcissism and self-enhancement using large samples of undergraduate students from California universities and high school students nationwide. Contrary to previous research like Twenge’s, the authors found no evidence of rising narcissism when comparing NPI scores from the 1980s-2000s or self-enhancement levels from 1976-2006. Specifically:
- NPI scores did not correlate with year and were similar to scores from 1979-1985
- Self-enhancement did not change over time in either sample
- No gender or ethnic moderation of time trends
- Subscale analyses also found little evidence of changes in specific narcissism facets.
In terms of critical analysis, the article demonstrates characteristics of science through its systematic analysis of multiple large datasets, verifiable methods, and discussion of findings concerning theory. Clear hypotheses were tested regarding expected increases. Variables were operationalized using validated narcissism/self-enhancement measures. Limitations of convenience sampling in past research are acknowledged. The reliability of NPI is established, but no validity is reported. The descriptive longitudinal research approach uses strong national sampling and dataset reporting. Overall, the findings appear robustly supported. A limitation is the lack of validity reported for self-enhancement measures.
A strength of the study is using two large samples to examine narcissism and self-enhancement trends over time – an undergraduate sample from California universities and a national sample of high school students. Using college students and high schoolers allowed the researchers to test for generational effects in young people across different educational stages. The consistency of null results across these two distinct samples adds credibility to the authors’ conclusion that narcissism and self-enhancement have not, in fact, increased in recent youth generations, contrary to some prior claims.
Section 3: Relation of Research to Media Report
The analysis examined elements Morling identifies as crucial to evaluation, including sampling approaches, operationalization of variables, measurement strategies, reliability/validity reporting, and evidence of the scientific process (Ch.3,5). This framework from our text structured the critical examination. The media report did not describe the study findings accurately. It overstated the conclusions of the single meta-analysis it cited, claiming generational increases in narcissism as fact rather than one study’s tentative conclusion. However, the large sample research directly contradicted that by finding no evidence of rising narcissism or self-enhancement over similar periods. The media report, therefore, drew inferences the present authors did not support and did not provide a fair portrayal of the full picture emerging from research. More nuanced discussion acknowledging alternative findings was needed. By only focusing on one prior study and presenting its conclusions as definitive, the media report portrayed the evidence for rising narcissism as much stronger than the case based on the totality of research on the topic. A more balanced account would have discussed other studies with null or divergent findings. Additionally, qualifying language could have been used to note the ongoing debate rather than definitive claims about generational differences in narcissism.
Media Critique 2: Generation Me vs. You Revisited
Section 1
Summary of the media article
The New York Times article provides a brief overview of new research that challenges the idea that today’s young people are more narcissistic than previous generations (Rosenbloom, 2008). It notes that the study examined responses to narcissism questionnaires by college students over time and found that narcissism levels have been relatively stable and may have even declined slightly in recent years.
Summary and critical analysis of the journal article
The researchers conducted a meta-analysis to combine results from the various studies administered over time (Rosenbloom, 2008). Their statistical analysis compared average NPI scores across time periods to draw conclusions about trends in narcissism levels. The study helps address popular perceptions that narcissism is increasing among younger generations by providing a large-scale empirical analysis of narcissism measurements over multiple decades.
The article systematically observed narcissism levels across many studies over multiple decades. This allowed trends over time to be investigated. The hypothesis that narcissism increased was able to be empirically tested using data from standardized NPI questionnaires, representing falsifiability. Norms for the NPI have been established through decades of research, confirming its reliability and validity for measuring trait narcissism. While relying on existing study data prevented the researchers from directly collecting data, it provided the substantial sample size needed to draw meaningful conclusions about generational trends. Descriptive research was suitable for examining changes in narcissism scores longitudinally. The analysis of empirical data from over 16,000 participants across many studies upheld scientific objective evaluation standards for the hypothesis using replication and large samples. Overall, the research conducted a rigorous test of claims about rising narcissism.
The media report accurately conveyed the central findings of the research study that narcissism levels have not significantly increased and may have declined slightly in recent generations. However, the media report provided only a brief overview, whereas the research article included more detailed methods and analysis. The conclusions drawn by the media were consistent with those of the researchers based on the empirical evidence presented in the study. The media report was a fair initial research summary.
References
Morling, B. (2018). Research Methods in Psychology: Evaluating a World of Information (3rd ed.)
Rosenbloom, S. (2008, January 17). Generation Me vs. You Revisited: New research challenges the notion. New York Times (1923-).
Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2008, February). Do Today’s Young People Really Think They Are So Extraordinary? Psychological Science, 19(2), 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02065.x
write