International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
The Apple of Daddy’s Eye: Parental Overvaluation
Links the Narcissistic Traits of Father and Child
Gabrielle Coppola 1, * , Pasquale Musso 1 , Carlo Buonanno 2 , Cristina Semeraro 1 ,
Barbara Iacobellis 1 , Rosalinda Cassibba 1 , Valentina Levantini 3 , Gabriele Masi 3 ,
Sander Thomaes 4 and Pietro Muratori 3, *
1
2
3
4
*
Department of Education, Psychology, Communication, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70122 Bari, Italy;
pasquale.musso@uniba.it (P.M.); cristina.semeraro@uniba.it (C.S.); barbara.iacobellis@uniba.it (B.I.);
rosalinda.cassibba@uniba.it (R.C.)
Scuola di Psicoterapia Cognitiva and Associazione di Psicologia Cognitiva, 00185 Rome, Italy;
buonanno@apc.it
IRCCS Fondazione Stella Maris, Scientific Institute of Child Neurology and Psychiatry, 56128 Pisa, Italy;
valentina.levantini@unifi.it (V.L.); gmasi@fsm.unipi.it (G.M.)
Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, 3512 JE Utrecht, the Netherlands; s.thomaes@uu.nl
Correspondence: gabrielle.coppola@uniba.it (G.C.); pmuratori@fsm.unipi.it (P.M.)
Received: 3 July 2020; Accepted: 25 July 2020; Published: 30 July 2020
Abstract: This study contributes to the literature on the parental correlates of children’s narcissism.
It addresses whether parental overvaluation may drive the putative link between parents’ narcissism
and children’s narcissism and self-esteem. The cross-sectional design involved a community sample
of 519 school-age children (age ranging from 9 to 11 years old) and their parents from an Italian urban
context. Child-reported measures included narcissistic traits and self-esteem, while parent-reported
measures included narcissistic traits and overvaluation, as well as parenting styles. A series of
structural equation models, run separately for mothers and fathers, showed that both parents’
narcissism was directly and positively related to overvaluation and the children’s narcissistic traits;
overvaluation partially mediated the indirect link between the fathers’ and children’s narcissistic traits.
None of the parenting-style dimensions were related to the children’s outcomes, with the exception of
the mothers’ positive parenting being directly and positively related to children’s self-esteem. These
findings shed new light upon the parental correlates of child narcissism by suggesting that mothers
and fathers convey their narcissism to their offspring through differential pathways. Our findings
may be understood from universal as well as cultural specifics regarding the parenting roles of
mothers and fathers. Clinical implications for the treatment of youth narcissism suggest the potential
of targeting not only children but also their parents.
childhood narcissistic traits;
Keywords:
narcissism; parenting
parental overvaluation;
parenting;
father’s
1. Introduction
Narcissism has long fascinated clinicians and researchers and still does today. While early work
focused on narcissism as a personality disorder in adults, narcissism is currently mostly studied as
a dimensional trait, in adults as well as in children. Different from what common belief suggests,
narcissism is not the same as excessive self-esteem. In fact, narcissism and self-esteem typically are
only weakly related [1–4], despite some inconsistencies [5]. Individuals with narcissistic traits view
themselves as superior to others, but they are not necessarily satisfied with themselves. The presence of
narcissistic traits puts children and adolescents at risk for the development of emotional and behavioral
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515; doi:10.3390/ijerph17155515
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
2 of 16
problems. More specifically, youth narcissism is associated with both aggression and conduct problems,
as well as with anxiety and depressive symptoms [1,6–8].
The problematic outcomes associated with childhood narcissism require new, tailored intervention
approaches. These approaches need to be informed by a theory- and evidence-based understanding of
the developmental origins and socialization of youth narcissism.
Theoretical accounts of the etiology of narcissism have emphasized the importance of parenting
practices and parent–child relationships [9–11]. Early socialization experiences, especially with primary
caregivers, are crucial for healthy self-concept development. When parents are relatively unable to
provide functional socialization experiences during the child’s early years of life, this may place children
on a pathway of narcissistic maladjustment. Some theorists have argued that narcissism may be
cultivated, specifically, by indulgent and permissive parenting, and the excessive use of unconditional
praise [11,12]. They have argued that this type of parenting may lead children to think that they are
special and entitled to a distinct treatment and, at the same time, may make them dependent upon
external validation. In another account, Kernberg [9] suggested that narcissism may be caused by
parents who look upon their child as special and talented but appear cold or strict, and hold excessively
high expectations. In this context, parents are thought to provide praise and affection only when the
child fulfills their high aspirations. When the child fails to do so, they hold back praise and affection.
Here, children may develop narcissistic self-views to protect themselves from feelings of rejection. Yet
another account has suggested that children’s narcissism may be cultivated by the parents’ narcissistic
use of the child [13]. According to this view, the child is a tool for the parents’ fulfillment of their own
motives and desires, at the expense of the healthy development of the child’s independent sense of self.
Here, the emergence of the child’s narcissistic traits reflects an ongoing request for parental approval
and validation.
Only recently, research has begun to empirically test the theoretical accounts of the socialization of
narcissism. Research findings are still quite divergent. Parenting dimensions that have been associated
with the developmental emergence of narcissism in youths include (maternal) permissiveness and
authoritativeness [3], warmth and positive parenting, as well as psychological control, lack of
monitoring, and inconsistent discipline [14–16]. Longitudinal findings in a large sample of youths also
showed that both the mother’s and father’s hostility and lack of monitoring predicted their offspring’s
narcissism over a period of two years [17].
As it stands, results suggest that different socialization strategies may contribute to children’s
narcissistic traits, although the heterogeneity of the results may be partial due to methodological
differences among studies. For example, studies have used somewhat different conceptualizations and
operationalizations of youth narcissism, assessed conceptually different parenting dimensions, and
differed in sample composition. Some studies have also suffered some methodological limitations,
including the reliance on a single informant (e.g., [3,14–16]) or lack of control for the covariance
existing between narcissism and self-esteem (e.g., [14]). Moreover, while most research has focused on
adolescents or young adults, narcissism typically begins to develop already at an earlier age, in middle
to late childhood [18]. Finally, a gap in the literature regards the question of whether the mother’s and
father’s parenting may differentially relate to their children’s narcissism. Most studies have aggregated
parenting measures across both parents (e.g., [15,16]).
One promising line of research regarding the socialization of narcissism focused on parental
overvaluation—parents’ tendency to consider their child as more special and deserving than others. In
line with Social Learning Theory [19], it assumes that children who are overvalued by their parents
are prone to develop narcissistic features. This may be especially true when parents use inflated,
indiscriminate praise that predisposes children to consider themselves superior and more entitled
than their peers. Brummelman et al. [20] longitudinally investigated the association between parental
overvaluation and children’s narcissistic traits. Results showed that, in a large community sample of
children (age 7–11 at the baseline assessment), both maternal and paternal overvaluation predicted
increased narcissistic traits in children over time. Interestingly, parental overvaluation was not related to
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
3 of 16
the children’s levels of self-esteem, which instead was predicted by parental warmth. In another study,
Brummelman and colleagues [21] found that parental overvaluation is unrelated to basic parenting
dimensions, such as warmth and control, but positively associated with parental narcissistic traits.
Other studies have similarly found a link between overly positive, inflated praise and narcissistic traits
in children (ages 7–11 years) who also have high self-esteem [22]. Children tend to value themselves
based on others’ feedback and what they believe others think about them. So, when parents excessively
praise them, this predisposes them to think they are extraordinary. This might be especially relevant
for children with higher levels of self-esteem, who already hold a positive self-concept.
It is plausible, as hypothesized by Brummelman and colleagues [20], that parental overvaluation
predicts children’s narcissistic traits because the child mimics or inherits the parents’ narcissistic traits.
This suggestion is consistent with predictions from the developmental psychopathology framework,
according to which parental psychopathology is a well-recognized risk factor for children’s mental
health. Besides, genetic transmission and environmental factors, in particular those associated with the
quality of parenting, may mediate the impact of parental psychopathology on child development [23].
Although this suggestion is theoretically well-founded and has been well-supported for various forms
of parental psychopathology, it is still unexplored for parents’ (and consequently, their children’s)
narcissistic traits.
Because clinical theory and empirical work have demonstrated the importance of the parent–child
relationship during late childhood, the present study aims to further explore the parental correlates of
children’s narcissistic traits. It does so by addressing several unanswered issues. Firstly, the present
study tested the hypothesis that parental overvaluation would mediate the putative link between
parental narcissistic traits and children’s narcissistic traits (but not children’s self-esteem). We also
hypothesized that negative parenting would be associated with children’s narcissistic traits (but
not self-esteem), while positive parenting would be associated with children’s self-esteem (but not
narcissistic traits). We tested the models separately for mothers and fathers, although we did not
formulate specific hypotheses, given inconsistent previous findings. We used children’s sex as a control
variable in all models.
2. Materials and Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were fourth- and fifth-grade students from primary schools located in an urban
region in south-eastern Italy (Apulia). The schools were located in five cities, reflecting diverse
urban characteristics, and can be easily found in Italy (e.g., a regional capital, provincial capitals,
peripheral areas of such capitals, and provincial towns). We included all participants for whom
complete information could be obtained from at least one parent. The final child sample consisted of
519 participants (males = 47.6% and females = 52.4%) aged 9–11 years (M = 9.67, SD = 0.64). The mother
sample consisted of 494 participants aged 27–55 years (M = 41.69, SD = 4.89), and the father sample
consisted of 442 participants aged 31–70 years (M = 45.11, SD = 5.45). For most children (82.5%), the
dataset contained information from both parents. The samples were homogeneous in terms of racial
and ethnic composition, with at least 96% of children and parents being Italian Caucasian. About 95%
of children had married or cohabiting parents, 4% separated or divorced parents, and 1% a single or
widowed parent. About 16% of the children were also an only child, whereas 36% were first born, 38%
second born, 9% third born, and 1% fourth born or later. The children’s parents were occupationally
diverse (mothers: 9% skilled and technical workers, 40% tradespeople and service workers, 10%
laborer and artisan, and 45% homemakers, unemployed, or other types of unskilled workers; fathers:
22% skilled and technical workers, 43% tradespeople and service workers, 31% laborers and artisans,
and 4% homemakers, unemployed or other types of unskilled workers); 73% of mothers and 67%
of fathers had completed their secondary schooling. These figures adequately represent the general
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
4 of 16
Italian population of parents of fourth- and fifth-grade students in terms of occupation and education
(see [24,25]).
2.2. Materials
All participants (children, mothers, and fathers) completed a paper-and-pencil survey containing
a different set of measures. For the purposes of this study, a selection of these measures was used.
2.2.1. Socio-Demographics
Children were asked to indicate their sex (0 = male, 1 = female), age, and birth order. Parents
were asked to indicate their sex, age, ethnicity, marital status, level of education, and occupation.
2.2.2. Parenting
The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ; [26], as adapted in Italy from Esposito, Servera,
Garcia-Banda, and Del Giudice [27], was used to assess the mothers’ and fathers’ parenting style.
The original version of the APQ, developed using USA samples includes 35 items measuring five
domains of parenting: parental involvement and positive parenting (positive parenting scales), as
well as poor monitoring/supervision, inconsistent discipline, and corporal punishment (negative
parenting scales). Seven additional items evaluating the specific discipline practices other than corporal
punishment are also usually included. However, this factorial structure was not replicated in the
Italian context, where a simpler solution was found [27]. Specifically, the Italian version of the APQ
consists of two scales based on a two-factor solution, namely positive parenting (12 items; e.g., “You
hug or kiss your child when he/she does something well”) and negative parenting (7 items; e.g.,
“You feel that getting your child to obey you is more trouble than it’s worth”). Items are scored on
a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). High scores are interpreted as adequate
parenting practices for the positive scale and as inadequate parenting practices for the negative scale.
The Italian validation study of the APQ showed satisfactory internal consistency reliabilities of the
positive and negative scales for both mothers and fathers (all Cronbach’s alpha coefficients > 0.74). In
this study, we excluded three of the seven items on the negative scale (e.g., “Your child stays out in
the evening past the time he/she is supposed to be home”) because they are not suited for primary
school children. Thus, we performed confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to test the factorial validity
of our APQ measure (see the “Data Analysis” section for model fit criteria) using a parceling approach
for latent modeling (see [28]) of the positive scale (this choice was aimed to limit the total number of
observed indicators in the subsequent structural equation models estimated to meet our research aims).
Specifically, separately for mothers and fathers, items for the positive parenting scale were parceled
into four indicators comprising three items, with an equal distribution of factor loadings across parcels.
Each parcel was computed by averaging the responses across the selected items. The CFAs, based on
a robust maximum likelihood estimation procedure, supported the two-factor structure previously
found by Esposito et al. [27], both for mothers (χ2 (19) = 50.45, p< 0.001, CFI = 0.924, RMSEA = 0.058,
SRMR = 0.061) and fathers (χ2 (19) = 54.21, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.932, RMSEA = 0.065, SRMR = 0.068). The
internal consistency reliability scores, calculated by the factor determinacy [29], were good for the
positive parenting scale (0.86 for mothers and 0.90 for fathers) and adequate for the negative parenting
scale (0.74 for mothers and 0.71 for fathers). Hence, this APQ measurement model was also used in
our analyses.
2.2.3. Parental Narcissism
The 16-item version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-16; [30]), in its Italian adaptation
(see [31]), was used to assess parental trait narcissism. The NPI-16 is a brief, unidimensional measure
derived from the longer NPI-40 [32], designed to measure narcissism in nonclinical populations. It is
composed of 16 pairs of forced-choice items, with each pair proposing two conflicting statements (one
narcissistic, the other non-narcissistic). Participants express a preference for either the narcissistic
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
5 of 16
(coded as 1, e.g., “I find it easy to manipulate people”) or the non-narcissistic response (coded as 0, e.g.,
“I don’t like it when I find myself manipulating people”). Higher scores are indicative of higher levels
of narcissism. Adequate levels of face, internal, discriminant, and predictive validity were reported for
the NPI-16 (e.g., [30,33]. To test its factorial validity in our mothers’ and fathers’ samples, we carried out
CFAs using a parceling approach for latent modeling according to the procedure previously mentioned
for the positive parenting scale of the APQ. Separately for mothers and fathers, items were parceled
into four indicators comprising four items, with an equal distribution of factor loadings across parcels.
Each parcel was computed by averaging the responses across the selected items. The CFAs, based on a
robust maximum likelihood estimation procedure, supported the one-factor structure, both for mothers
(χ2 (2) = 0.80, p = 0.67, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.000, SRMR = 0.009) and fathers (χ2 (2) = 2.55, p = 0.28,
CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.025, SRMR = 0.013). The factor determinacy scores were good (0.82 for
mothers and 0.86 for fathers). Hence, this NPI-16 measurement model was also used in our analyses.
2.2.4. Parental Overvaluation
The Parental Overvaluation Scale (POS) was used to assess “parents’ belief that their own child
is more special and more entitled than other children” [21] (p. 666). It is a unidimensional measure
comprising 7 items (e.g., “My child is more special than other children”) scored on a Likert-type scale
ranging from 0 (not at all true) to 3 (completely true). Higher scores are indicative of the parents’
higher overvaluation of their children. The POS demonstrated high test–retest stability over 6, 12,
and 18 months, as well as good convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity [21]. Since it was
developed among Dutch and American parents, we needed to verify that it could be applied to Italian
parents. We conducted exploratory (principal component) factor analyses using the oblimin rotation,
for both mothers and fathers. Results suggested a one-factor solution explaining 38.63% and 41.94% of
the total variance, respectively, for mothers and fathers. We further tested the factorial validity of the
POS by CFAs using a parceling approach for latent modeling. Separately for mothers and fathers, six
of the seven items were parceled into three indicators comprising two items, with an equal distribution
of factor loadings across parcels. Each parcel was computed by averaging the responses across the
selected items. The CFAs, based on a robust maximum likelihood estimation procedure, supported
the one-factor structure, both for mothers (χ2 (2) = 1.79, p = 0.41, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.000, SRMR
= 0.011) and fathers (χ2 (2) = 0.54, p = 0.76, CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.025, SRMR = 0.006). The factor
determinacy scores were good (0.87 for mothers and 0.88 for fathers). Hence, this POS measurement
model was also used in our analyses
2.2.5. Children’s Narcissism
The Childhood Narcissism Scale (CNS; [6]), as validated by Muratori et al. [1] in the Italian context,
was used to assess the children’s narcissism traits. It is a unidimensional measure including 10 items
(e.g., “I think it’s important to stand out”) scored on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all true) to
3 (completely true). Higher scores are indicative of higher levels of narcissism. The CNS demonstrated
good internal consistency reliability as well as good convergent and discriminant validity [1,6]. To test
its factorial validity in our sample of children, we conducted a CFA using a parceling approach for
latent modeling. Items were parceled into four indicators comprising two or three items, with an equal
distribution of factor loadings across parcels. Each parcel was computed by averaging the responses
across the selected items. The CFA, based on a robust maximum likelihood estimation procedure,
supported the one-factor structure (χ2 (2) = 0.92, p = 0.63, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.000, SRMR = 0.008).
The factor determinacy score was good (0.81). Hence, this CNS measurement model was also used in
our analyses.
2.2.6. Children’s Self-Esteem
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES [34]; Italian adaptation by Prezza, Trombaccia, and
Armento [35] was used to assess children’s self-esteem. It is the most widely used one-factor measure
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
6 of 16
to assess self-esteem, including 10 items (e.g., “On the whole I am satisfied with myself”; five items
are reverse worded) scored on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly
agree). Higher scores are indicative of higher levels of self-esteem. Reliability and validity for the
RSES have been provided in several studies (for recent meta-analytic studies, see [36,37]). To test
its factorial validity in our sample of children, we conducted a CFA using a parceling approach for
latent modeling. Items were parceled into four indicators comprising two or three items, with an
equal distribution of factor loadings across parcels. Each parcel was computed by averaging the
responses across the selected items. The CFA, based on a maximum likelihood estimation procedure,
supported the one-factor structure (χ2 (2) = 4.22, p = 0.12, CFI = 0.993, RMSEA = 0.046, SRMR = 0.016).
The factor determinacy score was good (0.83). Hence, this RSES measurement model was also used in
the following analyses.
2.3. Procedure
We explained the study’s purpose to the participating school principals and teachers, who provided
their informed consent for the research. Parents were informed about the research purposes through a
letter and we obtained their written informed consent prior to data collection. If parents consented to
their child’s and their own participation, they were asked to complete four questionnaires (i.e., one
for sociodemographic data and one for self-reported parenting, narcissistic traits, and overvaluation).
Two questionnaires were provided for each participating child, as both the mother and the father were
asked to complete the questionnaires, based on their own free choice. If they did not consent, they
were asked to return non-completed questionnaires to school. Before completing the questionnaires,
parents were asked to specify whether they were fathers or mothers, and to identify themselves by
using an ID code combining the first three letters of their child’s name and surname.
We completed the data collection in children in a single session at school. Research assistants
arranged a visit to classes, providing students whose parents agreed to participate with a package
containing the survey (assessing self-esteem and narcissistic traits). We provided general information
about the aims of the study and explained the confidentiality of the data. To protect confidentiality,
participants were instructed to choose an identifying code by combining the first three letters of
their names and surnames, and then to fill in the self-reports at their leisure, taking all the time they
needed. Teachers were not present in the classroom, to make sure that the children did not experience
their research participation as a school task. Children were also assured that their participation was
voluntary and that they could decline to participate at any time. All children whose parents agreed to
participate completed their survey.
Families received no compensation and were treated in accordance with the ethical standards
outlined by the American Psychological Association and the Italian Association of Academic
Psychologists (AIP, www.aipass.org). The protocol for the data collection and treatment was approved
by the department’s ethics committee (ethics reference code: ET-20-06).
2.4. Data Analysis
The data analysis proceeded in several steps. First, to verify the univariate and multivariate
normality of the distributions and be able to choose the correct estimation method in the subsequent
analyses, we computed descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and normality indices) for
the main study variables in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24 (IBM Corp.,
Armonk, NY, USA).
Secondly, we computed bivariate correlations, separately for the mother–child and father–child
dyads, using a structural equation model in Mplus 7.2 (Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA, USA) [29].
This model included a control (sex), the specified latent variables (positive parenting, negative parenting,
parental narcissism, parental overvaluation, children’s narcissism, and children’s self-esteem), and
allowed covariances between them to be freely estimated.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
7 of 16
Thirdly, to test the potential mediating role of parental overvaluation, we estimated a structural
equation “full mediation” model. We fixed to zero the direct links between the independent variables
(i.e., parental narcissism, as well as positive parenting and negative parenting) and the dependent
variables (i.e., children’s narcissism and self-esteem) (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Theoretical full mediation model of the relations of parental narcissism, positive parenting,
and negative parenting with children’s narcissism and self-esteem via parental overvaluation. The
key study variables and their related paths are presented in black. As the control variable, sex and its
related paths are presented in gray.
Fourthly, because our hypotheses also suggested potential direct links between the independent
and dependent variables, we additionally estimated six “partial mediation” models (see Figure 2 and
the paths named a, b, c, d, e, and f). These models served to assess whether our proposed parental
overvaluation mediator fully accounted for the putative associations between the independent and
dependent variables.
In both the full mediation and partial mediation models, all indirect paths through parental
overvaluation were tested, and each model was controlled for sex. Following Faraci and Musso [38] as
well as Kline [39], multiple indices
χ were used to evaluate the model fit (adopted cutoffs in parentheses):
the chi-square
(χ2 ) test value with
≥
≥ the associated p value (p > 0.05), comparative fit index (CFI ≥ 0.90
for≤acceptable and ≥ 0.95 for
good
fit), root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.08
≤
for acceptable and ≤ 0.05≤for good fit), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR < 0.10
χ
for acceptable
and ≤ 0.05 for good fit). However, by acknowledging the potential limitation of the
2
χ test because of its sensitivity to reject the null hypothesis with large sample sizes and complex
models [40], we mostly relied on the goodness-of-fit indices. Nested model comparison (the more
restrictive vs. the less restrictive models) was used to examine whether direct paths of parental
χ
narcissism, positive parenting, and negative parenting with children’s narcissism and self-esteem
Δχ
were tenable. In this case, the criteria for ascertaining significant differences included significant χ2
differences (∆χ2 with p < 0.05).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
8 of 16
Figure 2. Theoretical partial mediation models of the relations of parental narcissism, positive parenting,
and negative parenting with children’s narcissism and self-esteem including (1) the six direct paths a, b,
c, d, e, or f; and (2) the indirect paths via parental overvaluation. The key study variables and their
related paths are presented in black. As the control variable, sex and its related paths are presented
in gray.
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary Analyses
Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics. It shows how some variables were not normally
distributed with skewness and kurtosis values >|1.00| [39]. As multivariate non-normality was
also found (normalized Mardia’s coefficient was 13.24, p < 0.001 for the mother-child sample, and
9.79, p < 0.001 for the father-child sample), the data were subsequently analyzed using the maximum
likelihood robust estimation method (MLR in context of Mplus). Table 2 reports the bivariate correlations
among the latent and control variables after estimating the structural equation models specifying
all covariances between them. Both the models including mothers and children (χ2 (255) = 338.57,
p = 0.0004, CFI = 0.952, RMSEA = 0.026, SRMR = 0.042) and fathers and children (χ2 (255) = 361.52,
p < 0.001, CFI = 0.943, RMSEA = 0.031, SRMR = 0.047) fit the data well.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
9 of 16
Table 1. Mean scores, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis of the observed variables for the
mother–child and father–child groups.
Observed Variable
Mean
Standard Deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
Mother–child group (N = 494)
Positive parenting (pp; scored 1–5)
Parcel_pp_1
Parcel_pp_2
Parcel_pp_3
Parcel_pp_4
Negative parenting (np; scored 1–5)
Parcel_np_1
Parcel_np_2
Parcel_np_3
Parcel_np_4
Parental narcissism (pn; scored 0–16)
Parcel_pn_1
Parcel_pn_2
Parcel_pn_3
Parcel_pn_4
Parental overvaluation (po; scored
0–3)
Parcel_po_1
Parcel_po_2
Parcel_po_3
Parcel_po_4
Children’s narcissism (cn; scored 0–3)
Parcel_cn_1
Parcel_cn_2
Parcel_cn_3
Parcel_cn_4
Self-esteem (se; scored 0–3)
Parcel_se_1
Parcel_se_2
Parcel_se_3
Parcel_se_4
Sex (0 = male, 1 = female)
4.33
3.76
4.33
4.20
0.54
0.59
0.60
0.62
−0.73
−0.34
−1.05
−1.09
0.16
0.29
0.86
2.41
2.65
2.16
2.60
1.74
1.21
1.19
1.12
0.93
0.20
0.70
0.09
0.82
−0.82
−0.50
−0.63
−0.59
0.72
0.97
0.50
0.49
0.79
0.88
0.77
0.73
0.85
0.56
1.66
1.45
0.14
−0.42
2.71
1.61
0.72
0.75
1.24
0.56
0.60
0.64
0.81
0.84
0.75
0.98
0.40
1.48
0.40
0.74
−0.53
1.43
0.67
0.83
1.23
1.01
0.55
0.72
0.76
0.53
1.00
0.77
0.36
0.54
1.22
0.14
−0.55
0.37
1.82
2.05
2.27
2.01
0.53
0.70
0.59
0.60
0.54
0.50
−0.31
−0.33
−0.68
−0.41
−0.13
−0.31
−0.21
0.08
−0.03
−1.99
Father–child group (N = 442)
Positive parenting (pp; scored 1–5)
Parcel_pp_1
Parcel_pp_2
Parcel_pp_3
Parcel_pp_4
Negative parenting (np; scored 1–5)
Parcel_np_1
Parcel_np_2
Parcel_np_3
Parcel_np_4
Parental narcissism (pn; scored 0–16)
Parcel_pn_1
Parcel_pn_2
Parcel_pn_3
Parcel_pn_4
Parental overvaluation (po; scored
0–3)
Parcel_po_1
Parcel_po_2
Parcel_po_3
Parcel_po_4
Children’s narcissism (cn; scored 0–3)
Parcel_cn_1
Parcel_cn_2
Parcel_cn_3
Parcel_cn_4
Self-esteem (se; scored 0–3)
Parcel_se_1
Parcel_se_2
Parcel_se_3
Parcel_se_4
Sex (0 = male, 1 = female)
4.14
3.81
4.07
3.97
0.59
0.62
0.67
0.70
−0.71
−0.60
−0.83
−0.78
0.40
0.30
0.52
0.89
2.23
2.00
1.94
2.19
1.04
1.11
1.08
1.06
0.81
1.08
1.17
0.69
0.21
0.48
0.77
−0.18
0.69
1.33
0.76
0.82
0.82
1.00
0.91
0.94
1.12
0.53
1.09
0.91
0.99
−0.13
0.76
−0.04
0.80
0.79
1.27
0.60
0.62
0.70
0.88
0.90
0.58
0.92
0.30
1.46
0.06
0.42
−0.91
1.14
0.66
0.82
1.22
1.01
0.55
0.71
0.76
0.52
1.04
0.76
0.37
0.56
1.44
0.09
−0.55
0.52
1.85
2.05
2.29
2.02
0.53
0.69
0.59
0.59
0.53
0.50
−0.34
−0.36
−0.67
−0.45
−0.14
−0.22
−0.06
0.11
0.09
−1.99
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
10 of 16
Table 2. Bivariate correlations among the latent and control variables of the study after estimating the
structural equation models, specifying all covariances between them for both the mother–child and
father–child groups.
1.
1. Positive parenting
2. Negative parenting
3. Parental narcissism
4. Parental overvaluation
5. Children’s narcissism
6. Self-esteem
7. Sex (0 = male, 1 = female)
−0.10
−0.19 **
0.14 *
−0.01
0.15 *
−0.02
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
−0.04
0.03
−0.02
0.05
0.14
0.38
−0.04
0.12
0.16 *
0.16 *
0.06
−0.01
0.03
0.10
0.27 ***
−0.07
−0.08
−0.01
−0.03
−0.19 **
−0.02
0.11
0.11
0.08
−0.04
−0.15 *
0.46 ***
0.20 **
0.04
0.01
0.08
0.07
−0.04
0.29 ***
−0.18 *
−0.04
Note: Lower diagonal—correlation matrix for the mother–child data (N = 494). Upper diagonal—correlation matrix
for the father–child data. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
3.2. Mediation Models
3.2.1. Mother-Child Models
We estimated the full and partial mediation models. In the initial estimate of the full mediation
model, we controlled for sex by allowing it to predict all the latent variables; however, sex was only
significantly linked to negative parenting and children’s narcissism. Only these significant paths were
retained, and the model was re-estimated. This full mediation model had good fit (χ2 (266) = 354.50,
p = 0.0002, CFI = 0.949, RMSEA = 0.026, SRMR = 0.046). Next, we estimated the six partial mediation
models. We found no significant differences when comparing the full mediation and the partial
mediation models, including the direct links from positive parenting (∆χ2 (1) = 0.75, p = 0.32) or
negative parenting (∆χ2 (1) = 0.56, p = 0.45), to children’s narcissism, nor from negative parenting
(∆χ2 (1) = 0.56, p = 0.45) or mothers’ narcissism (∆χ2 (1) = 0.15, p = 0.70) to children’s self-esteem. The
comparison of the full and the partial mediation models, including the direct links from the mothers’
narcissism to children’s narcissism (∆χ2 (1) = 5.77, p = 0.016) and from positive parenting to children’s
self-esteem (∆χ2 (1) = 4.44, p = 0.035), showed that the full mediation model fit the data significantly
worse. Thus, the final (partial) mediation model included these paths (see Figure 3) (χ2 (264) = 342.80,
p = 0.0008, CFI = 0.954, RMSEA = 0.025, SRMR = 0.043). This model showed how the mothers’
narcissism was directly and positively related to the mothers’ overvaluation and children’s narcissism.
It also showed how positive parenting was directly and positively related to children’s self-esteem.
However, the mediator (mothers’ overvaluation) was not significantly associated with children’s
narcissism and self-esteem. Moreover, no significant indirect associations were found through it.
Finally, female children were more likely to have lower levels of narcissism and to experience negative
parenting from mothers than male ones.
3.2.2. Father-Child Models
We followed the same analytic steps as for the mother–child models. Only the significant
path between sex and children’s narcissism was retained. The full mediation model had a good fit
(χ2 (267) = 370.189, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.945, RMSEA = 0.030, SRMR = 0.049). We found no significant
differences when comparing the full mediation and the six partial mediation models (in all cases
the value of ∆χ2 with one degree of freedom was <2.41 and p > 0.12). Thus, we considered the full
mediation model the final one (see Figure 4). This model showed how the fathers’ narcissism was
directly and positively related to the fathers’ overvaluation, which, in turn, was directly and positively
associated with the children’s narcissism. Furthermore, the indirect effect of the fathers’ narcissism on
children’s narcissism through the mediation of the fathers’ overvaluation was significant and positive
(β = 0.06, p = 0.03). Finally, female children were more likely to have lower levels of narcissism
than males.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
11 of 16
Figure 3. Estimated structural equation model for the best fitting mediation model among the mother–child dyads. N = 494. Standardized regression coefficients
(betas) are shown. The measurement part of the model (including the parcels and factor loadings) is presented in black. The key study latent variables and their
related paths are presented in bold black. Sex, as the control variable, and its related paths are presented in bold gray. Solid lines represent significant paths and
dashed lines represent non-significant paths. For better visualization, residuals and non-significant covariances are not shown. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
12 of 16
Figure 4. Estimated structural equation model for the best fitting mediation model among the father–child dyads. N = 442. Standardized regression coefficients (betas)
are shown. The measurement part of the model (including the parcels and factor loadings) is presented in black. The key study latent variables and their related paths
are presented in bold black. Sex, as the control variable, and its related paths are presented in bold gray. Solid lines represent significant paths and dashed lines
represent non-significant paths. For better visualization, residuals and non-significant covariances are not shown. The standardized indirect effect of the fathers’
β
narcissism on children’s narcissism through the fathers’ overvaluation was β = 0.06, p = 0.03. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
13 of 16
4. Discussion
This study aimed to contribute to our understanding of the parental correlates of children’s
narcissistic traits by addressing several gaps in the literature. We sampled children in the developmental
stage of late childhood, an age period that is still underrepresented in this research field despite its
importance for the development of self-views. We assessed both parental overvaluation and parenting
styles to get a comprehensive view of the socialization experiences associated with children’s narcissistic
traits. Perhaps most importantly, and in line with the developmental psychopathology framework, we
sought to contribute understanding of the putative link between parents’ narcissistic traits and those
of their children. In doing so, we explored the differential effects for mothers and fathers.
We found that the positive link between fathers’ narcissistic traits and those of their children
was partially mediated by the fathers’ overvaluation. This was different for mothers. The mothers’
narcissistic traits were directly and positively related to those of their children, but this link was
not mediated by overvaluation. While both parents’ narcissism is associated with their children’s
narcissism, this link might be driven by different developmental pathways. Speculatively, this may be
because of the different roles that a mother and father tend to play in raising their children. Although
such different roles are likely to differ across cultures and time, and parents’ involvement with their
children is obviously not predetermined by their sex, different involvement of fathers and mothers in
raising their children can be consequential. Fathers have been thought to play a particularly important
role in introducing their children to the social world and helping them to navigate it [41]. This might
leave room for fathers to play an important role in influencing the way children interact with and
perceive themselves in relation to other people—potentially cultivating an interpersonal style marked
by entitlement and superiority in children. Indeed, fathers’ narcissistic traits promote an excessively
positive view of their children, which may manifest in terms of them modelling their children to
interact with others with a sense of grandiosity.
Mothers more typically play a role as primary source of well-being, security, and attunement
to children’s needs. At the risk of maintaining cultural stereotypes, this may be particularly true for
South Italian mothers. Previous findings obtained in the same cultural group show that mothers
are more invested than fathers in child caregiving and take a large share of the responsibility for
intergenerational continuity [42]. It is possible that the intergenerational continuity of narcissism from
mothers to children is primarily due to the quality of affective exchanges and caregiving behaviors
that were not the focus of the present study. We encourage further research to test these preliminary
accounts of how Italian fathers and mothers may socialize narcissism in their children.
The correlates of children’s self-esteem were largely different from those of children’s narcissism.
Specifically, while children’s self-esteem was not associated with parental overvaluation, it was
associated with a mother’s positive parenting, as expected. This is consistent with previous work
suggesting that self-esteem is cultivated by parental warmth and acceptance [20,21], while the excessive
use of inflated praise can have the opposite effect [22]. Indeed, according to the self-deflation hypothesis,
inflated praise may implicitly convey to children that they should continue to meet very high standards
and expectations. As it is impossible to reach these standards all the time, inflated praise may lead
children to become dissatisfied with themselves when routinely used by parents.
Interestingly, our results also showed that boys tended to be more narcissistic than girls. This
is consistent with findings reported on both children [6,20] and adults [43], and with previous work
suggesting that male children view themselves more favorably and are more socially dominant
(e.g., [44,45]).
Importantly, the study findings need to be interpreted in the light of a number of limitations.
Firstly, our study design does not allow for teasing apart the genetic and environmental influences
on the overlap between the parents’ and children’s narcissistic traits. We are also unable to draw
conclusions about the direction of the effects. It is possible, for example, that children’s narcissistic
traits may influence their parents’ traits and parenting behaviors. Longitudinal research is needed to
test potential bidirectionality. Secondly, our findings derive from a healthy community sample rather
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
14 of 16
than a clinical sample; generalizability to clinical populations cannot be assumed. Thirdly, we assessed
parenting with self-report measures administered to parents. Such measures can be influenced by
social desirability and dissimulation, perhaps especially so among parents with higher narcissistic
traits. Further studies would benefit from the use of complementary parenting measures, including
observational and child-reported measures.
5. Clinical Implications
Based on our findings, we see most value in intervention approaches that target parents as well as
their children: both can be supported so that children will increasingly derive feelings of worth and
accomplishment from effortful behaviors, rather than from “fixed” abilities or performances. This should
keep children from developing vulnerable self-images if they fail to live up to high expectations [22,46].
Acceptance and commitment therapy may provide a useful intervention framework to help children
and their parents develop psychological flexibility and adaptive behavior through committed action
in accordance with their personal values—an approach that seems promising for the treatment of
narcissism [47–49].
6. Conclusions
Notwithstanding some limitations, our findings provide a new understanding of the parental
correlates of children’s narcissistic traits. Parental narcissism may facilitate the development of
narcissistic traits in children. In fathers, this is partly due to narcissistic fathers being more likely to
overvalue their children. Our findings inform the development of tailored intervention for youth
narcissism and the availability of brief measures to assess parental overvaluation may help identify
those fathers that could benefit from parenting support.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization: P.M. (Pietro Muratori), G.C., C.B., P.M. (Pasquale Musso), and S.T.;
methodology: P.M. (Pietro Muratori) and G.C.; data curation: G.C., P.M. (Pasquale Musso), C.S. and B.I.; formal
analysis: P.M. (Pasquale Musso); investigation: G.C., P.M. (Pietro Muratori), C.S. and B.I.; resources: G.C., R.C.
and G.M.; writing—original draft preparation: P.M. (Pietro Muratori), P.M (Pasquale Musso), G.C., V.L., C.B. and
G.M.; writing—review and editing: P.M. (Pietro Muratori), G.C., P.M. (Pasquale Musso), V.L., C.B., B.I., G.M, C.S.,
R.C. and S.T.; project administration: G.C. and P.M. (Pietro Muratori). All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank the school principals, teachers, and families, as well as the
following members of the research team: Paola Daniele, Deborah Sorbo, and Marisa Lassandro.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Muratori, P.; Milone, A.; Brovedani, P.; Levantini, V.; Melli, G.; Pisano, S.; Valente, E.; Thomaes, S.; Masi, G.
Narcissistic traits and self-esteem in children: Results from a community and a clinical sample of patients
with oppositional defiant disorder. J. Affect. Disord. 2018, 241, 275–281. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Brummelman, E.; Thomaes, S.; Sedikides, C. Separating narcissism from self-esteem. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.
2016, 25, 8–13. [CrossRef]
Ramsey, A.; Watson, P.J.; Biderman, M.D.; Reeves, A.L. Self-reported narcissism and perceived parental
permissiveness and authoritarianism. J. Genet. Psychol. 1996, 157, 227–238. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Thomaes, S.; Bushman, B.J.; Stegge, H.; Olthof, T. Trumping shame by blasts of noise: Narcissism, self-esteem,
shame, and aggression in young adolescents. Child. Dev. 2008, 79, 1792–1801. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Barry, C.T.; Grafeman, S.J.; Adler, K.K.; Pickard, J.D. The Relations among narcissism, self-esteem, and
delinquency in a sample of at-risk adolescents. J. Adolesc. 2007, 30, 933–942. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Thomaes, S.; Stegge, H.; Bushman, B.; Olthof, T.; Denissen, J. Development and validation of the childhood
narcissism scale. J. Personal. Assess 2008, 90, 382–391. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
15 of 16
Barry, C.T.; Frick, P.J.; Adler, K.K.; Grafeman, S.J. The predictive utility of narcissism among children and
adolescents: Evidence for a distinction between adaptive and maladaptive narcissism. J. Child. Fam. Stud.
2007, 16, 508–521. [CrossRef]
Hiemstra, W.; Verhulp, E.E.; Thomaes, S.; De Castro, B.O. Self-views and aggression in boys referred for
disruptive behavior problems: Self-esteem, narcissism, and their interaction. Eur. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry
2020, 29, 343–351. [CrossRef]
Kernberg, O. Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 1975.
Kohut, H. The Restoration of the Self ; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1977; ISBN1 0-226-45013-9.
ISBN2 978-0-226-45013-1.
Millon, T.; Davis, R.O. Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Oxford, UK, 1996.
Imbesi, L. The making of a narcissist. Clin. Soc. Work J. 1999, 27, 41–54. [CrossRef]
Rothstein, A. The theory of narcissism: An object-relations perspective. Psychoanal. Rev. 1979, 66, 35–47.
Eberly-Lewis, M.B.; Vera-Hughes, M.; Coetzee, T.M. Parenting and adolescent grandiose narcissism:
Mediation through independent self-construal and need for positive approval. J. Genet. Psychol. 2018, 179,
207–218. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Horton, R.S.; Bleau, G.; Drwecki, B. Parenting narcissus: What are the links between parenting and narcissism?
J. Personal. 2006, 74, 345–376. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mechanic, K.; Barry, C. Adolescent Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissism: Associations with Perceived
Parenting Practices. J. Child. Youth Fam. Stud. 2015, 24, 1510–1518. [CrossRef]
Wetzel, E.; Robins, R.W. Are parenting practices associated with the development of narcissism? Findings
from a longitudinal study of Mexican-origin youth. J. Res. Personal. 2016, 63, 84–94. [CrossRef]
Harter, S. Developmental differences in self-representations during childhood. In Harter, the Construction of the Self:
Developmental and Sociocultural Foundations, 2nd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 27–71.
Millon, T. Modern Psychopathology: A Biosocial Approach to Maladaptive Learning and Functioning; Saunders:
Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1969.
Brummelman, E.; Thomaes, S.; Nelemans, S.A.; De Castro, B.O.; Overbeek, G.; Bushman, B.J. Origins of
narcissism in children. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 3659–3662. [CrossRef]
Brummelman, E.; Thomaes, S.; Nelemans, S.A.; Orobio de Castro, B.; Bushman, B.J. My child is God’s gift to
humanity: Development and validation of the Parental Overvaluation Scale (POS). J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
2015, 108, 665–679. [CrossRef]
Brummelman, E.; Nelemans, S.A.; Thomaes, S.; Orobio de Castro, B. When parents’ praise inflates, children’s
self-esteem deflates. Child. Dev. 2017, 88, 1799–1809. [CrossRef]
Seifer, R.; Dickstein, S. Parental mental illness and infant development. In Handbook of Infant Mental Health,
2nd ed.; Zeanah, C.H., Jr., Ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 145–160.
Italian National Institute of Statistics. Il Mercato del Lavoro. Verso Una Lettura Integrata. The labor market.
Towards an integrate reading. 2017. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/files/2017/12/Rapporto-MercatoLavoro-2017.pdf (accessed on 9 March 2020).
Italian National Institute of Statistics. Noi Italia. 100 Statistiche per Capire il Paese in Cui Viviamo [We, Italy.
100 statistics to understand the Country we live in] 2018. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/files/2018/
12/Rapporto-Mercato-Lavoro-2018.pdf (accessed on 9 March 2020).
Shelton, K.K.; Frick, P.J. Assessment of parenting practices in families of elementary school-age children. J.
Clin. Child. Psychol. 1996, 25, 317. [CrossRef]
Esposito, A.; Servera, M.; Garcia-Banda, G.; Giudice, E. Factor analysis of the italian version of the alabama
parenting questionnaire in a community sample. J. Child. Fam Stud. 2016, 25, 1208–1217. [CrossRef]
Little, T.D.; Cunningham, W.A.; Shahar, G.; Widaman, K.F. To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question,
weighing the merits. Struct. Equ. Modeling 2002, 9, 151–173. [CrossRef]
Muthén, B.O.; Muthén, L.K. Mplus (Version 7.2) [Computer software]; Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles, CA,
USA, 2014.
Ames, D.R.; Rose, P.; Anderson, C.P. The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. J. Res. Personal. 2006, 40,
440–450. [CrossRef]
Fossati, A.; Borroni, S.; Maffei, C. Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the narcissistic personality
inventory. Rivista Psic Clinic. 2008, 1, 94–111.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5515
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
16 of 16
Raskin, R.; Terry, H. A Principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and further
evidence of its construct validity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 890–902. [CrossRef]
Casale, S.; Fioravanti, G. Why narcissists are at risk for developing Facebook addiction: The need to be
admired and the need to belong. Addict. Behav. 2018, 76, 312–318. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rosenberg, M. Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). Accept. Commit. Ther. Meas. Package 1965, 61, 18.
Prezza, M.; Trombaccia, F.R.; Armento, L. La scala dell’autostima di Rosenberg: Traduzione e validazione
Italiana [The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Italian translation and validation]. Giunti Organizzazioni Spec.
1997, 223, 35–44.
Gnambs, T.; Scharl, A.; Schroeders, U. The structure of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: A cross-cultural
meta-analysis. Z. Psychol. 2018, 226, 14–29. [CrossRef]
Huang, C.; Dong, N. Factor structures of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: A meta-analysis of pattern
matrices. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess 2012, 28, 132–138. [CrossRef]
Faraci, P.; Musso, P. La valutazione dei modelli di equazioni strutturali [The evaluation of structural equation
models]. In I modelli di equazioni strutturali: Temi e prospettive; Barbaranelli, C., Ingoglia, S., Eds.; LED: Milan,
Italy, 2013; pp. 111–150. [CrossRef]
Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
Sass, D.A. Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory factor
analysis framework. J. Psychoeduc Assess 2011, 29, 347–363. [CrossRef]
Paquette, D. Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Hum. Dev.
2004, 47, 193–219. [CrossRef]
Cassibba, R.; Coppola, G.; Sette, G.; Curci, A.; Costantini, A. The transmission of attachment across three
generations: A study in adulthood. Dev. Psychol. 2017, 53, 396–405. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Foster, J.D.; Campbell, W.K.; Twenge, J.M. Individual differences in narcissism: Inflated self-views across the
lifespan and around the world. J. Res. Personal. 2003, 37, 469–486. [CrossRef]
Harter, S. The self. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 3. Social, Emotional, and Personality Development;
Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 505–570.
Maccoby, E.E. Gender and relationships: A developmental account. Am. Psychol. 1990, 45, 513–520.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mueller, C.M.; Dweck, C.S. Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. J.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 75, 33–52. [CrossRef]
Tracy, J.L.; Robins, R.W. Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychl. Inq. 2004,
15, 103–125. [CrossRef]
Hayes, S.C. Healthy flexibility: Applying acceptance, mindfulness, and values to behavioral medicine. In Mindfulness
and Acceptance in Behavioral Medicine; McCracken, L., Ed.; New Harbinger: Oakland, CA, USA, 2011.
Tracy, J.L.; Robins, R.W. Death of a (Narcissistic) Salesman: An integrative model of fragile self-esteem.
Psychol. Inq. 2003, 14, 57.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).