Economic Crisis Narcissism Science Psyarxiv

1 Economic crises and false incentives, and to a lesser extent narcissism, are at the heart of imbalanced 2

egos in science

3 4

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

5 6P. O. Box 7, Miki-cho post office, Ikenobe 3011-2, Kagawa-ken, 761-0799, Japan; [email protected] 7 8Abstract 9Is narcissism an ill that has resulted in the corruption of human values in science? Do potentially overzealous 10leaders possess personality traits that makes them demi-gods in academia? There is evidence in science that 11some individuals in leadership positions may come across as having excessive egocentric personalities, but 12this may be induced by the academic environment in which they were raised, of increasingly cut-throat 13competition for grants and positions, itself driven by false incentives like impact factors and economic crises. 14These pressures may have driven individuals perceived as being narcissistic to become more self-assertive, 15and thus more socially visible. Narcissism is evidently, in some individuals, a natural response to a highly 16stressful and competitive academic environment driven by unnatural incentives. Does narcissism play any 17role in what appears to be an increase in retractions in the cancer literature? Some prominent cases of 18retractions in the cancer literature are examined. 19 20Keywords: Ego; Incentives; Narcissism; Personality; Success 211. Narcissism: A Broad Overview and Brief Introduction 22Narcissism is a complex psychological state that may involve a state of grandiosity, but fragility, a need to be 1

23admired, a lack of empathy, a sense of entitlement and superiority, the ability to thrive in stressful situations, 24usually in the face of personal glory (i.e., greater self-esteem and socialization), but withdrawal in the face of 25the lack of such self-glorification, and/or even the derogation of others – i.e., some form of aggression – in 26the face of threats to one’s self or to one’s image [1, 2, 3, 4]. However, the limits that define narcissism as a 27pathological condition are evolving [5]. This is because narcissism may adopt many forms, both adaptive and 28maladaptive, and may employ heterogeneous phenomenology, which may also be a result of the manner in 29which narcissism is studied [6]. Narcissism may be classified either as a clinical condition aimed to 30emphasize its pathological state [7], or as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) 1. The latter blog is curious 31because it attempts to understand narcissism from the perspective of individuals who are exposed to a 32potentially narcissistic character, or one with NPD in an extreme case. That blog goes on to state, painting an 33extremely bleak picture, stating of a pathological narcissist: “The bottom line is that a narcissist is 34completely incapable of love and void of empathy. This person will never ever ever love you. Any overtures 35they have made that appear to be love have simply been to get you to admire them. Yet, because they suffer 36from feelings of inadequacy, they actually disdain those who admire them. There is NO winning with the 37narcissist.” This does not in fact indicate that all forms of narcissism are negative. In fact, “positive” or 38“normal” narcissism exists, in which an individual seeks positive self-esteem, which is essential for building 39positive relationships and a socially integrated individual, and is thus a healthy level of narcissism [6]. Thus, 40individuals with NPD or pathological narcissism seek self-regulatory mechanisms to enhance themselves and 41deal with disappointment that are poorly adaptive, and involve self-defensive strategies, with the difference 42between a pathological and a normal level of narcissism being that the former is excessive while the latter is 21 https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/getting-back-out-there/201608/the-pathological-narcissist

3

43realistic [6]. Narcissism as a personality trait is usually assessed by the Narcissistic Personality Inventory [8]. 44

Ultimately, as for any mental disease or condition, great care is required in characterizing an individual

45as narcissistic, or with NPD. It is all too easy to characterize an individual who may represent slightly off46centered self-esteem strategies, or image-protective strategies, as narcissistic, and confuse this with normal 47levels of responses to stresses, competition, disappointment and success, and fluctuations may result from 48“stoic controlled distancing or charming inviting engagement” [9]. It is on this cautionary note that it is 49worth indicating that the existence of narcissism or NPD in science, or among scientists, has not been a 50formally studied discipline, with no apparent clinical descriptions or empirical findings. Based on an essay 51written by Bruno Lemaitre in 2016 2 in which the author attempted to associate socially maladapted scientists 52with narcissism, a more formalized claim of narcissism in science was published by the same author in 2017 53[10], although this was based heavily on personal perception and interpretation rather than on formal 54psychological evaluations, made by a scientist, and not by a psychologist. While Lemaitre argues that 55narcissism shapes the behavior of scientists, I wish to try and argue in this commentary how it is the culture 56of science and the research and publishing environment that shapes a potentially narcissistic personality. 57 582. Possible Presence of Pathological Narcissism in Science 59Lemaitre [10] attempted to rely on narcissism to try and explain what he perceives to be a phenomenon in 60science, and somehow use that condition to explain how science and scientists have become corrupted – to 61some extent – by individuals that strive to achieve a high level of status based on their desire to publish in 62high impact factor journals, claiming that this desire is what drives Nobel Prize candidates to travel and

42 http://brunolemaitre.ch/narcissism-science/book/ 5

3

63network extensively. Lemaitre claimed that this phenomenon is prevalent in elite institutions because the 64stakes in ego are higher there, and that “poorly visible individuals” are “less motile and can become 65paralysed when having to choose the best strategy from multiple options”. This is a potentially misguided 66and overly broad mischaracterization of a vertical hierarchical structure that tends to characterize most 67laboratories or academic and research institutes. Lemaitre goes as far as to compare highly visible, and 68successful, scientists, who he claims as being narcissistic, with “mercenary football players”, rock stars and 69even Che Guevara. The existence of “superstar researchers” may stifle the healthy intellectual growth and 70publishing prowess of lesser-known collaborators until they pass away by virtue of the fact that such 71individuals tend to accumulate research funding, citations, patents, professional membership, and awards or 72prizes [11]? What Lemaitre failed to understand is that competition for limited grants is a universal 73phenomenon, even more so for projects that make discoveries at the frontline of knowledge, so leaders have 74to frequently promote their projects, and thus themselves, using mass and social media, to get the importance 75of their research across to the public. Such fame also serves generally for the benefit of the research group, in 76which funding and grants are used to finance larger and more complex research projects. The cycle of 77survival in research demands a prominent leader, although it is easy to confuse “success” with “superior”, or, 78in Lemaitre’s case, narcissistic. Consequently, the premature death of such a leader – which tend to be 79predominantly male – negatively impacts, or overshadows, the survival, funding and citations of 80collaborators, but positively impacts such aspects of non-collaborators, suggesting that such leadership roles 81are not likely to be challenged while such individuals are alive [11]. Recognition for decades of hard work is 82a reward, and not an act of narcissism. One of the most serious flaws of the Lemaitre extrapolation of cases

6

83of narcissism as possibly representing NPD is that he completely ignored the “basal” or “normal” state of 84narcissism that exists in all individuals [7] and is required for the assertion of interpersonal dominance [12]. 85

Even if, in select cases, Lemaitre were right by assuming that a personality did become so great that it

86failed to observe the personality of others around him – because Lemaitre ascribes narcissism as a purely 87male phenomenon – Lemaitre failed to recognize a very simply issue, namely the hierarchical structure that 88occurs in academic institutes. Indeed, dominant groups, which express their dominance within the literature, 89reflect research and publishing prowess, but Lemaitre erroneously associates all of these acts of success with 90narcissistic behavior, referring to their dominance as a “façade of objectivity”. This implies that hard work, 91skills, management ability, and leadership are key qualities that lead an individual to climb up a professional 92ladder to achieve the status of a leader, and thus success. In many, if not most cases, team work is involved, 93and is essential, but usually only the leader is lauded because, without a leader, quite simply, there would 94most likely not be a team, much the same way that an editor-in-chief of a journal is often lauded, although 95those efforts reflect the collective effort of the editorial board members. Even here, Lemaitre claims 96incredulously that narcissistic scientific leaders “use” their students by placing them “at key positions is an 97unconscious strategy (akin to nepotism) for reinforcing their stranglehold on the community where they 98emerge as a leader.” So equating, and thus labeling, academic recognition as an act of blind narcissism is 99misleading, and a mischaracterization, because it attempts to simplistically paste a psychological label to a 100perfectly acceptable and/or rational situation. Lemaitre further goes on to use the argument that public 101recognition improves the visibility of narcissists [13], thereby making another erroneous extrapolation that 102all publicly visible scientists are possibly narcissists. When the leaders of democracies appear publicly, and

7

5

103are given credit for their achievements, it is evident that those achievements have been possible as a result of 104many unknown team members – who themselves have been duly compensated for their work, as salaries and 105grants – and not because those leaders are necessarily narcissists. Lemaitre further attempts to falsely 106associate, without evidence, highly self-confident and persuasive individuals [14] as narcissists, and claims 107that all drive to be successful is a narcissistic drive. Impressively, Lemaitre further claims that this state of 108self-confidence is related to sexual drive, misleadingly basing his conclusions of first physical, non-verbal 109appearance of self-confident scientific leaders on a study that focuses on dating in which attraction is based 110on non-contact features such as photographs [15]. This is a clear misrepresentation of the literature to support 111Lemaitre’s ideas. Curiously, a single study shows that research misconduct among Dutch scientists is 112associated with personality traits such as narcissism, and not by publication pressure or academic position, 113but the way in which that study was conducted was flawed, relying exclusively on questionnaires, lacking a 114control group, and clearly biased towards finding an association between psychological traits and misconduct 115[16]. 116 1173. Possible Rise and Fall in Science Caused by False Incentives and Economic Crises 118Again and again, Lemaitre hammers in the notion that a self-centered personality and narcissism are what 119lead to the rise of a leader in science, i.e., there is a fuzzy and unsubstantiated correlation between narcissism 120and extremely visible leadership. Conveniently, Lemaitre often critiques deceased scientists who are no 121longer around to defend these attacks on their personalities. Yet, nowhere does Lemaitre place the blame on 122the rewards structure that has come to dominate science and which may create a Matthew effect in which

8

123eminence, power, fame, wealth and research and publishing prowess by a leader will further promote these 124same values [17]. Pseudo-academic incentives like the Clarivate Analytics journal impact factor continue to 125drive the false notions of quality and productivity [18], and these are regulations and incentives put into 126place by the academic structures that hire, promote and reward – financially, with grants, and otherwise – the 127so-called narcissists that Lemaitre is critical of. If, for example, leading scientists did not have to 128continuously be placed under pressure to publish in glitzy high-impact factor journals to show their 129“academic” superiority or prowess over their competitors – even within the same department – and if project 130funding was based exclusively on academic merit alone, it is likely that these “narcissists” would most likely 131all evaporate. The problem thus lies with the academic institutes and funding agencies, which drive the 132wrong incentives which scientists must then conform to, as part of the “system”. Yet Lemaitre fails to call 133out these entities that in fact hold the reigns of power. 134

Lemaitre refers to the existence of this phenomenon almost like an extra-terrestrial force, an “extra-

135scientific dimension”, but in fact, economic struggles across the globe touch regular scientists, not only in 136elite research institutes that Lemaitre claims, but in fact everywhere. More recent examples include 137Venezuela [19], and Greece3. So, there are very real and practical reasons for the rise of individuals who 138excel above others, or who stand out, either because the environment of competitive stress can create 139“alternative” personalities that perhaps do not conform to society’s norm, because they are so involved or 140engrossed in what they do, or because they are driven to extreme forms of competition to survive and remain 141at the competitive frontier. 142

The commentary by Lemaitre is clearly very personal, and biased, using terms like “I have been struck

93 http://sciencebusiness.net/news/77112/Greek-scientists-debate-the-economic-crisis 10

7

143by”, or “my very personal intuition”. Lemaitre thus uses narcissism to explain – or negatively label – several 144aspects that are negative about science. Even a basic positive concept like recognition is ascribed to this 145apparent manipulative psychotic condition, stating “a narcissistic personality subtly shapes behaviours in the 146scientific environment.” An almost incredulous desperate need to support his own argument that success in 147science is achieved through narcissism occurs when Lemaitre turns to the “mating patterns” and sexuality of 148leading scientists, equating them with the psychological nature of their scientific and academic drive. 149

In the age of post-publication peer review, aggressive or assertive science watchdogs [20], some of

150whom are themselves academic drop-outs and unsuccessful researchers who were unable to survive the 151rough-and-tumble world of research and publishing, or who are journalists trying to impose incompatible 152journalistic values on the world of science, are spreading a new culture of public shaming and an anti-science 153rhetoric. The potential narcissism of such individuals needs to be carefully assessed [21], but would Lemaitre 154be courageous enough to do so? Scientists and academics should be careful about their misclassification of 155courage, success and academic excellence as an oversimplified psychological condition, narcissism, to 156explain science’s ills. For example, one prominent science watchdog, Leonid Schneider, who ended his 157career in molecular stem cell science after an apparently failed post-doc continuation, edited the Lemaitre 158book (see reference 1 in [10]) based on which the FEBS Journal commentary was based4. Furthermore, it is 159known that Lemaitre published thousands of copies and has been desperate to sell those copies to recover his 160financial investment, but this financial conflict of interest (COI) and the relationship with Schneider are not 161indicated in the COI statement of Lemaitre’s 2017 paper, which in fact does not have a COI statement at all. 162FEBS Journal, despite knowing these facts, has not bothered to issue a correction. 114 https://forbetterscience.com/2016/05/17/bruno-lemaitre-on-science-and-narcissism/

12

163

The wider public, including global academia, should be wary of such oversimplified labeling of

164successful academics, and should take the explanation that their rise to fame was simply a result of their 165narcissistic behavior, with a very large pinch of salt. Even Lemaitre himself states that his ideas are pure 166speculation: “I have speculated that narcissism as a personality trait contributes to this distortion.” 167 1684. Retractions in the Cancer Literature: Possible Link to Narcissistic Behavior 169The cancer literature has been a special target of John Arnold’s “war on bad science”5. Running a 170philanthropic organization that is funding groups to root out ills in science, including The Center for Science 171Integrity Inc., the parent organization of Retraction Watch, and The PubPeer Foundation, cancer is a much 172criticized field of research, with frequent whistle-blowing and public shaming taking place on Retraction 173Watch6 and PubPeer, often in very close coordination with anonymous or pseudonymous whistle-blowers. 174The Cancer Reproducibility Project is run by the Center for Open Science, also funded by the Laura and 175John Arnold Foundation7. There is some merit to several cases in cancer research that have been brought to 176the attention of the public by these watchdogs, including by Schneider 8, although the excessive accentuation 177of error by these groups and their allies, and the extrapolation to fraud and misconduct, is problematic. Does 178narcissism have a role to play in the rise and fall of some of these high-profile cancer researchers? These are 179issues that can only be deciphered when detailed evaluations of these individuals is made by professional 180psychologists, and not based purely on speculation and personal interpretation, as has taken place by

135 https://www.wired.com/2017/01/john-arnold-waging-war-on-bad-science 146 http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/cancer-research/ 157 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/cancer-biology-reproducibility/; https://www.wired.com/story/cancer-researchs16reproducibility-problem-faces-a-second-test/; https://cos.io/our-services/research/rpcb-overview/

178 https://forbetterscience.com/?s=cancer 18

9

181Lemaitre. 182 1835. Prominent Personalities in the Post-Publication Peer Review Movement 184The strife for survival in academia is complicated by oftentimes a strict hierarchical structure that 185encourages, by virtue of the rewards system in place – through grants and publications – self-confident and 186prominent personalities that are often more publicly visible than their collaborators to take public center 187stage. Such publicly prominent positions may result not from a personality trait but merely as a result of 188“visibility”, e.g., in the literature, or through citations. Achievement and competitive advancement are the 189products of positive narcissism [22]. The ability of such leading figures to attract funding and thereby receive 190grants and prizes as a result of their collective group efforts gives them a “superhero” status, at least in the 191eyes of those who try to perceive the nature of such individuals from the outside. However, such successful 192individuals generally tend to benefit the group, but as leaders, take the credit. Bruno Lemaitre in 2016 and 1932017 attempted to associate the act of academic success among prominent scientists with a “high-ego”, 194which he equates with being narcissists. Very little literature, in fact almost none, on the link between 195narcissism and science or scientists, exists, even though the literature on narcissism is enormous (several 196thousand papers on PubMed, for example). Great caution must be taken when interpreting such loose 197associations that are made purely on personal perception and not on any clinical observations, because it may 198erroneously label successful or prominent scientists with a negative psychological stigma, i.e., such 199characterizations, if false, may be libelous. Traditional research and publishing structures are under stress, 200and are being increasingly challenged, including the validity of the literature. Part of this movement involves

19

201rooting out error and showing that erroneous literature has been approved by elite journals using flawed peer 202review [23]. A portion of this post-publication peer review movement is occupied by an anti-establishment 203and anti-status quo mentality, some of which is based on truth, but some of which is based on aggression and 204jealousy. Within this increasingly toxic environment, spurred largely by sites like Retraction Watch and 205PubPeer, which display a form of narcissism in the form of the need for popularity and self-esteem using 206social media [24, 25], and which are often associated with whistle-blowing, legends are being toppled [26], 207reputations are being destroyed, and perceptions are being soiled. The effects are becoming increasingly 208clear in the field of cancer. Such interest groups and biased or embittered anti-science critics, including 209Lemaitre who claims that his mentor stole his ideas when claiming the Nobel Prize, are quick to align any 210malfeasance in science with narcissism, rather than appreciate the role that maturely narcissistic (in a 211positive sense) [27] or highly self-invested individuals play in science. 212 2136. Emergent Literature on Narcissism in Science 214The Paolo Macchiarini scandal [28, 29] has revived the discussion about the role of narcissism in science. A 215PubMed search reveals a flurry of activity related to this topic in recent months. A study by Jauk et al., using 216fMRI as their tool of choice, concluded that when narcissistic men view images of themselves, that it 217resulted in a negative effect rather than a rewarding outcome [30]. In a separate paper by the same group of 218authors, both grandiose and vulnerable (hypersensitive) narcissism were considered to be the same 219phenomenon but simply manifested in different ways, but that depended on the level of introversion or 220extraversion [31]. Individuals with grandiose narcissism, in the face of unethical behavior, are less prone to

20

11

221feeling shame [32]. The widening culture of “selfies” on social media may also be increasing the impression 222of narcissism (about the selfie poster) [33], and it will only be a matter of time before the concept also begins 223to encroach upon science. 224 2257. Conclusions 226There is almost no literature on the link between narcissism or NPD and scientific misconduct, even less 227empirical studies or clinical trials. No psychologists have published work making this direct link and the only 228literature that appears is the personalized association by a disgruntled scientist, Bruno Lemaitre, who feels 229that his ideas were somehow nicked by his Nobel Prize-winning superior. Although there are certainly 230aspects of narcissism in scientists, aspects that are the product of a culture of aggressive scholarly 231competition, individuals have to adjust to survive in this context, or be excluded from the competitive nature 232of academic research and publishing. Thus, although it is tempting to blame narcissism of leaders for 233personal failures, it does little to remedy the ills of a system that may have created overly narcissistic 234individuals. Positive narcissism is also an essential part of humans, including scientists, and that self235confidence drives success. There may be a link between some potentially overly narcissistic personalities and 236the retraction crisis taking place in the cancer literature at present, but extrapolating some “bad apples” to an 237entire cart would require profound trials and exploration, preferably by highly trained psychologists and 238psychiatrists in order to draw any conclusions. In the age of the #MeToo movement where the issue of sexual 239harassment in science is being hotly and openly debated 9, the issue of narcissism in science is surely going to 240see a resurgence, and the issue of mating / sexual orientations and narcissism [34] will need to be

219 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/05/sexual-harassment-science-me-too-essay/

22

241increasingly explored. The issue of hubristic behavior versus humility in science [35] also deserves wider 242debate. Laboratory-based aggression may be born from the desire to “win” and be assertive, and is 243significantly related to “antagonistic and grandiose features of narcissism” [36]. 244 245Conflicts of interest 246The author declares no conflicts of interest of relevance to this topic. 247 248References 249[1] Roberts, R.; T. Woodman; S. Lofthouse; L. Williams. (2015). Not all players are equally motivated: The 250

role of narcissism. European Journal of Sport Science 15(6): 536–542.

251[2] Brummelman, E.; S. Thomaes; S.A. Nelemans; B. Orobio de Castro; G. Overbeek; B.J. Bushman. 252

(2015). Origins of narcissism in children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA

253

112(12): 3659–3662.

254[3] Orth, U.; E.C. Luciano. (2015). Self-esteem, narcissism, and stressful life events: Testing for selection 255

and socialization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109(4): 707–721.

256[4] Park, S.W.; C.R. Colvin. (2015). Narcissism and other-derogation in the absence of ego threat. Journal of 257

Personality 83(3): 334–345.

258[5] Wright, A.G. (2014). Narcissism and its discontents. Personality Disorder 5(2): 232–233. 259[6] Roche, M.J.; Pincus A.L.; Lukowitsky M.R.; Ménard K.S.; Conroy D.E. (2013). An integrative approach 260

to the assessment of narcissism. Journal of Personality Assessment 95(3): 237–248.

261[7] Pincus, A. L.; M.A. Lukowitsky. (2010). Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder. 262

23

Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 6: 421–446.

13

263[8] Raskin, R.N.; C.S. Hall. (1981). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: alternate form reliability and 264

further evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment 45(2): 159–162.

265[9] Ronningstam, E. (2016). Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: recent research 266

and clinical implications. Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports 3(1): 34–42.

267[10] Lemaitre, B. (2017). Science, narcissism and the quest for visibility. The FEBS Journal 284(6): 875– 268

882.

269[11] Azoulay, P.; C. Fons-Rosen; J.S. Graff Zivin. (2015). Does science advance one funeral at a time? 270

National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA; NBER Working Paper No. 21788.

271[12] Brown, R.P.; V. Zeigler-Hill. (2004). Narcissism and the nonequivalence of self-esteem measures: a 272

matter of dominance? Journal of Research in Personality 38(6): 585–592.

273[13] Twenge, J.M.; W.K. Campbell. (2009). The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement. Free 274

Press, New York, 343 pp.

275[14] Paulhus, D.L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed 276

blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 1197–1208.

277[15] Vacharkulksemsuk, T.; E. Reit; P. Khambatta; P.W. Eastwick; E.J. Finkel; D.R. Carney. (2016). 278

Dominant, open nonverbal displays are attractive at zero-acquaintance. Proceedings of the National

279

Academy of Sciences USA 113: 4009–4014.

280[16] Tijdink, J.K.; L.M. Bouter; C.L.S. Veldkamp; P.M. van de Ven; J.M. Wicherts; Y.M. Smulders. (2016). 281

Personality traits are associated with research misbehavior in Dutch scientists: a cross-sectional study.

282

PLoS ONE 11(9): e0163251.

283[17] Merton, R.K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810): 56–63. 284[18] Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; S. Bernès. (2018). Clarivate Analytics: continued omnia vanitas impact factor 24

285

culture. Science and Engineering Ethics 24(1): 291–297.

286[19] Fraser, B. (2016). Science under siege: how Venezuela’s economic crisis is affecting researchers. 287

Nature 535: 336–337.

288[20] Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2016). Science watchdogs. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 5(3): 289

13–15.

290[21] Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2017). Why does Retraction Watch continue to offer support to Jeffrey Beall, 291

and legitimize his post-mortem “predatory” lists? KOME 5(1): 147–152.

292[22] Wallace, H.M.; C.B. Ready; Weitenhagen E. (2009). Narcissism and task persistence. Self and Identity 293

8: 78–93.

294[23] Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; J. Dobránszki. (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding 295

a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality

296

Assurance 22(1): 22–40.

297[24] Utz, S.; M. Tanis; I. Vermeulen. (2012). It is all about being popular: the effects of need for popularity 298

on social network site use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 15(1): 37–42.

299[25] Andreassen, C.S.; S. Pallesen; M.D. Griffiths. (2017). The relationship between addictive use of social 300

media, narcissism, and self-esteem: Findings from a large national survey. Addictive Behaviors 64:

301

287–293.

302[26] Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; J. Dobránszki; A. Al-Khatib. (2016). Legends in science: from boom to bust. 303

Publishing Research Quarterly 32(4): 313–318.

304[27] Gehrie, M.J. (2009). The evolution of the psychology of the self: toward a mature narcissism. Annals of 305

the New York Academy of Sciences 1159: 31–50.

306[28] Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2017). Ethical ramifications to the Paolo Macchiarini case. Indian Journal of 25

15

307

Medical Ethics 2(4): 270-275.

308[29] Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2018). MacchiariniGate: The fall from grace of stem cell healer, Paolo 309

Macchiarini, and clues and concerns from the early literature that cast ethical doubts. Bangladesh

310

Journal of Bioethics 9(1): 1–12.

311[30] Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Koschutnig, K., Kedia, G., Neubauer, A.C. (2017). Self-viewing is associated 312

with negative affect rather than reward in highly narcissistic men: an fMRI study. Scientific Reports

313

7(1): 5804.

314[31] Jauk, E., Weigle, E., Lehmann, K., Benedek, M., Neubauer, A.C. (2017). The relationship between 315

grandiose and vulnerable (hypersensitive) narcissism. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1600.

316[32] Poless, P.G., Torstveit, L., Lugo, R.G., Andreassen, M., Sütterlin, S. Guilt and proneness to shame: 317

unethical behaviour in vulnerable and grandiose narcissism. Europe's Journal of Psychology 14(1): 28–

318

43.

319[33] Taylor, S.H., Hinck, A.S., Lim, H. (2017). An experimental test of how selfies change social judgments 320

on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 20(10): 610–614.

321[34] Tsoukas, A., March, E. (2018). Predicting short- and long-term mating orientations: the role of sex and 322

the dark tetrad. The Journal of Sex Research (in press) DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2017.1420750

323[35] Diamandis, E.P., Bouras, N. (2018). Hubris and sciences [version 1]. F1000Research 7: 133. 324[36] Hyatt, C.S., Weiss, B.M., Carter, N.T., Zeichner, A., Miller, J.D. (2018). The relation between 325

narcissism and laboratory aggression is not contingent on environmental cues of competition.

326

Personality Disorders (in press) DOI: 10.1037/per0000284

327

26