52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "

A cross-temporal meta-analysis found that narcissism levels have risen over the generations in 85 samples of American college students who completed the 40-item forced-choice Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) between 1979 and 2006 (total n=16,475). Mean narcissism scores were significantly correlated with year of data collection when weighted by sample size (beta=.53, p<.001). Since 1982, NPI scores have increased 0.33 standard deviation. Thus, almost two-thirds of recent college students are above the mean 1979-1985 narcissism score, a 30% increase. The results complement previous studies finding increases in other individualistic traits such as assertiveness, agency, self-esteem, and extraversion.

The present research addresses whether narcissists are more overconfident than others and whether this overconfidence leads to deficits in decision making. In Study 1, narcissism predicted overconfidence. This was attributable to narcissists' greater confidence despite no greater accuracy. In Study 2, participants were offered fair bets on their answers. Narcissists lost significantly more points in this betting task than nonnarcissists, due both to their greater overconfidence and greater willingness to bet. Finally, in Study 3, narcissists' predictions of future performance were based on performance expectations rather than actual performance. This research extends the literature on betting on knowledge to the important personality dimension of narcissism. key words risk taking; overconfidence; decision making; narcissism; personality; adults Individual differences matter in decision making. Gigerenzer and Hoffrage (1995), among many others, have pointed out that average decision strategies can be misleading, as they may reflect decision strategies that no single decision-maker employs. It is often better to explore the decisions that individuals reach. Furthermore, reliable differences in which kinds of people make which kind of decisions are important. Stanovich and West (2000), for example, have defended the reality of various cognitive illusions by demonstrating that people who violate conventionally defined norms tend to be those who perform less well in other domains. Looking at the same base of data, Funder (2000) argued that the observed correlation constitutes standard validation of the test items, and that the ability of some people to solve the problems correctly indicates an absence of systematic irrationality. Beyond theoretical concerns, there are also clear practical applications of such findings, as, for example, organizations could use individual differences measures to avoid hiring individuals who are more likely to be error-prone, when hiring for important decision-making positions. In this paper, we examine how the well-validated personality construct of narcissism is predictive of confidence, risk taking, and performance on a task in which confidence and risk taking are central parts. Approaching these questions is facilitated by the recent reinvigoration of decision-making research using bets that are based on confidence in knowledge (e.g

No abstract

Previous research produced conflicting results on whether narcissistic personality traits have increased among American college students over the generations. Confounding by campus may explain the discrepancy. Study 1 updates a nationwide meta-analysis of college students' scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) and controls for campus (k ¼ 107; N ¼ 49,818). In Study 2, the authors examine NPI scores among the students on one university campus, the University of South Alabama, between 1994 and 2009 (N ¼ 4,152). Both studies demonstrate significant increases in narcissism over time (Study 1 d ¼ .37, 1982(Study 1 d ¼ .37, -2008 Study 2 d ¼ .37, 1994 Study 2 d ¼ .37, -2009. These results support a generational differences model of individual personality traits reflecting changes in culture.