Introduction

Egocentrism refers to excessive self-focused attention and the failure to adjust for the ways in which others’ perspectives might differ from ours. Egocentrism can be a source of misperceptions, conflicts, and misunderstandings in social interactions (Chambers & De Dreu, 2014). The idea that one’s level of egocentrism might be a trait-like personality attribute is suggested by data indicating that egocentrism is related to the personality trait of narcissism (Campbell et al., 2000). In fact, some previous studies have used narcissism scales to measure egocentrism (Robbins & Patton, 1985). Egocentrism is, however, only one of the psychological distortions of narcissism―a distortion that deals with the inability to take the perspective of others (Campbell et al., 2000).

Until recently, the two most commonly used scales to measure egocentrism have been the Adolescent Egocentrism Scale (Elkind, 1967) and the Imaginary Audience Scale (IAS) (Elkind, 1967). Because these two scales are used primarily with adolescent populations (usually between the ages of 10 and 15), there is not much evidence for their validity in adult samples. A more serious problem is that the two scales seem to measure different constructs and do not share a common face validity (Cohn et al., 1988). In addition, both of these scales focus on the problems associated with egocentrism in adolescents such as feeling misunderstood (e.g., “Trying to get other people to know what it is like being me”) rather than on one’s own tendency to perceive that others’ views or opinions might differ from one’s own.

Given this background, the purpose of the present study was to develop a brief, reliable, and valid self-report measure of egocentrism as a personality trait.

Scale Construction

Two general criteria were applied when developing the pool of items. First, the items had to measure egocentrism as a personality trait, rather than as a developmental phase. Second, the items also had to reflect the extent to which one sees things only from one’s own perspective and is unlikely to consider or adjust for perspectives that differ from one’s own.

More specifically, scale items were written to capture the following facets of egocentrism that have been emphasized in previous definitions and measurements: the extent to which the individual fails to consider the perspectives of others in everyday activities; the extent to which the individual believes that others share his or her own perspective; the extent to which others have remarked on the individual’s self-focused attention; and the extent to which the individual prioritizes his or her own needs over those of others. An initial pool of fourteen items was generated.

Study 1

The aim of Study 1 was to reduce the initial pool of items and assess the structural and convergent validity of the resulting Egocentrism Scale.

Method

Participants

A sample of 425 students (Mage = 20.31, SDage = 4.60, range: 16–56; 60.7% female and 39.3% male) was recruited.

Measures and Procedure

Narcissistic Personality Inventory

(NPI, α = .85; Raskin & Terry, 1988). This 40-item scale measures narcissistic personality traits. The NPI subscales include leadership/authority (α = .77), grandiose exhibitionism (α = .71), and entitlement/exploitativeness (α = .40).

Pathological Narcissistic Inventory

(PNI, α = .93; Pincus et al., 2009). This scale assesses seven aspects of pathological narcissism. Narcissistic grandiosity (α = .81) is composed of three subscales that reflect maladaptive self-enhancement strategies (i.e., grandiose fantasy, exploitativeness, and self-sacrificing self-enhancement). Narcissistic vulnerability (α = .93) is composed of four subscales that reflect deficient emotional and self-regulation (i.e., entitlement-rage, hiding the Self, contingent self-esteem, and devaluing).

Psychological Entitlement Scale

(PES, α = .57; Campbell, et al., 2004). This 9-item scale measures the extent to which respondents believe that they deserve more than others.

Results

Item Screening and Internal Consistency

To assess the performance of our newly developed Egocentrism Scale, we initially examined all of the item-total correlations, as well as the inter-item correlations, to identify items with low inter-item correlation or significant skew or redundancy (Table 1).Footnote 1 Because the correlations between items 10, 11, and 14 and the total score were very low, we removed these items from the pool. Removing these items slightly increased internal consistency from .802 to .817. Based on its generally low endorsement (positive skew), item 12 was also removed from the scale. The internal consistency did not show any substantial change.

Structural Validity

We then conducted an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with oblique rotation,Footnote 2 principal axis factoring, and eigenvalue < 1 using IBM SPSS 23 on the remaining 10 items of the scale (Table 1).Footnote 3 The results supported a two-factor solution. The first factor accounted for 39.22% of the item variance, whereas the second factor accounted for 4.10% of the item variance. Items 1-2-3-4-6-7-8-9 loaded on the first factor, which captured our intended meaning of the concept of egocentrism. In contrast, item 5 weakly loaded on factor 1 and did not load on the second factor; item 13 weakly loaded on the second factor. In exploratory factor analyses, Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) recommend retaining only items with conservatively higher loadings (at least .5) in the final scale. We adopted an even more stringent cutoff point in order to retain fewer yet more meaningful items and to avoid redundancy.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the initial items and factor loadings of the final items
Full size table

Factor 2 was deleted for several reasons. First, it explained only a modest amount of item variance (4.10%). Second, the items defining this factor all had relatively small factor loadings that ranged from − .39 to − .012. Third, most methodologists suggest that each factor should include a minimum of three variables; however, at least four or five variables per dimension are recommended (e.g., Kline, 2013). For these reasons, the average of the 8 items that loaded on Factor 1 was computed and used as our measure of Egocentrism (α = .873).Footnote 4

Descriptive Statistics

The final Egocentrism Scale consisted of 8 items (M = 3.11, SD = 1.26) answered in a Likert-type format with response options of 1 (“Strongly disagree”) through 7 (“Strongly agree”).

Convergent Validity

The Egocentrism Scale was positively correlated with the NPI (r = .37, P < .001), the PNI (r = .40, P < .001), and the PES, (r = .41, P < .001), providing preliminary support for its convergent validity. Breaking down the scales into their subscales showed that the egocentrism scale was positively correlated with NPI leadership/authority (r = .22, P < .001), NPI grandiose/exhibitionist (r = .29, P < .001), NPI entitlement exploitativeness (r = .29, P < .001), PNI grandiose fantasy (r = .26, P < .001), PNI contingent self-esteem (r = .24, P < .001), PNI devaluing (r = .29, P < .001), PNI exploitativeness (r = .23, P < .001), PNI self-sacrificing self-enhancement (r = .23, P < .001), PNI hiding the Self (r = .076, P = .116), and PNI entitlement rage (r = .50, P < .001).

Discussion

Study 1 provided initial evidence for the structural and convergent validity of the Egocentrism Scale. The 8 retained items evidenced high internal reliability. Furthermore, the predicted positive correlations with narcissism and entitlement provided preliminary evidence for the convergent validity of the Egocentrism Scale.

Study 2

To further establish the convergent validity of the Egocentrism Scale, we sought to extend our findings by examining the correlations between the Egocentrism Scale and two other scales that are purported to measure the same or closely related constructs: the egocentrism subscale of the Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale (Boduszek et al., 2016) and the Adolescent Egocentrism Scale (Enright et al., 1980).

Based on previous research (Raine & Uh, 2018), we also expected to find a positive correlation between the Egocentrism Scale and the Self-Consciousness Scale (Scheier & Carver, 1985) and negative correlations between the Egocentrism Scale and measures of empathy, perspective-taking, and pro-social personality.

Finally, to assess predictive and postdictive validity, we explored the relationship between egocentrism and (1) language use, (2) previous engagement in a wide range of entitled behaviors, and (3) the perceived likelihood of engaging in a wide range of egocentric behaviors. First, because egocentrism should be reflected in the use of more first-person singular pronouns, we expected that the Egocentrism Scale would be related to such usage on the Linguistic Implications Form (Wegner & Giuliano, 1980). Second, because egocentrism has been theoretically linked to entitled behaviors (Schwartz et al., 2008), we expected that it would be associated with having previously engaged in a wide range of entitled behaviors. Third, we expected egocentrism to be related to the Egocentric Scenarios Checklist, which measures the enactment of more egocentric behaviors.

Some previous writers have viewed egocentrism as one of those personality factors that is “beyond” (that is, not completely captured by) the Big Five traits (e.g., Paunonen, et al., 2003). For this reason, in Study 2 we examined the relationship of the Egocentrism Scale to the Big Five Personality Traits.

Method

Participants

Two online samples, Sample 2a (N = 215, Mage = 33.38, SD = 12.02, age-range 19–84, 60.9% female) and Sample 2b (N = 211, Mage = 34.74, SD = 12.02, age range = 19–80; 59.2% female), were recruited through MTurk.

Materials and Procedure

Big Five Personality Inventory

(BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991). The BFI was used to assess the five broad dimensions of extraversion (α2a = .75, α2b = .76), agreeableness (α2a = .74, α2b = .69), conscientiousness (α2a = .83, α2b = .80), openness to experience (α2a = .80, α2b = .80), and neuroticism (α2a = .80, α2b = .77).

Self-Consciousness Scale

(Scheier & Carver, 1985). This 23-item self-report questionnaire contains three subscales: Public Self-Consciousness, Private Self-Consciousness, and Social Anxiety (SA). The two subscales of Public (α2a = .87, α2b = .90) and Private Self-Consciousness (α2a = .88, α2b = .91) were used.

Interpersonal Reactivity Scale

(Davis, 1980). The two subscales of Perspective Taking subscale (IRS-PT, α2a = .75, α2b = .77) and the Empathic Concern subscale (IRS-EC, α2a = .77, α2b = .78) were used.

Pro-Social Personality Battery

(PSP, Penner, Fritzsche, & Craiger, 1995). This 56-item scale measures various aspects of the pro-social personality and is composed of seven subscales, including Social Responsibility (α2a = .76, α2b = .81), Empathic Concern (α2a = .80, α2b = .80), Perspective Taking (α2a = .81, α2b = .87), Personal Distress (α2a = .75, α2b = .80), Other-Oriented Reasoning (α2a = .79, α2b = .79), Mutual Concerns Moral Reasoning (α2a = .77, α2b = .78), and Self-reported Altruism (α2a = .81, α2b = .79).

The Selfishness Questionnaire

(Raine & Uh, 2018, α2a = .94, α2b = .95). This scale was used to measure to measure individual differences in selfishness.

Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale

(PPTS, Boduszek et al., 2016). The PPTS is used to measure self-reported psychopathic traits in forensic and non-forensic populations. In the present study, only the egocentricity subscale of this scale was used (α2a = .70, α2b = .78).

Adolescent Egocentrism Scale

(AES, Enright et al., 1980). The AES was developed to measure egocentrism in adolescents (α2a = .95, α2b = .96).

Adult Entitlement Behaviors Scale

(AEBS, α2a = .91, α2b = .93). We developed the AEBS as a retrospective measure in which respondents rate how often they displayed a variety of specific entitlement behaviors during the past year (e.g., asked a friend to let you cut in near the front of a long line of people who are waiting), with their responses ranging from 1 (Never) to 4 (Often).

Linguistic Implications Form

(Wegner & Giuliano, 1980, α2a = .75, α2b = .70). This measure presents respondents with a series of sentences lacking pronouns (e.g., It isn’t easy to get lost in this town, but somehow (I, we, they) managed it). Respondents choose a response from a set of three grammatically correct responses for each item. Responses with first-person singular pronouns are assigned a score of 1; all other responses are assigned a score of 0. The proportion of first-person singular pronouns, relative to the total number of items, represents the degree of egocentrism or self-focused attention.

Egocentric Scenarios Checklist

We developed a series of 15 scenarios that described a specific social situation and required the respondent to indicate the extent to which they would behave egocentrically in that particular situation (e.g., Imagine that you take your first trip to a foreign country. In a large outdoor market, local vendors are selling their wares and speaking animatedly in their own language. How likely is it that you will assume they understand English?). Responses are measured on a scale from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 5 (extremely likely). After removing the items with low inter-item correlation, the internal consistencies of the resulting scale were α2a = .81 and α2 = .79. Exploratory factor analyses with varimax rotation revealed that all items loaded on a single factor that explained 33.05% and 35.6% of the variance, respectively, in the two samples.Footnote 5

Results

Structural Validity

To confirm the structural validity of the 8-item Egocentrism Scale, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 20.0 to test a model in which all items loaded on a single latent variable (Table 2). In Sample 2a, all items were found to load highly on the single underlying factor, χ2 (15) = 17.267, P = .303, NFI = .982, TLI = .995, CFI = .998, SRMR = .0219, RMSEA = .027 [90% CI .00, .072]Footnote 6; α = 91 (M = 3.25, SD = 1.24). In Sample 2b, the results again revealed a good fitting model, χ2 (18) = 23.396, P = .176, NFI = .973, TLI = .990, CFI = .994, RMSEA = .038, SRMR = .0267, RMSEA = .031 [90% CI .00, .076]Footnote 7; α = .91 (M = 3.59, SD = 1.40).

Table 2 Confirmatory factor loadings (standardized regression weights) in Study 2
Full size table

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

To prevent inflated Type I error, only results significant at P = .01 are reported. As predicted, the Egocentrism Scale was positively correlated with the egocentrism subscale of Psychopathy Scale, and the AES, private self-consciousness, public self-consciousness, and the endorsement of selfishness scale. On the other hand, it was negatively correlated with the following subscales of the Pro-Social Personality Battery: social responsibility, empathic concern, and perspective-taking. Finally, and contrary to our expectations, egocentrism was positively related to self-reported altruism (Table 3).

Table 3 Correlates of the Egocentrism Scale in Study 2
Full size table

Predictive and Postdictive Validity

In both samples, there was a significant positive correlation between Egocentrism Scale and Egocentric Scenarios Checklist (accounting for 45% of the variance in Sample 2a and 49% of the variance in Sample 2b). Using the same outcome measure, we then compared the predictive validity of the Egocentrism Scale to the Adolescent Egocentrism Scale in a multiple regression analysis. The results showed that, in Sample 2a, the AES was a significant predictor, t(212) = 4.56, P < .001 and that the Egocentrism Scale was also a significant predictor, t(212) = 9.72, P < .001. The Egocentrism Scale accounted for a greater amount of unique variance than did the AES when predicting the likelihood of displaying various kinds of egocentric behavior (beta weights of .544 and .255, respectively). In Sample 2b, the AES was again a significant predictor, t(208) = 3.77, P < .001, as was the Egocentrism Scale, t(208) = 10.58, P < .001, with the Egocentrism Scale again accounting for more unique variance (beta weights of .592 and .210, respectively).

As expected, there were also significant positive correlations between the Egocentrism Scale and the Adult Entitlement Behaviors Scale in both Sample 2a (r = .68, P < .001) and Sample 2b (r = .68, P < .001), accounting for 46% and 46.5% of variance in this variable. A multiple regression analysis performed with the AES and the Egocentrism Scale as predictor variables showed that in Sample 2a, AES was a significant predictor, t(212) = 3.52, P = .001, and so was the Egocentrism Scale, t(212) = 10.66, P < .001. Egocentrism Scale scores accounted for considerably more unique variance (beta weights of .589 and .194, respectively). In Sample 2b, the same multiple regression analysis again showed the AES to be a significant predictor of AEBS scores, t(208) = 2.38, P = .02, and the Egocentrism Scale to be an even stronger predictor, t(208) = 10.48, P < .001, with the Egocentrism Scale scores again accounting for more considerably more unique variance (beta weights of .611 and .139, respectively)

Finally, in Sample 2a, we observed a significant positive correlation between scores on the Egocentrism Scale and scores on the Linguistic Implications Form (r = .17, P = .02), with egocentrism scores accounting for 2.7% of the variance in this outcome variable. A multiple regression analysis performed with the AES and the Egocentrism Scale as predictor variables showed the Egocentrism Scale to be the only significant predictor at t(212) = 2.45, P = .02. In Sample 2b, neither the AES and nor the Egocentrism Scale predicted the participants’ scores on the Linguistic Implications Form.

Egocentrism and the Big Five Personality Traits

In Sample 2a, a two-stage hierarchical regression analysis revealed that after controlling for the demographic variables of age, gender, ethnicity, and SES (which explained 24.8% of the variance), the Big Five personality traits accounted for 22.2% of the variance in the Egocentrism Scale scores, with gender, ethnicity, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness all being significant predictors of egocentrism. In Sample 2b, after controlling for the same demographic variables (which explained 39.6% of the variance,) the Big Five personality traits accounted for 20.3% of the variance in scores on the Egocentrism Scale (Table 4).

Table 4 Hierarchical regression analysis examining predictors of the Egocentrism Scale scores in Sample 2a and 2b
Full size table

Discussion

The Study 2 results provided considerable additional support for the structural, convergent, discriminant, and predictive/postdictive validity of the Egocentrism Scale.

General Discussion

We developed a brief self-report measure of egocentrism as a personality trait and then demonstrated the Egocentrism Scale’s internal reliability, convergent validity, and predictive/postdictive validity in the data from three separate samples.

The most important contribution of this study is to place egocentrism within the domain of personality psychology by conceptualizing and measuring it as a personality trait and then examining its relationship with several other personality constructs, including narcissism and the Big Five personality traits. Compared to the preexisting measures of egocentrism, our Egocentrism Scale has a number of advantages. First, it is a brief, single-factor scale that measures egocentrism as a personality attribute rather than as a developmental phase or as a pathological condition. Second, it provides a demonstrably reliable and valid measure of egocentrism that can be used with both adolescent and adult populations. Third, the Egocentrism Scale proved to be a generally stronger predictor of the behaviorally focused outcome variables used in this investigation than the Adolescent Egocentrism Scale was.

Limitations and Future Directions

Some limitations of the present study should be noted. First, only self-report measures were used, though the Adult Entitlement Behavior Scale required reports of previous entitlement behaviors. Second, although the Egocentrism Scale is unidimensional, with the single, underlying factor accounting for nearly 40% of the total variance, additional research is needed to further explore the scale’s internal reliability and test–retest reliability and to evaluate the utility of the individual items. Third, although we developed behaviorally focused checklist measures to assess both actual entitlement behaviors displayed in the past (the AEBS) and subjectively likely egocentric behaviors in response to hypothetical scenarios (the ESC), additional research is needed to generalize our results to actual, objectively recorded real-life behaviors. Another direction for future research is suggested by the unexpected positive correlation between egocentrism and altruism that we found in Study 2, which warrants further investigation.