I’d like to share another important new research finding.
In recent years, terms like “narcissist,” “self-love,” and “NPD” have become much more common in social media, videos, blogs, and advice-style content.
Of course, it cannot be denied that serious real-world interpersonal harm, psychological abuse, domination, and exploitative relationships exist. This is not something to take lightly.
However, there is also the problem that the term narcissistic personality disorder, or NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder), may be being used far too broadly, casually, and aggressively.
For example, people who are assertive.
People who are confident.
People who stand out a little.
People who are ambitious.
People who strongly express their opinions.
People who care about their appearance.
People who have a hard time apologizing.
Traits like these, which in principle can be present to some degree in anyone, are being judged as “that person seems NPD-like,” “they’re a narcissist,” or “they’re self-absorbed.”
This kind of problem was made quite concrete in a peer-reviewed psychology study published in 2026.
What I’m introducing this time isa study by Michael P. Hengartner (Michael Pascal Hengartner / researcher in clinical psychology and psychopathology at the School of Applied Psychology, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland), Ahmet Eymir (researcher at the School of Applied Psychology, Zurich University of Applied Sciences),、and **Nick Haslam (professor at the School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, and a psychologist known for work on concept creep, stigma, and dehumanization)**.The paper is titled
“Expanded definitions of psychopathology: Exploring concept creep in narcissistic personality disorder”In Japanese, that means **“Expanded definitions of psychopathology: Exploring concept creep in narcissistic personality disorder.”**。
This paper was published in
Acta Psychologica a peer-reviewed psychology journal issued by Elsevier. On PubMed,it is listed as Acta Psychologica, volume 264, article number 106604, published in the April 2026 issue, and first made available online on March 9, 2026.The University of Melbourne researcher profile page also lists this paper asan Acta Psychologica, Elsevier, 2026 publication, with DOI, and as an open-access paper.
In other words, what this study shows is that not everyone sees NPD as a precise diagnostic concept; there is also a certain number of people who cognitively stretch it and treat even ordinary-range traits as “self-absorbed,” “narcissistic,” or “NPD-like.”If that gap widens, it can lead to calling people narcissists and even demonizing NPD, creating or intensifying anger and hatred that people would not otherwise have needed to carry.And by continuing to hold onto that anger and hatred, not only the other person but also oneself ends up suffering more than necessary.
That is why, in order to handle the issue of NPD properly, it is important not to simply label someone as the bad guy, but first to correct the distortions in the observer’s perception.
Seeing NPD correctly is not only for the sake of people who have been diagnosed.
It is also necessary so that victims, people around them, and society as a whole do not get caught up in unnecessary hatred and misunderstanding.
What was found in this study
The most important point in this study is
that about one-quarter of participants viewed NPD more broadly than the formal diagnostic concept.
In the paper’s abstract, the authors explain that they conducted an online survey using vignettes, that is, short personality descriptions, with 414 university participants in Switzerland. The result was that about one-quarter of participants supported an expanded concept of NPD that included non-pathological manifestations and ordinary traits.
Put simply, if we convert the study participants into a sample of 100 people,about 25 people may have been seeing even “normal-range traits” as NPD-like.However, this needs to be understood accurately.
This does not mean
that 25% of people worldwidebehave this way.Nor does it mean
that 25% of Japanese people
behave this way.This study is an exploratory study of 414 university participants in Switzerland. The researchers themselves clearly state that the sample was a convenience sample centered on a single Swiss university and cannot be directly generalized to the general population.Even so, this result is extremely important.
Because it suggests that the term NPD may be spreading beyond formal diagnostic criteria and being used too broadly in society.What is concept creep?The central term in this study is
concept creep.
Concept creep is the phenomenon in which a concept that originally had a limited meaning gradually expands over time and comes to include things that were not originally part of it.
For example, a term originally meant to describe a serious psychological problem gets expanded in everyday conversation and on social media.
Then ordinary discomfort, ordinary interpersonal friction, ordinary flaws, and ordinary immaturity start being viewed as pathological.
When this happens in the language of psychiatry or psychology,the boundary between health and illness becomes blurred.The paper also explains that NPD may be undergoing concept creep, and that such an expansion of meaning could blur the boundary between mental health and illness.
In other words, the issue is not just a trivial matter of “the word narcissist is trending.”
It is that a term from psychology and psychiatry that should be handled carefully can turn into an everyday insult or label.
Research method: How broadly was NPD viewed?
In this study, participants were presented with several short personality descriptions.Those descriptions included some features close to the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for NPD, as well as features not included in the formal diagnostic criteria.The researchers examined the broadening of the NPD concept in two main directions.
The first is
vertical concept creep.
This asks whether even lighter traits, in other words traits that would not necessarily be considered pathological, are seen as NPD.
The second is
horizontal concept creep.
This asks whether other features not included in the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria are also seen as NPD-like.
In the paper, the vertical assessment used personality descriptions with varying severity, ranging from traits close to the formal NPD criteria to clearly non-pathological traits. The horizontal assessment used both features included in the DSM-5 criteria and features not included in the criteria, and evaluated whether participants would see them as “behaviors of a person with NPD.”
A particularly important result: even “assertiveness” was seen as NPD-likeThe result that stands out most in this study concerns **assertiveness**.The paper reports that among the features not included in the formal diagnostic items, assertiveness was most strongly endorsed as indicating pathological narcissism. In fact, it was endorsed even more strongly than the DSM-5 item “need for admiration.”
This is highly significant.
Because assertiveness is not, by itself, a pathology.Expressing your opinion.Saying no to things you dislike.
Setting boundaries.
Protecting your own position.
Pushing back when necessary.
These are actually healthy psychological functions.
But when the concept of NPD is stretched too far, even this ordinary assertiveness can be seen as “very self-loving,” “narcissistic,” or “NPD-like.”
This is where the danger of modern “calling people narcissists” lies.
What happens when even “normal traits” are treated as NPD?
What happens in society when even ordinary traits are seen as NPD-like?
The most obvious thing is
our way of seeing people becomes distorted.
For example, when we see a confident person, we may think, “That person is a narcissist.”
When we see someone assertive, we may think, “They’re self-absorbed.”
When we see someone who stands out, we may think, “They seem NPD-like.”
When we see someone who pushes back, we may think, “They think they’re special.”
In this way, the wider the conceptual net is cast, the more people get caught in it.
The study also showed that people who held a broader concept of NPD self-reported encountering narcissists more often in daily life. The PubMed abstract also explains that both vertical and horizontal concept breadth were associated with the frequency of perceiving narcissists in everyday life.
In other words, it may not be that
there really are huge numbers of narcissists,but rather thatthe range of people being seen as narcissists has expanded.
This is extremely important.
If the way we see things changes, the world looks different too.
If we use the term NPD too broadly, many people around us may start to look like “dangerous people,” “self-absorbed people,” or “people we should not get involved with.”
This is not a denial of the existence of NPD
One thing that must absolutely not be misunderstood here is that this study is not saying “the problem of NPD does not exist.”
Narcissistic personality disorder is a clinically important topic. Serious interpersonal problems, difficulty with empathy, grandiosity, a strong need for admiration, entitlement, and exploitative relationship patterns can cause major distress for the person and those around them.
So addressing the issue of NPD is necessary.However, addressing NPD is different from demonizing NPD.To avoid missing truly serious problems, words need to be used accurately.
If ordinary assertiveness, confidence, ambition, immaturity, or interpersonal friction are immediately labeled “NPD,” “narcissist,” or “self-absorbed,” then truly serious problems can become harder to see.
That is because the more a word expands, the more its precision declines.
People with more psychology knowledge were more cautious about NPD
In this study, participants with an academic background in psychology tended to view the NPD concept more narrowly and more cautiously.
The PubMed abstract also states that an academic background in psychology was associated with a less expanded concept of NPD in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions.
The paper itself also explains that people with a psychology background were more likely to reject non-diagnostic traits as expressions of pathological narcissism, while also being somewhat cautious even with diagnostic traits. The researchers note that this may reflect resistance to casually applying negative diagnostic labels, or a tendency to seek more diagnostic information.
This is a very important point.
In principle, knowledge of psychology is not meant to be used to casually label people.
Rather, it should help us become more cautious, thinking “we can’t call this NPD based on this trait alone,” “more information is needed,” and “we should not slap on a diagnostic label too easily.”
In other words, the more seriously you study psychology, the more likely you may be to keep your distance from careless narcissist accusations.
“Psychology-flavored insults” in the social media age
In today’s world, words from psychology and psychiatry carry a lot of power.
“Narcissist”
“self-absorbed”
“NPD”
“gaslighting”
“emotional abuse”
“toxic parent”
“personality disorder”
These terms are extremely important in the right context. They can help people name abuse, understand their suffering, and distance themselves from dangerous relationships.
But at the same time, if used wrongly, these words become weapons for attacking others.
In particular, in online spaces today, the term NPD is often used not just as a descriptive term but as a very strong negative label.
“That person is NPD because…”
“That person is self-absorbed because…”
“That person is a narcissist because…”
The moment these words are said, the other person is easily fixed not as a human being, but as a “bad type of person.”
That is the problem of demonizing NPD.
A clinical term like NPD gets used not to understand the other person, but to place them beneath us, judge them, despise them, and exclude them.
This 2026 study shows that this problem is not just a matter of impression; it is starting to be visible even in international psychological research.
Practical risks pointed out by the researchers
The paper carefully states that the practical effects of concept creep in NPD are still only speculative.
Even so, the researchers say that concept creep in NPD could increase social shaming of disliked coworkers, ex-partners, or celebrities, encourage polarization and blame in workplaces and romantic relationships, and have downstream effects on counseling, coaching, and couples therapy.
This is a point that fits current society very well.
When a relationship ends, the other person is labeled a narcissist.
At work, someone who doesn’t get along is seen as self-absorbed.
A celebrity you dislike on social media is declared to have NPD.
Someone who pushes back against you is labeled highly self-absorbed.
When this happens again and again, society’s overall understanding of other people becomes shallow.
Before we see their background, conflict, immaturity, hurt, defenses, misunderstandings, and potential for growth, we lock them in place with a strong label.
Of course, it is necessary to stay away from genuinely dangerous people.
It is also important for people who are being harmed to protect themselves.
But if the words used for that start dragging in unrelated people or ordinary-range traits, another problem appears.
That is a new kind of prejudice created through psychological language.
The exact meaning of the title “25 out of 100 people”
In this article’s title, I wrote **“Did 25 out of 100 people view even ‘normal traits’ as NPD-like?”**
This is an expression designed to make the study’s findings easier for the general reader to grasp.
More precisely, the study reports that
about one-quarter of 414 university participants in Switzerland supported an expanded concept of NPD that included non-pathological manifestations and ordinary traits.
So “25 out of 100 people” is a simplified way of making the result easier to picture.
It does not mean 25% of the entire population.
By keeping that point clear, this article also avoids overstating the study.
Since this is an article criticizing concept creep in NPD, it is important not to overexpand the language here either.
Limitations of the study
To present this as reliable information, we also need to look carefully at the study’s limitations.
First, this was an exploratory study.
The researchers themselves say the results should be interpreted cautiously.Second, the sample was a convenience sample centered on a single university in Switzerland.Therefore, it cannot be directly generalized to the entire general population.
Third, the questionnaire used to measure the breadth of the NPD concept was newly developed for this study.
The researchers say that this measurement method will need further psychometric evaluation in the future.
In other words, it would be inaccurate to say from this one study alone that “society as a whole is like this.”
Still, this is a very important primary study showing that the term NPD may be spreading beyond formal diagnostic criteria.
Why this study still matters
This study matters because it provides a rather central basis for discussing the demonization of NPD.
Until now, claims like “the word NPD is being used too much like an insult,” “narcissistic personality disorder is being turned into a villain,” or “even ordinary traits are being pathologized” may have been treated as personal impressions.
But this study handles that problem empirically using the psychological framework of
concept creep.
Moreover, one of the authors, Professor Nick Haslam, is a psychologist known for concept creep research. His University of Melbourne profile confirms that he is a professor of psychology, and the researcher page also lists this paper.
So this is not just an internet opinion.
It means there are signs in international psychological research that the concept of NPD may be expanding beyond the formal diagnostic concept and pulling in even ordinary-range traits.
What is really needed is not demonization but accurate understanding
It is necessary to talk about NPD.
If there is serious interpersonal harm, we must not overlook it.
It is also important for people who have experienced psychological abuse to be able to verbalize what happened to them.
Psychological knowledge can also help people distance themselves from dangerous relationships.
But demonizing NPD is a completely different problem.“They asserted themselves, so they must have NPD”“They’re confident, so they’re a narcissist”
“They argued back, so they’re self-absorbed”
“They’re hard to get along with, so they have a personality disorder”
When this kind of usage spreads, psychological terms become not tools for understanding people, but weapons for judging them.
This 2026 study clearly shows how dangerous that is.
About one-quarter of participants supported an expanded NPD concept that included even ordinary-range traits.
Even non-diagnostic traits like assertiveness tended to be seen as pathological narcissism.
People with a broader concept of NPD tended to find more narcissists in everyday life.
This is not a simple story of “more narcissists.”
It is a story about the possibility that
the range of people seen as narcissists is expanding.
The stigma and demonization of NPD also became visible in another 2026 study
A separate 2026 study points in the same direction.
A study published in Wiley’s peer-reviewed journal Personality and Mental Health surveyed 815 general adults living in the United States to examine how narcissism and NPD are viewed in society.
The researchers included Dr. David Kealy, a researcher in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of British Columbia in Canada; Ellen F. Finch, a PhD student in psychology at Harvard University in the U.S., now affiliated with the Department of Psychology at Bates College; Dr. Nicholas J. S. Day, a researcher in the School of Psychology at the University of Wollongong in Australia; and Dr. John S. Ogrodniczuk, professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of British Columbia in Canada.
What this study showed is that mass culture, social media, and self-help style information may push narcissism to be seen as “dangerous,” “harmful,” and “hard to treat,” thereby strengthening stigma toward people struggling with NPD and narcissism.
Of course, this is not a denial of the harm suffered by people who have actually been hurt by someone with narcissistic tendencies.
However, apart from that, there is a possibility that society is overthinking the terms “narcissist” and “NPD” as something extremely bad.
And when that view spreads, the suffering and treatability of the people involved become harder to see, and words meant to help us understand people become labels used to turn them into villains.
That is why what we need now is to correctly address harm while also correcting the distortions in perception that demonize NPD.
Summary: NPD should not be turned into an insult
Narcissistic personality disorder, or NPD, is originally a clinical and psychological concept for understanding people.
But when the term is used carelessly in society, it stops helping us understand people and becomes a tool for making them the bad guy.
This study showed that the concept of NPD may have expanded beyond the formal diagnostic criteria and is pulling in even ordinary-range and non-diagnostic traits.
In particular, the result that about one-quarter of participants supported an expanded NPD concept suggests that calling people narcissists may be more than just a passing word trend; it may be a problem of social cognition.
We must not overlook the problem of NPD.
But we must also not demonize NPD.
What is really needed is not to stop at calling someone a narcissist.
We need to ask whether the term is being used to understand the other person.
Or whether it is being used to place them below us, judge them, despise them, and exclude them.
That is the point we need to discern.
Psychological terms are not weapons for hurting people.
They are tools for understanding human beings more deeply, more accurately, and more carefully.
And right now, the problem of demonizing NPD is beginning to become visible even in international research.
Fact-checked key points
The facts confirmed this time are as follows.
Paper title
Expanded definitions of psychopathology: Exploring concept creep in narcissistic personality disorder
Authors
Michael P. Hengartner, Ahmet Eymir, and Nick Haslam
Journal
Acta Psychologica
Publisher
Elsevier
Publication details
Acta Psychologica, 264, 106604
Online publication date
March 9, 2026
PubMed listing
April 2026 issue, volume 264, 106604, DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106604
Study sample
A convenience sample centered on 414 university participants in Switzerland
Method
An online survey using personality descriptions based on DSM-5 criteria and descriptions containing ordinary traits not included in the diagnostic criteria
Main result
About one-quarter of participants supported an expanded NPD concept that included non-pathological manifestations and ordinary traits
Important note
This cannot be directly generalized to the entire general population, and the researchers themselves say the study is exploratory and should be generalized cautiously
References and links
Hengartner, M. P., Eymir, A., & Haslam, N.
Expanded definitions of psychopathology: Exploring concept creep in narcissistic personality disorder.
Acta Psychologica
, 264, 106604. 2026.
PubMed listing:
University of Melbourne, Find an Expert
Expanded definitions of psychopathology: Exploring concept creep in narcissistic personality disorder.
Confirmed as an Acta Psychologica, Elsevier, 2026 publication, with DOI, and as an open-access paper.
Paper PDF
Expanded definitions of psychopathology: Exploring concept creep in narcissistic personality disorder.
- An open-access PDF in the University of Melbourne repository. In the main text, you can confirm the sample of 414 participants, the about-one-quarter result, the result concerning assertiveness, and the study’s limitations.
Professor Nick Haslam profile
University of Melbourne researcher profile. You can confirm that Professor Nick Haslam is a professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne.
Gentle Next Step
読み終えた余韻の先で、 次の一歩を静かにつなぐ。
お問い合わせ、サービス案内、資料請求、無料相談など、記事の流れを崩さず自然に次の行動へつなげるためのCTAです。画像・文言・色はテーマ設定から自由に変更できます。
Related Articles
Conversation
Be the First Voice
読んだだけで終わらせないでください。
感じたことを、コメント・発信・メモなど、何かの形で外に出してみてください。
反応した瞬間から、変化は始まります。
この場所に、最初の感想や気づきをそっと残せます。