Saturday, November 14, 2026.
What an experiment about a burned-out taillight found about narcissism, courtesy, and the pleasure of deciding who’s the problem.
Imagine Karen getting pulled over for a burned-out taillight.
The officer explains why he stopped her and offers to show her the light.
Her friend texts to ask where she is. Two folks on the sidewalk have suddenly become interested in municipal government.
She would like to speak to the manager. The difficulty, in a traffic stop, is that the manager might arrive in a second car.
Now imagine you’re one of the people on the sidewalk.
You see her roll down the window.
You have no idea what either of them said. But you already have a theory about her.
Five ways to stop the same car
In the Journal of Experimental Criminology, Tal Jonathan-Zamir and colleagues reported an experiment with 1,904 U.S. adults.
Each was randomly assigned one of five written versions of a stop for a burned-out taillight.
A courteous officer who explained the stop and listened to the driver issued a ticket.
A second officer was polite but offered less of a hearing.
A third did the job in a brisk, businesslike way.
A fourth used the same businesslike manner and let the driver go without a ticket. A fifth interrupted the driver, made a biased remark, and wrote the ticket. Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2026
Participants rated the imagined encounter, including how satisfied they were, how legitimate they considered the officer’s authority, and how willing they’d be to cooperate. The version they read accounted for about 58% of the variation in ratings.
The openly rude stop came in last. The two polite stops and the businesslike stop without a ticket all got similarly favorable ratings.
Apparently it’s possible to give somebody a ticket and still leave them with a reasonably good opinion of you. Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2026
The personality section is smaller than the headline
Once the researchers accounted for the scenario and other factors, adding both narcissism measures explained about one additional percentage point of variation.
One point is a modest contribution from the only variable that gets to name the driver.
Higher Vulnerable Narcissism (AKA Covert Narcisssism) scores went with less favorable ratings in four of the five scenarios.
The rude stop was the exception.
Higher Grandiose Narcissism scores went with more favorable ratings in the three relatively favorable scenarios, though formal comparisons gave little support to the idea that respectful treatment worked especially well for people higher in Grandiose Narcissism. Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2026
The authors wondered whether the stop itself might be uncomfortable for some people high in Vulnerable Narcissism, even when the officer is courteous.
There are people watching. You’re being told something is wrong.
Your friend wants to know where you are, and for the moment your answer is a matter of public interest.
That’s an interpretation the authors offered. The experiment measured personality traits and ratings of written scenarios. It never had to find out what anybody would actually say to an officer. Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2026
This is where “Karen” becomes a little too convenient.
The joke can describe someone who expects an exception because she’s used to getting one. It can also dispose of a woman’s complaint before anyone has heard it.
In the imagined stop, there is a version in which the officer actually behaves badly.
The folks reading that version gave him poor marks. The sidewalk has less information than the study participants, and considerably more confidence.
Related reading
Who trained you to load the dishwasher?
Marriage has an appeals process, too. It usually involves quoting something your counterpart said in 2019.
Suppose one partner says, “Can you take the tall glasses out before you run it? They catch on the rack.”
“Is there a manager I can speak to?” the other says.
It may be a good joke. The glasses are still on the rack.
In therapy, I’d ask what they each heard.
“I heard, ‘How many times do I have to show you how to do a simple thing?’”
“I said it quietly because last time you told me I was making a federal case out of a wineglass.”
Now there are two evenings to talk about.
On one, a tall glass caught on the rack.
On the other, somebody left the kitchen before the cycle started. I’d ask what happened that night.
A sentence that sounds harmless on its own may be the fifth installment of a conversation neither life partner wanted to renew.
At the kitchen sink, either of them can walk away.
At the roadside, the officer decides when the stop is over.
The people on the sidewalk can leave whenever they like. They’re still there.
The officer shows her the burned-out light. From the sidewalk, someone watches her point to the other one.
Maybe she’d like to know whether it works.
“She’s pointing at the other one now,” someone says. “There’s always something.”
So if small corrections seem to keep turning into arguments about how you see each other, consider exploring my couples therapy services or contact me for a free introductory call.
Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.
REFERENCES:
Jonathan-Zamir, T., Perry, G., Kaplan-Damary, N., & Willis, J. J. (2026). Personality traits, police demeanor, and encounter outcomes: The roles of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Experimental Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-026-09781-1
For the original news coverage, see Eric W. Dolan’s reporting for PsyPost.