Falling Off the Self-Imposed Pedestal: How Audience Presence and Feedback Affect Aggressive Responding in Narcissists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract : Aggression can be a source of conflict as well as a means of dealing with conflict in interpersonal, national, and international domains. The authors investigated how personal and environmental factors interact to influence expressions of aggression in an interpersonal context. This investigation was motivated by two lines of evidence. First, people are more likely to aggress and do so more severely when they are insulted in front of an audience, in order to re-establish and project positive self-appraisal. Second, persons with higher levels of narcissism react to threat more aggressively than those with lower levels of narcissism. The present experiment combined these two strands of research and tested the hypothesis that participants with higher levels of narcissism would be more aggressive than participants with lower levels of narcissism when they imagine receiving negative feedback in the presence of others. The result of a three-way interaction supported this hypothesis. The implications of this finding for the Canadian Forces in terms of mitigating aggression and profiling leaders of adversarial groups are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".