MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036829115 · doi:10.1177/1948550609347591

Different Provocations Trigger Aggression in Narcissists and Psychopaths

2010· article· en· W2036829115 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Psychological and Personality Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressionPsychologyPsychopathyProvocation testNarcissismDark triadAntisocial personality disorderAngerPersonalityPoison controlSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although previous research has demonstrated that ego-threatened narcissists react aggressively, no allowance was made for the overlap of subclinical narcissism with subclinical psychopathy. Nor is there research directly comparing the reactions of these two personalities to physical threat. To investigate these distinctions, the present study examined the degree to which narcissists and psychopaths respond with aggression to ego threat versus physical provocation. Participants were given the opportunity to aggress with a white noise blast against an ostensible partner who had provoked them. Results replicated previous findings that narcissists aggress in response to ego threat provocation (a personal insult), even when overlap with psychopathy is controlled. By contrast, psychopathy emerged as the unique predictor of aggression in response to physical provocation (a gratuitous blast of loud white noise). The results point to qualitatively different aggression mechanisms underlying narcissistic and psychopathic aggression.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it