The Wax and Wane of Narcissism: Grandiose Narcissism as a Process or State
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though grandiose narcissism has predominantly been studied in structural terms-focused on individuals' general tendencies to be more or less narcissistic-we tested whether it also has a meaningful process or state component. Using a daily diary study methodology and multilevel modeling (N = 178 undergraduates, 146 female; Mage = 18.86, SD = 2.21), we examine whether there is significant variability in daily state narcissism and whether this variability relates systematically to other psychological states (i.e., self-esteem, stress) and daily events. We assessed state narcissism and daily experiences over a 10-day period. We observed significant within-person variability in daily narcissism. Notably, this variability was not simply random error, as it related systematically to other psychological states and daily events. Specifically, state narcissism was higher when people experienced more positive agentic outcomes (e.g., having power over someone) or more positive communal outcomes (e.g., helping someone with a problem). State narcissism was lower on days people experienced greater felt stress. These relations held when state self-esteem, gender, and trait narcissism were controlled. These findings suggest that grandiose narcissism has a meaningful process or state component.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it