MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131588821 · doi:10.1002/ab.21632

Entitled vengeance: A meta‐analysis relating narcissism to provoked aggression

2015· review· en· W2131588821 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAggressive Behavior · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNarcissismPsychologyAggressionEntitlement (fair division)Developmental psychologyPersonalityGrandiositySocial psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Narcissism has long been used to predict aggressive or vengeful responses to provocations from others. The strength of this relation can, however, vary widely from study to study. Narcissism and revenge were examined in 84 independent samples (N = 11297), along with the moderating role of sample type (i.e., child/adolescent, prisoner, undergraduate, or general samples), type of narcissism measure used (i.e., Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Psychological Entitlement Scale, Short D3, etc.), the nature of the provocation, and the type of provoked aggression examined. Narcissism was positively related to provoked aggression across studies (ρ = .25), but that relation was stronger in child/adolescent samples (ρ = .36) and when measures of entitlement or vulnerable narcissism were employed (ρ = .29). Implications for practical research, as well as neglected areas of research on narcissism and provoked aggression are discussed. Aggr. Behav. 42:362-379, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.373
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.145 · 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