How do different dimensions of adolescent narcissism impact the relation between callous‐unemotional traits and self‐reported aggression?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the moderating influence that different aspects of narcissism have on the relation between callous-unemotional (CU) traits and aggression in a sample of 720 adolescents (500 males), ages 16-19 enrolled in a 22-week residential program. Findings from the two studies revealed that psychopathy-linked narcissism as assessed by the Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD; Frick & Hare, 2001; Antisocial process screening device. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.) and vulnerable narcissism as assessed using the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI; Pincus et al., 2009; Initial construction and validation of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21, 365-379) significantly moderated the relation between CU traits and aggression in adolescents. Conversely, non-pathological narcissism assessed by the Narcissistic Personality Inventory for Children (NPIC; Barry, Frick, & Killian, 2003; The relation of narcissism and self-esteem to conduct problems in children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 139-152) and PNI grandiose narcissism did not significantly impact this relation. These results suggest that forms of narcissism most closely connected to internalizing problems combined with CU traits are associated with relatively heightened aggression in youth. The implications of these findings are discussed. Aggr. Behav. 43:14-25, 2017. © 2016 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".