Therapists’ perspectives on optimal treatment for pathological narcissism.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used Q methodology to explore clinicians' perspectives regarding optimal psychotherapy process in the treatment of pathological narcissism, a syndrome of impaired self-regulation. Participants were 34 psychotherapists of various disciplines and theoretical orientations who reviewed 3 clinical vignettes portraying hypothetical cases of grandiose narcissism, vulnerable narcissism, and panic disorder without pathological narcissism. Participants then used the Psychotherapy Process Q set, a 100-item Q-sort instrument, to indicate their views regarding optimal therapy process for each hypothetical case. By-person principal components analysis with varimax rotation was conducted on all 102 Q-sorts, revealing 4 components representing clinicians' perspectives on ideal therapy processes for narcissistic and non-narcissistic patients. These perspectives were then analyzed regarding their relationship to established therapy models. The first component represented an introspective, relationally oriented therapy process and was strongly correlated with established psychodynamic treatments. The second component, most frequently endorsed for the panic disorder vignette, consisted of a cognitive and alliance-building approach that correlated strongly with expert-rated cognitive-behavioral therapy. The third and fourth components involved therapy processes focused on the challenging interpersonal behaviors associated with narcissistic vulnerability and grandiosity, respectively. The perspectives on therapy processes that emerged in this study reflect different points of emphasis in the treatment of pathological narcissism, and may serve as prototypes of therapist-generated approaches to patients suffering from this issue. The findings suggest several areas for further empirical inquiry regarding psychotherapy with this population. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".