Will they stay or will they go? Narcissistic admiration and rivalry predict ingroup affiliation and devaluation
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
OBJECTIVE: Using the narcissistic admiration and rivalry concept (NARC) as a guiding framework, the current research examines how ingroup affiliation and devaluation are connected to the self-enhancing and self-threatening properties of ingroups for narcissists. METHOD: Participants (N = 374) completed a group decision-making task and received feedback that factorially manipulated both individual and group performance. Across the four combinations of performance feedback, we examined the conditional effects of narcissistic admiration and rivalry on social identity, perceptions of group member ability, desire to abandon the group, and desire to expel group members. RESULTS: Narcissistic admiration predicted higher levels of social identity in response to ingroup success, regardless of individual performance. In contrast, narcissistic rivalry predicted more negative views of group ability, as well as a higher desire to abandon the group and expel group members in response to individual success combined with ingroup failure. CONCLUSION: The results document and provide insight into narcissists' fickle attachment to ingroups. They provide evidence of the utility of the NARC in group contexts. Our findings suggest that narcissistic admiration is linked to self-enhancing group affiliation, whereas narcissistic rivalry is related to self-protective group distancing and devaluation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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