MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911479128 · doi:10.1111/spc3.12435

Using social cognition to understand people's grandiose narcissism

2019· article· en· W2911479128 on OpenAlexaff
Miranda Giacomin

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial and Personality Psychology Compass · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarcissismPsychologyCognitionSocial cognitionSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Grandiose narcissists view the world through a self‐focused lens, which influences the way they perceive and interact with others. A useful strategy for examining narcissism may be to look beyond patterns of behavior to examine the cognitions that motivate narcissists. This review summarizes the cognitive biases that underlie narcissism by exploring how narcissists process, recall, and attend to self‐ and other‐relevant information. Adopting social‐cognitive approaches to studying such processes can potentially uncover the roots of narcissistic behavior and develop greater understanding of how narcissists maintain their self‐views and why they act as they do. A closer examination of narcissists' cognitive biases may inform future interventions to help reduce people's narcissistic tendencies.

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 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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial and Personality Psychology CompassSame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207