MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199629328 · doi:10.1111/sjop.12773

Investigating pathological narcissism and loneliness, and the link with life satisfaction

2021· article· en· W3199629328 on OpenAlexafffund
David Kealy, Sarah Woolgar, Jackson M. A. Hewitt

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsLonelinessPsychologyNarcissismGrandiosityNeuroticismVulnerability (computing)MediationLife satisfactionClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loneliness is a significant health concern that may be influenced by dispositional features. Pathological narcissism may elevate loneliness through aversive interpersonal behaviors and negative social appraisals. The present study examined two dimensions of pathological narcissism, along with five-factor personality traits, in relation to loneliness among 120 young adults. Loneliness was also examined as a mediator between pathological narcissism and satisfaction with life. Narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability were both significantly associated with loneliness. Multiple regression analysis, including five-factor traits, revealed narcissistic vulnerability to be uniquely associated with loneliness, along with neuroticism. Mediation analysis also found an indirect effect of narcissistic vulnerability on reduced satisfaction with life, through loneliness as a mediator. These preliminary findings point to future research needs and potential clinical consideration of narcissistic vulnerability as a dispositional risk factor for loneliness.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.299 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of PsychologySame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207