Do Narcissists Trust Criminals? Narcissism and Trustworthiness Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Narcissist’s assertive or antagonistic characteristics impact how they perceive others. Individuals high in narcissistic rivalry tend to maintain a hostile orientation after anticipating a threat to their self-image which may make them less trusting. Individuals high in narcissistic admiration tend to seek social admiration through assertive self-promotion which may make them more trusting. The purpose of this study is to examine who narcissists trust during first impressions and if individuals high in narcissistic rivalry differ from individuals high in narcissistic admiration during their trust perceptions. Undergraduate participants (N = 209) viewed facial photos of Nobel Prize winners and white-collar criminals and rated their trustworthiness. Participants completed the Narcissism Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire to determine their levels narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry. Criminals were rated as less trustworthy than Nobel Prize winners based on facial photos alone. Participants high in narcissistic rivalry perceived Nobel Prize winners as less trustworthy than those low in narcissistic rivalry. Ratings of criminals’ trustworthiness ratings did not differ between those low and high in narcissistic rivalry. These effects were found after controlling for extraneous variables (e.g., perceived attractiveness, happiness, dominance, and the quality of the photos). Narcissistic admiration did not influence trustworthiness ratings. Untrustworthiness may be accurately detected during first impressions. Those who are high in narcissistic rivalry are less trusting towards trustworthy individuals compared to those low in narcissistic rivalry, possibly due to the maintenance of their self-protective, antagonistic and hostile interpersonal orientation. Department: Psychology Faculty Mentor: Dr. Miranda Giacomin
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 teacher head, 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".