Exploring How Agentic and Antagonistic Narcissism Affects Scene Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People have the ability to rapidly recognize visual scenes, even when they cannot recognize individual objects within the scene itself. This is supported by global properties of the scene (e.g., scene background) rather than the objects within the scene (e.g., fine grained details). However, the information an individual remembers and attends to within a scene (e.g., people vs. objects) may differ based on their narcissistic tendencies. Previous research has shown that grandiose narcissists have an analytic perceptual style, such that they are better at disembedding visual information from its context than non-narcissists. Here, we focused on agentic narcissists (i.e., those who use self-promoting strategies to obtain social admiration) and antagonistic narcissists (i.e., those who use self-protection strategies to prevent social failure) ability to remember information in scenes. In Study 1, we examined whether agentic and antagonistic narcissists have a better memory for indoor scenes (with or without people) compared to their non-narcissistic counterparts. In Study 2, we investigated narcissists' ability to remember details from scenes (i.e., background objects vs. foreground objects; people vs. objects). Participants completed a basic recognition memory paradigm for the scenes itself (Study 1) or specific details within the scene (Study 2). Individuals high in narcissistic admiration better remembered scenes containing people and exhibited a preference for objects located in the foreground compared to those low in narcissistic admiration. These findings were unrelated to narcissists’ analytic perceptual style, however. This research helps identify how narcissists perceive and organize information in their environment and how it differs from their less narcissistic counterparts. 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".