Loving or loathing? A power‐dependency explanation for narcissists' social acceptance in the workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Research on the social consequences of narcissism points to an intriguing paradox: narcissists are socially aversive and destructive to healthy interpersonal relationships; yet, narcissists also have an ability to be socially magnetic and attractive. This raises the question we seek to answer in this paper: Are narcissists socially accepted by coworkers in the workplace, and if so, when? Drawing on the social‐constructionist perspective and power‐dependence theory, we propose that others' dependency on narcissists plays a critical role in determining narcissists' social acceptance in the workplace. Results from two time‐lagged independent studies suggest that narcissists with a high level of expertise status experience less ostracism than non‐narcissists, particularly in a group with high group goal interdependence; by contrast, narcissists who are perceived to lack expertise status experience greater ostracism than non‐narcissists, particularly in a group with low group goal interdependence. In Study 2, in addition to ostracism, we also examined social inclusion and popularity of narcissists, and we found that narcissists with high expertise status are more likely to be social included and to become popular, particularly in a group with a high level of group goal interdependence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".