The different effects of collective narcissism and secure ingroup identity on collective action and life satisfaction among LGBTQ+ individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For LGBTQ+ community members, one way to cope with the discrimination they experience is through a stronger ingroup identity. However, not all types of ingroup identity may be equally beneficial to LGBTQ+ individuals. A longitudinal ( N = 1,044) and a cross-sectional ( N = 8,464) study among LGBTQ+ people in Poland demonstrated that collective narcissism was a positive predictor of group-based anger (Study 2) and had a positive reciprocal relationship with group relative deprivation (GRD; Study 1), however, it was negatively related to life satisfaction and exhibited a stronger positive link with nonnormative than normative collective action. Secure LGBTQ+ identification was not longitudinally predicted by GRD (Study 1) and showed a weaker positive association with group-based anger (Study 2). It had a reciprocal positive relationship with life satisfaction and was a stronger predictor of normative than nonnormative collective action. These results show that whereas secure ingroup identity is a clearly positive coping mechanism, the effects of collective narcissism are mixed.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".