Loneliness in narcissistic vulnerability: Examining domains of personality functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has indicated loneliness to be a detrimental correlate of narcissistic vulnerability. However, no research has examined if this relationship persists across time or why it occurs. The present study explores the link between narcissistic vulnerability and loneliness across time and examines which domains of personality dysfunction (i.e., identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy) may account for why narcissistic vulnerability is related to loneliness. Adult participants (N = 298) were recruited from Prolific and completed study questionnaires assessing narcissistic vulnerability, narcissistic grandiosity, loneliness, domains of self and interpersonal functioning, and neuroticism. Two months later, participants repeated the measure of loneliness. Correlations among all study variables were calculated, followed by linear regression analyses to investigate how personality functioning domains may mediate the longitudinal relationship between narcissistic vulnerability and loneliness. The effects of baseline loneliness, relationship status, and trait neuroticism were controlled for. Narcissistic vulnerability, but not narcissistic grandiosity, was associated with loneliness at baseline and 2 months later. Intimacy functioning, but not identity, self-direction, or empathy functioning, was a significant mediator of the relationship between narcissistic vulnerability and loneliness over time. These findings suggest that narcissistic vulnerability may contribute to the development or maintenance of loneliness across time, highlighting the role of impaired intimacy functioning in this relationship. The impact of these findings on our understanding of interpersonal functioning in narcissistic vulnerability, as well as clinical implications, is discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".