Do Narcissists Think They Make a Better Impression Than They Really Do? Re-Evaluating Enhancement as a Dominant Feature of Narcissism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imagining a narcissist likely calls to mind someone who thinks that they are well-liked and admired—perhaps unrealistically so. But are narcissists’ beliefs about how others see them systematically too positive? Across four samples (total N = 1,537) that included different contexts (group vs. dyadic) and levels of acquaintanceship (new acquaintances vs. close friends), we used condition-based regression analysis to test whether narcissism is associated with overly positive metaperceptions. Results suggested that although people higher in narcissistic admiration expected positive evaluations across several attributes, their beliefs about their reputation were not overly positive, a pattern that held when controlling for self-perceptions at low levels of acquaintanceship. Conversely, people higher in narcissistic rivalry assumed others saw them negatively. These findings add to a growing literature suggesting that grandiose narcissism is not defined by enhancement per se but is related to positive self-views, including positive metaperceptions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".