Personality Functioning, Narcissism and Borderline Traits in the General Population Predict Deviations from the Optimal Time Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this article is to clarify and describe the relationships between levels of personality functioning, pathological personality traits from the borderline and narcissistic functioning, and time perspective (TP). The study was conducted online, and 210 participants completed eight questionnaires: Inventory of Personality Organization, Boredom Proneness Scale, Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale, Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire, Depressive Experience Questionnaire, and Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. The results reveal that the pathological personality functioning was consistently associated with a deviation on each dimension of TP and the Deviation from the Balanced Time Perspective (DBTP) while the higher functioning personality indicator was associated with a balanced time perspective. When accounting for all traits in the regression, pathological personality traits predicted variance of Past-Negative, Present-Hedonistic, Present-Fatalistic, and the DBTP. Borderline and narcissistic traits were associated with the DBTP but demonstrated different time perspective profiles. Borderline traits showed an overall negative TP with a tendency to seek quick and intense pleasure in the present with no regards toward the future. These results show that there can be TP profile differences between borderline personalities, depending on their specific trait profile. Impulsivity plays an important role in how borderline personalities cope with their negative temporalities. Vulnerable narcissism is characterized by a negative past with the ability to recruit the future, while grandiose narcissism denotes an overall more balanced time perspective than their vulnerable counterpart.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".