MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403498782 · doi:10.5114/cipp/189857

Disentangling the Relationship Between Machiavellianism and Social Dominance Orientation

2024· article· en· W4403498782 on OpenAlexaff
Bruno Bonfá-Araújo

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Issues in Personality Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachiavellianismPsychologyDominance (genetics)Social dominance orientationSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPersonalityPsychopathyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Machiavellianism and social dominance orientation are two constructs associated with socially undesirable behavior and predictors of prejudice; however, their relationship has mainly been investigated through measures that only assess the antagonism dimension of Machiavellianism. Thus, this study aimed to disentangle their relationship using an instrument assessing agency and planfulness. PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE: = 10.60), most identified as women (67.7%) and assessed using the Five Factor Machiavellianism Inventory, the Short Dark Triad, and the Social Dominance Orientation Scale. A path model was used, where the Machiavellianism and the Dark Triad dimensions predicted social dominance orientation. RESULTS: The results suggest that antagonism was indeed the primary and only dimension of Machiavellianism to predict dominance and antiegalitarianism, while agency and planfulness were non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that socially dominant traits have their roots in antagonism, showing no interaction with planning and impulse control.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Issues in Personality PsychologySame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207