MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408956276 · doi:10.1002/cpp.70070

Clinician Diagnostic Ratings and Countertransference Reactions Towards Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissism

2025· article· en· W4408956276 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas J. S. Day, Marko Biberdzic, Ava Green, Georgia Denmeade, Bo Bach, Brin F. S. Grenyer

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychology & Psychotherapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
FundersCity, University of LondonUniversity of WollongongUniversity of London
KeywordsGrandiosityNarcissismNarcissistic personality disorderPsychologyVignetteClinical psychologyEmpathyCountertransferenceAngerAntisocial personality disorderSadistic personality disorderPersonalityPersonality disordersPsychiatryPoison controlPsychotherapistSocial psychologyInjury preventionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is known to comprise two distinct but connected phenotypes related to 'grandiosity' and 'vulnerability', respectively. While evidence suggests differing countertransference responses to narcissism subtype expression, no study has examined this using a qualitative methodology and explored associations with ratings of personality disorder severity. METHOD: Mental health clinicians (N = 180, 67% female, age = 38.9), completed qualitative clinical reflections and ratings of overall personality disorder severity towards two hypothetical vignettes displaying pathological narcissism ('grandiose' and 'vulnerable' narcissism respectively), as well as a rating of attitudes towards patients in their routine practice who resemble these vignettes. RESULTS: Distinct qualitative themes were identified between narcissistic subtype, with grandiose narcissism evoking anger, lack of empathy and hopelessness, compared to sympathy, sadness and discomfort in vulnerable narcissism. In terms of diagnostic category, the grandiose vignette was predominately identified as 'narcissistic personality disorder' (97%), whereas the vulnerable vignette was a mixture of 'depressive disorder' (29%), 'narcissistic personality disorder' (24%), 'trauma and stressor related disorders' (21%) and 'borderline personality disorder' (21%). Attitude scores differed significantly between subtypes, with more negative attitudes towards narcissistic grandiosity than narcissistic vulnerability. The grandiose vignette was also rated as displaying more overall personality impairment, with an association observed between negative clinician attitude scores and increased ratings of personality disorder severity. DISCUSSION: Two potential pathways are outlined to interpret these findings. The first is that inordinate stigma towards narcissistic grandiosity negatively biases clinicians when working with these patients due to feelings of anger and frustration. The second is that clinicians are drawn to minimise pathology of vulnerable patients due to their feelings of sadness and empathy. We propose that effective diagnosis and psychotherapy for pathological narcissism rely on clinicians' ability to balance these two dilemmas and resist either extreme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.401 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Psychology & PsychotherapySame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207