Collective Narcissism, Left‐ and Right‐Wing Authoritarianisms, and Justification of War
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies found positive relationships between collective narcissism, right-wing authoritarianism, and acceptance of war; however, they overlooked how these wars are seen as justified. In our study (N = 448, Polish community sample), we used a new tool to measure beliefs justifying war, identifying three dimensions: just war (with morally restricted views on reasons and means), unrestricted reasons, and unrestricted means. Using correlational, path, and network analyses, we found that left-wing authoritarianism is related to lower acceptance of just war and higher acceptance of unrestricted means, while secure national identification indicates opposite patterns. Contrary to our expectations, communal national narcissism was linked to lower acceptance of just war. Unexpectedly, even though beliefs justifying war reflect moral principles, they did not vary with religious identification or right-wing authoritarianism. This suggests that being attached to people sharing the same religious affiliation does not necessarily imply adherence to the moral principles that underpin that worldview. This study is the first to demonstrate a disconnect between beliefs justifying war and different forms of ingroup attachment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".