The reputational consequences of narcissism in teams: Trajectories of liking and being viewed as narcissistic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• We evaluated trajectories of liking and perceived narcissism in teams. • Antagonistic narcissism corresponded to being disliked and seen as narcissistic. • Controlling for antagonistic narcissism, agentic narcissism related to initial liking. • Honesty–humility did not predict liking or perceptions of narcissism. This study examined how narcissism and honesty-humility were associated with the trajectory of being liked and viewed as narcissistic in task-oriented teams. We tracked 317 participants (70 teams), gathering round-robin ratings of liking and narcissism. Latent growth curve models were used to estimate the role of personality in predicting the trajectory of being liked and being viewed as narcissistic. Antagonistic narcissism was negatively associated with being liked and positively associated with being viewed as narcissistic; these views remained stable over time. Agentic narcissism was positively associated with initially being liked, but only when controlling for antagonistic narcissism. Honesty-humility was not associated with teammate reputations. The results offer insights into the reputational consequences of narcissism, highlighting how antagonistic narcissism undermines teammate relationships.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".