MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7065213441

Core Aspects of Grandiose Narcissism in Childhood:
\nGrandiosity and Entitlement in Social Context

2021· dissertation· en· W7065213441 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrandiosityNarcissismEntitlement (fair division)Prosocial behaviorContext (archaeology)Social environment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arriving at a definition of narcissism has been a controversial process. Recently, two defining aspects of narcissism have been identified, self-importance and entitlement, that can be expressed both grandiosely and covertly (Krizan & Herlache, 2018). The present project focuses on grandiose narcissism in children. Grandiose narcissism is understood as multidimensional (e.g., with dimensions of grandiosity and entitlement) but research on its core aspects in children is limited. A better understanding of the dimensions of narcissism in children is critical, primarily because they have been shown to relate to different outcomes in adults. Evidence suggests that entitlement is associated with more problematic social outcomes than grandiosity. The aim of this project was to assess the potentially different social correlates of grandiosity and entitlement in children. This was achieved using self-report and peer-report data collected in a short-term longitudinal design with 5th and 6th grade students in Montreal, Quebec, Canada and Barranquilla, Colombia. The results of Study 1 suggest that grandiosity and entitlement are two related but distinct dimensions of grandiose narcissism in children, measurable across two cultural contexts. Grandiosity in particular was associated with positive self-appraisals of social competency and self-worth, above and beyond acceptance by peers. Study 2 assessed the relation between grandiosity/entitlement and peer-assessed prosocial behaviours (care, justice, comfort, proactive and reactive help) and aggression (physical and relational). Within time, entitlement was found to negatively relate to all prosocial behaviours, and prior levels of entitlement negatively predicted later care and justice. Prior levels of entitlement also positively predicted subsequent physical aggression. These same patterns were not found for grandiosity. Study 3 assessed how grandiosity and entitlement, respectively, predicted popularity while accounting for characteristics of the social and cultural context. A key and consistent finding across our models was that entitlement more negatively predicted popularity in classrooms high in communal care, as well as in Barranquilla as compared to Montreal. The opposite pattern was observed for grandiosity in some of the models. Together, these studies provide support for these two dimensions of narcissism being distinct and that the social consequences of entitlement are of particular concern.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207