ArticlePloS one2024
Structure of resilience: A Machiavellian contribution or 'paddle your own canoe'.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to biobehavioral synchronicity model, empathy-a fundamental requirement for reciprocal and prosocial behavior-is at the core of rebound from stress, an essential feature of resilience. However, there are also reports on antagonistic traits-characterized by empathic deficit-bolstering immunity to stress. In the literature there is also inconclusive evidence regarding gender-related differences in resilience. In separate female and male subsamples we analyzed the network constellation entailing resilience (assessed as rebound from stress), empathic (cognitive empathy, affective resonance, and affective dissonance) and antagonistic personality traits (Machiavellianism, grandiose- and vulnerable narcissism). For both genders, Machiavellian agency instigated by narcissistic admiration occupied the central position in the network indicating that personality's resources for proactivity and control are essential for successful rebound. Empathy, and in particular its affective component, occupied only a peripheral position in the network. Machiavellian antagonism in men and grandiose narcissism in females bridged prosocial mechanism of resilience with antagonistic nodes of the network. In the female subsample both types of malign narcissism (rivalry and vulnerable narcissism) directly thwarted rebound. This process was not detected in the male subsample network dominated by antagonism. That is, gender-related differences were associated with the avoidance strategies rather than with the proactive strategies. Thus, resilience assessed as rebounding from stress primarily involves personality resources which modulate proactive- and prosocial- but not necessarily reciprocal behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.