MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Moderation of Success and Failure Feedback by Validation Seeking on Affect Change: Implications for Theories of Cognitive Adaptation and Self‐Worth Regulation

2009· article· en· W1492683293 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Biobehavioral Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
Canadian institutionsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDysphoriaModerationAffect (linguistics)Coping (psychology)CognitionAnxietyAffect regulationAdaptation (eye)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined validation seeking as a form of cognitive adaptation and self‐worth regulation. A total of 88 undergraduates completed questionnaires on validation seeking and affect, a sequence task, and randomly received positive, negative, or neutral feedback on their performance. Validation seeking was associated with anxiety and dysphoria. It also moderated negative feedback to increase dysphoria and positive feedback to increase positive affect and decrease anxiety at posttest. The findings were compatible with the proposition that validation seeking can have positive coping aspects in certain circumstances, and can be more generally conceptualized as a form of cognitive adaptation. The findings extend our understanding of how components in cognitive adaptation and self‐regulation facilitate well‐being.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.296 · 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