A Social Identity Perspective of Personality Differences between Fan and Non-Fan Identities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><em>In three studies of fan communities we examined differences in the Big Five personality traits between fans’ personal and fan identities. In all three studies, self-identified furries completed a measure of the Big Five personality traits for both their personal and furry identity. In Study 1, furries were found to rate all five dimensions higher when referring to their furry (vs. personal) identity. In Study 2 we replicated these results and further found that the effect was not limited to furries: sport fans also reported different personality ratings when referring to their fan or personal identity. In Study 3, we again replicated the results while testing predictors of personality differences between salient identities. A path model showed that felt connection to one’s fandom identity predicted greater frequency of fandom identity salience, which, in turn, predicted greater personality disparity between identities. Taken together, the results suggest the role of the social identity perspective in explaining inconsistencies in personality.</em></p>
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 | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".