Processing of Unjust and Just Information: Interpretation and Memory Performance Related to Dispositional Victim Sensitivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With two studies, we tested whether dispositional victim sensitivity involves one of two kinds of biased processing style: either a processing style in which unjust—but not just—information is processed more readily and accurately than neutral information or a processing style in which unjust and just information is processed preferentially over neutral information. In Study 1, victim sensitivity increased the speed with which participants resolved ambiguous sentence fragments in cases in which the resolution yielded an unjust connotation, as well as in cases in which the resolution yielded a just connotation, but not when the resolution was neutral with respect to justice. In Study 2, persons high in victim sensitivity displayed enhanced memory performance for both unjust and just information relative to neutral information over a 1–week retention interval. The results are consistent with the assumption that victim sensitivity is characterized by the activation potential and elaboration of both injustice and justice concepts. Our findings are important for the understanding of how the fear of being exploited among victim–sensitive persons shapes antisocial behaviour. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".