The moderating role of extrinsic contingency focus on reactions to threat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the last decade a number of theorists have advanced a multifaceted conceptualization of self‐esteem. Central to this idea is the notion that self‐esteem is less secure and more defensive when individuals are more focused on extrinsic contingencies. To test the hypothesis that individuals with high dispositional levels of extrinsic contingency focus (ECF) are insecure and respond defensively to threat, we developed a measure of ECF and conducted two validation studies. Study 1 showed that the extrinsic contingency focus scale (ECFS) was positively correlated with measures of defensiveness and was negatively correlated with measures of security and well‐being. Study 2 showed that people with a high (vs. low) focus on extrinsic contingencies were more likely to defensively distance from a socially insensitive person following negative feedback about their own social sensitivity. Study 3 showed that when mortality (vs. dental pain) was salient, high ECF individuals responded more defensively toward a worldview violator than low ECF individuals. Discussion is focused on theoretical issues related to ECF and defensiveness. Copyright © 2009 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".