The Need for Affect: Individual Differences in the Motivation to Approach or Avoid Emotions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present research developed and tested a new individual-difference measure of the need for affect, which is the motivation to approach or avoid emotion-inducing situations. The first phase of the research developed the need for affect scale. The second phase revealed that the need for affect is related to a number of individual differences in cognitive processes (e.g., need for cognition, need for closure), emotional processes (e.g., affect intensity, repression-sensitization), behavioral inhibition and activation (e.g., sensation seeking), and aspects of personality (Big Five dimensions) in the expected directions, while not being redundant with them. The third phase of the research indicated that, compared to people low in the need for affect, people high in the need for affect are more likely to (a) possess extreme attitudes across a variety of issues, (b) choose to view emotional movies, and (c) become involved in an emotion-inducing event (the death of Princess Diana). Overall, the results indicate that the need for affect is an important construct in understanding emotion-related processes.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it