MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989720898 · doi:10.1521/soco.2008.26.5.534

The Selfish Goal: Unintended Consequences of Intended Goal Pursuits

2008· article· en· W1989720898 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

VenueSocial Cognition · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyGoal pursuitSocial psychologyGoal orientationUnintended consequencesCognitive psychologyBystander effectGoal settingEveryday lifeEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three experiments tested the hypothesis that consciously intended goal pursuits have unintended consequences for social judgment and behavior. From evolutionary theory (Dawkins 1976/2006) and empirical evidence of a nonconscious mode of goal pursuit (Bargh, 2005) we derive the hypothesis that most human goal pursuits are open-ended in nature: Once active, goals will operate on goal-relevant content in the environment, even if that content is not the intended focus of the conscious goal. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that goals to evaluate a job applicant for either a waiter or crime reporter position also shape impressions of incidental bystanders in the situation, such that the bystander is later liked or disliked not on his own merits, but on how well his behavior matches the criteria consciously applied in evaluating the job applicant. Experiment 3 finds that a goal to help a specific target person spills over to influence actions toward incidental bystanders, but only while active. Implications of these findings for goal pursuit in everyday life are discussed.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.173 · 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