The Selfish Goal: Unintended Consequences of Intended Goal Pursuits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".