MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995102021 · doi:10.1177/0146167202288009

Putting Oneself in the Task: Choice, Personalization, and Confidence

2002· article· en· W1995102021 on OpenAlexaff
Romin W. Tafarodi, Sanaz Mehranvar, Rachel L. Panton, Alan B. Milne

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalizationPsychologyTask (project management)Social psychologyControl (management)Identity (music)Outcome (game theory)Self-esteemComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incidental choice over the features of a task provides both control and personalization. Previous accounts of the tendency of choice to enhance task confidence have emphasized the importance of perceived control. The authors reexamined the enhancement effect to determine whether personalization is equally important. The results of two studies revealed that only choices reflecting personal preferences increased confidence in the task outcome (Study 1) and boosted performance-related self-esteem (Study 2). These findings point to the importance of self-identity expression for understanding the judgmental effects of choice.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality and Social Psychology BulletinSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207