Perspective Taking as a Moderator of the Relation between Social Rejection and Altruism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper measures rejected people’s willingness to help and empathic concern towards the target person needhelp under four scenarios after the manipulation of social rejection by essay task and perspective taking byinstruction before reading the descriptions of the scenarios. Participants in rejection condition with a high levelof perspective taking showed a higher level of willingness to help than participants with a low level ofperspective taking. Rejected participants indicated equal degree of willingness to help another rejected person nomatter they adopt perspective taking or not. When the helping behavior can be considered as a future interaction,rejected participants with a high level of perspective taking did not show a higher level of intention to help whencompared with control participants with a high level of perspective taking. The willingness to help did not dropsignificantly when the altruistic behavior is under a risk of negative evaluation. The manipulation of rejectionand perspective taking did not show an influence on the participants’ empathic concern towards the target person.The results were not induced by mood or rejection sensitivity.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".