MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023222033 · doi:10.1177/0146167206291672

Conformism Moderates the Relations Between Values, Anticipated Regret, and Behavior

2006· article· en· W2023222033 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

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegretSocial psychologyPsychologyConformityValue (mathematics)Social desirabilityStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the moderating effect of Conformism values on the relations between other values and behavior. The authors expected people low, but not high, in Conformism to behave in a manner that is consistent with their personal values related to self-transcendence versus self-enhancement. In Study 1 (N = 199), such values predicted actual altruistic behavior, as estimated by other-reports, but only if Conformism values were low. In Study 2 (N = 189), only people who considered Conformism values to be relatively unimportant showed expected connections between self-transcendence values and anticipated regret in hypothetical scenarios having negative consequences. The data are interpreted as supporting the view that (a) anticipated regret motivates value-consistent behavior, (b) self-transcendence values in particular are connected to altruistic behavior and to anticipated regret, but (c) conformity to social norms moderates these connections.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.277 · 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