Assessing social approachability: Individual differences, in-group biases, and experimental control.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The willingness of strangers to approach others and engage in social interactions is a fundamental social evaluation. Yet, evidence is lacking on how well these social engagement decisions can be assessed. The authors evaluated the psychometric characteristics of an experimentally based measure of social approachability tendencies. Young adults (N 130) rated the approachability of 48 emotionally neutral and mildly positive faces. Significant variance in approachability judgements was attributable to differences in the faces and in the participants making the judgements. Face-level approachability ratings were comparable across face gender and face race. Person-level approachability ratings identified reliable individual differences, gender, and race in-group biases, and subtle mere-exposure effect preferences. Thus, this social approachability measure is internally reliable, sensitive to individual differences, and amenable to experimental manipulations. This ability to differentiate individual-, group-, and experimental-level responses is important for furthering the understanding of the primary social decision of when to approach and socially engage others.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".