Reflecting on acts of kindness toward the self: Emotions, generosity, and the role of social norms
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do people respond, in terms of emotion and behavior, when prompted to recall an act of kindness from another person? As shown in two studies of undergraduates, responses differ based on whether the kindness is seen as normative – that is, whether it follows social norms related to the relational context and one's past behavior. On the whole, normative kindnesses were linked with more positive emotion and less negative emotion than non-normative kindnesses. Those asked to recall normative kindnesses also donated more money to charity than those who recalled non-normative kindnesses, an effect partly mediated by the greater positivity of the normative stories (Study 2). These results suggest that if the goal is to increase mood or generosity, recalling normative kindnesses is a safer strategy than recalling non-normative kindnesses. Yet, some results also supported an outgroup salience hypothesis, in which recalling non-normative kindnesses increased generous motives toward strangers and enemies.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it