Altruism as a courtship display: Some effects of third‐party generosity on audience perceptions
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
Public generosity may be a means to convincingly advertise one's good character. This hypothesis suggests that altruistic individuals will be desirable as romantic partners. Few studies have tested this prediction, and these showed mixed results. Some studies have found that altruism is not particularly attractive; other studies showed that altruism is attractive by contrasting descriptions of 'nice guys' with 'jerks'. The present study sought to resolve this debate by having participants read a series of experimentally manipulated vignettes of persons with corresponding photographs, such that altruistic vignettes were compared with control descriptions that differed only in the presence or absence of small hints of altruistic tendencies. Altruists were more desirable for long-term relationships than neutral individuals. Women also preferred altruists for single dates whereas men had no such preference. These results are discussed with regard to the idea that people (males in particular) signal their good character via generosity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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