In pursuit of progress: Promotion motivation and risk preference in the domain of gains.
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
This article examines the role of promotion motivation in decision making in the domain of gains. Using a stock investment paradigm in which individuals believed that they were making decisions that were real and consequential, we found that promotion motivation, and not prevention motivation, predicted the likelihood of switching between risky and conservative choices in the domain of gains. Promotion-focused participants chose a relatively risky option when their stock portfolio remained unchanged (stuck at 0, the status quo) but switched to a relatively conservative option when they had just experienced a large gain (Studies 1-4), both when regulatory focus was measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Studies 2-4). Studies in which progress was manipulated (Study 3) and measured (Study 4) provided evidence that it is perceptions of progress that underlie this tactical switch in risk preferences within the promotion system. We discuss the implications of these findings for decision making and the role of progress in self-regulation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it